Talking About Terrorism

terror-attack

The bubble of Fox News watchers, those who get all their news from that illustrious channel, are living in a different world than the rest of us. With their information strictly controlled, they have become fearful and jittery by the coverage, part of the reason why President Obama felt compelled to give a speech from the Oval Office last night.

That doesn’t mean sending 100,000 troops to die in the Middle East, an action that could only be described as a temporary loss of sanity.

Of course, the Republican Presidential candidates panned the speech; they would have done so no matter what he said. But is their talk about terrorism any more realistic?

In a land where more than 10,000 people die by gun violence every year, and murder rates are surging across the United States in 2015, the impact of terrorism is miniscule at best. Of course, the calling card of terrorism, the unexpected nature of it, the impact on young and old alike, does deserve a muscular response.

But the loudest response should be coming from the Muslim community itself. God forbid, if Christianity or Judaism were generating violence, you would see all kinds of Pastors and Rabbis rushing to the pulpit to condemn it. We still don’t see that kind of response from Imams in the United States, or if it is occurring, the media has failed to report it.

Meanwhile, we need to respond in kind to the attacks against us. That doesn’t mean sending 100,000 troops to die in the Middle East, an action that could only be described as a temporary loss of sanity. It may require a temporary no-fly zone over Syria and the establishment of “safe places.”

But we need to push back against “the sky is falling” rhetoric being waged by Republican Presidential nominees. Their comments are aimed at a small minority of the Republican electorate and should not needlessly alarm our citizenry.