Avoiding the Jihad

After another terrorist incident last week, it is obvious that Great Britain is paying a huge price for allowing millions of Muslims to enter the country largely unsupervised. If those bombs had gone off in central London, scores might have been killed, and it was just luck the lethal cars were discovered before they blew.

Even though the British authorities have much more latitude to detain terror suspects than American police do, London remains a soft target. Muslims dominate entire neighborhoods, and the jjhadists can hide in plain sight, as there is plenty of sympathy for mass murderers among the true believers in Londonstan.

Here in the United States we don't seem to have the same kind of militancy among Muslim-Americans. Once in a while, some Muslims are arrested for cooking up terror plots, but, to be fair, Muslims in the USA seem to be disgusted by their psychopathic brethren and are loathe to help them.

In fact, the biggest boost to the jihadists in America comes from the committed left press. Most liberal politicians wouldn't dare downplay terror activity, but certain media will. The New York Times took a huge hit when it ran the recent JFK Airport terror plot story on page 37. Even the Times' own "Public Editor" said it was page one material. When the London stuff hit last weekend, the Times did put the story on page one.

However, a Times "analysis" piece written by Alan Cowell contained this gem: "(Prime Minister) Brown played down the threat, treating the episodes as a crime rather than a threat to civilization. Yet, his minimalist approach seemed to strike a reassuring chord with Britons, many of whom had expressed fatigue with Mr. (Tony) Blair's apocalyptic view of terrorism."

That's right, we can't be having any dim views of worldwide terror killings, can we? Ironically, the headline right below Cowell's analysis read: "Pakistan's Battles Against Islamic Militants Reach the Capital."

Elements at NBC News, which has become the most liberal of the three network news organizations, also attempted to diminish the London story.

One NBC guest actually said this: "You have a nonevent in London, and we're going to battle quarters and beginning to give the old hairy eyeball to every Muslim."

A nonevent? Incredibly, that statement went unchallenged on NBC's air.

It is hard to believe that some American media put partisan politics above common sense and national security. The New York Times and NBC News know that any heightened fear of terror activity helps the Republicans. That's why they diminish the threats and concentrate on making America look like the bad guy in the war on terror.

That is infuriating. At this point, I don't really care what party wins the presidency in 2008; I just want a realistic problem solver in the White House who recognizes the danger from the jihadists. The far left wants to shut down virtually every anti-terror measure put in place by the Bush administration, including Guantanamo, NSA overseas wiretaps and CIA interrogations overseas. They also want to revoke the Patriot Act.

If that happens, more dead Americans are almost a certainty. I understand there are people in this world who do not want to acknowledge the murderous jihad and will not support aggressive action against it.

Those people are wrong and, more importantly, they are dangerous. Sorry, New York Times and NBC News, global terrorism is no "crime threat." It's war.

Veteran TV news anchor Bill O'Reilly is host of the Fox News show "The O'Reilly Factor" and author of the book "Who's Looking Out For You?" To find out more about Bill O'Reilly, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com. This column originates on the Web site www.billoreilly.com.

COPYRIGHT 2007 BillOReilly.com.