by Jack Hunter
When the terrorist attacks began in Mumbai, India, two weeks ago, Fox News's Neil Cavuto explained to viewers that no one really knew who was behind the attacks at that moment, but noted that India was a successful, capitalist country and that terrorists always like to strike places where freedom and success are abundant.
Much of talk radio echoed the same sentiment. Some reasoned that the terrorists attacked India because George W. Bush had made it too difficult for them to attack us here, as if India was merely an easy target chosen at random by terrorists, in lieu of attacking the U.S. According to such childish logic, Switzerland should now prepare for an imminent attack, as that country's success, wealth, and non-American status makes them ripe for the picking.
Without fail, that left-wing, Islamofascist rag called The Post & Courier dared to suggest there might be a different motive in a recent editorial: "The appallingly brutal commando-style raid on hotels in India's financial capital, Mumbai (Bombay), by terrorist gunmen may have been meant to goad nuclear-armed India into a confrontation with nuclear-armed Pakistan."
Wait a second. Was the P&C suggesting that these terrorists might have had actual political objectives? That they don't just hate freedom and wealth? Who has ever heard of such a thing?
With more than 170 dead and countless more bruised, battered, and broken, what many are calling "India's 9/11" initially provoked a reaction similar to our own. The shock and horror turned to rage, and the questions raised — "Who's responsible?" and "Who should we fight?" — were familiar to Americans who were asking the same things not-so-many years ago. However, most leaders and pundits around the world, including the U.S., advised India not to go to war with Pakistan. As of this writing, India's government seems inclined to agree with them.
But by not going to war with Pakistan, isn't India simply appeasing the enemy?