Per the Irish Examiner, "Terror plot chaos - Police foil plan to blow up 10 airlines" (Excerpts below in blockquote have been numbered for easy reference):

[1] British police and MI5 anti-terror officers swooped in the early hours yesterday, arresting 24 young Britons of Pakistani origin in London, the Thames Valley and Birmingham.

These terrorists are young and innovative. And why shouldn't they be? They have less to lose than their elders, have watched the so-called War on Terror unfold and have access to immense amounts of information. The combination is volatile: talk about a ticking time bomb.

[2] British Home Secretary John Reid said that if the plot had succeeded, it would have caused death on an “unprecedented scale”.

Most have you have probably heard the statement above regarding "death on an 'unprecedented scale'." But what does this mean? "Unprecedented" seems to imply killing many millions (Remember Hitler? He set one hell of a precedent). Or did John Reid mean unprecedented in nature? Style?

[3] There were also claims the terrorists could have been planning to bring down airliners over major cities, either in Britain or the US.

Isn't that what the terrorists did on 9/11? Maybe these young terrorists are less innovative than I thought (although the liquid bomb idea is fairly creative - that said, how explosive can a 20 oz liquid bomb Gatorade be? More or less explosive than the fuel required for a 747?).

[4] It prompted the British authorities to raise the terrorist threat level to critical for the first time.

Why raise the terrorist threat level? By catching these terrorists, hasn't the threat been eliminated? Shouldn't the level at worst stay the same or at best lowered? What am I missing? The U.S. went to red alert, also. The reasoning here seems counter-intuitive.

[5] US President George W Bush said the plot was “a stark reminder that this nation is at war with Islamic fascists who will use any means to destroy those of us who love freedom”.

That's a hypocritical statement if I've ever heard one. Our nation, or our government, does not "love freedom". Government, by nature, is anti-freedom. Otherwise, we wouldn't be taxed like we are or have our privacy or private property violated as it is. When has our government demonstrated that it loves freedom?

I can't help but think that the Islams hate the U.S. government and what it has done. As an extension of that hate, these people are willing to terrorize the American people, who had little to nothing to do with their struggles. Unfortunately, their violent terroristic acts on U.S. soil only lead to the U.S. government bombing them back even more (setting new precedents for death and destruction) and further restricting our freedom. Is this not akin to Roderick T. Long's analogy of victim-swapping?

[6] Scotland Yard said it was designed to cause “untold death and destruction”.

Whatever that means. Got a taste for hyperbole?

[7] Stringent new security measures were imposed at all British airports yesterday, causing widespread chaos.

What's the solution to stopping a terrorist plot? Tell travelers they have to throw away their toothpaste and shampoo. Induce panic at the airport. Stoke the fires of fear.

And that's what [1] - [7] are all about: fear. Our governments are nothing but fear-mongers. They feed on the fear of the masses. Why? Because without fear, governments would cease to exist.

I'm tired of it. Aren't you?