The bombing in Manchester, England was horrific. There’s no scale by which to measure such tragedies, but by any measure, it’s up at the top.

By Tuesday, 22 people had died, and 59 others had been hospitalized, some with life-threatening injuries. The dead included 8-year-old Saffie Rose Roussos, who had come with her mother and older sister, and 18-year-old Georgina Bethany Callander, who had posted an image of her brand new driver’s license on Instagram.

There are things that appear known, though at the moment less than certain. And, as usual, there are unknowns even if the things known turn out to be known.

The Islamic State said one of its “soldiers” had carried out the bombing, which took the life of the man British police officials believe was behind it, Salman Abedi, a 22-year-old whose parents emigrated from Libya. It is still unclear whether Mr. Abedi acted alone or as part of a network. No one yet knows what motivated him to commit such a horrific deed. It is also unclear whether the Islamic State’s claim is legitimate. Only further investigation can answer these questions.

Was Abedi the bomber? Was he really a “soldier” of ISIS? Why did he do it? Why, if he was a soldier, did ISIS want him to do it? There are a great many explanations for the motivations behind terrorism, none of which fit well within our western paradigm of understanding. But what we do know, what we cannot escape, is that the product of terrorism is tragedy and terror.

While conceding that we neither know, nor really understand, anything about this horror, the Times nonetheless seizes the opportunity of 22 dead human beings to promote its own agenda.

Meanwhile, as hard as it is amid the shock and the mourning, it is important to recognize this attack for what it is: an attempt to shake Britain — and, by extension, the rest of Europe and the West — to its core, and to provoke a thirst for vengeance and a desire for absolute safety so intense, it will sweep away the most cherished democratic values and the inclusiveness of diverse societies.

Amazingly, one can know nothing and yet know what, “at its core,” it was all about. And what it was all about happens to align with an ongoing agenda. Was the purpose of this bombing to “provoke a thirst for vengeance,” for “absolute safety”? That smacks of the opposition to Trump’s Muslim Ban, which is certainly a huge concern for the New York Times, but does ISIS care about it? Is this really at ISIS’ core? Does this play any role in their actions at all?

The Islamic State wants nothing more than to watch Western democracies embrace its mad version of a holy war pitting Muslims against Christians, the newly arrived against others.

Perhaps the Islamic State would explain its purposes differently, such as radical Islamic hegemony against the infidels. Perhaps the Islamic State is not as obsessed with the New York Times’ “cherished values” of inclusiveness as, say, the New York Times is. Perhaps they don’t care at all about the concerns of the Times. Yet, the Times informs us it “wants nothing more.”

At the same time, and with no sense of shame at the tacit hypocrisy, our cherished values of free speech, of due process, of all the rights protected by our Constitution, are under attack at home, and the New York Times is a laboring oar, if not the coxswain, in the jihad.

Someone must have told the editors that the Islamic State is only bent on undermining our value of inclusiveness, not free speech. Forget Charlie Hebdo. That was B.T., and the “core” purpose of ISIS has, apparently, shifted entirely upon Trump’s election. Back then, when a massacre was about silencing blasphemy, the support for free speech was measured, tempered. The victim was blamed because free speech wasn’t absolute. At least not at the New York Times.

But speech isn’t violence. Bombings are violence. Speech may hurt a sensitive person’s feelings, but a bomb will kill you, no matter how tough you might be. That’s what differentiates real violence from the trendy violence that the fragile cry about.

Assuming the Manchester bombing was done by Abedi, was done at the behest of ISIS, it remains unclear what rational purpose could be served by such an irrational act. But if so, the purpose is theirs to explain, not the New York Times’ to exploit for its own agenda.

Much as I lack the capacity to see what lurks inside the hearts and minds of terrorists as the New York Times’ editors do, I have the ability to appreciate the “cherished values” of our Constitution. And if they’re right about the Islamic State’s purposes, then they are willing collaborators, having waived so many of our rights, our freedom, our safeguards, for their own flavor of safety.

While the Times may still cling to “inclusiveness” as the last value worthy of preservation, they have seized upon the tragedy in Manchester to make their stand. It seems no one, whether the Islamic State, if indeed it was involved, or the New York Times, can let a tragedy go unexploited for its own purposes.