Editorial: White House bumbles responses to Benghazi attacks- The Register Citizen

EditorialWhite House bumbles responses to Benghazi attacks- The Register Citizen.

With all the editorials out there clobbering the White House over its early responses to the Benghazi attacks and true even to my own views on the incompetent mannerisms displayed by their political maneuvering – probably due to election phase concerns, I do find a logical reason in support of their posit

It came to me this morning, as I watched Fox News Channel and their latest coverage concerning new revelations about the general reluctance of the White House to state the seemingly true nature of these attacks.

Its seems all too obvious that these attacks are terrorist attacks in nature.  But the question we should be asking is, “what should are response be?”.

To better understand this, we should understand what the word “terrorism” means (inferring the impetus for its manifestation).  “Terrorism is the systematic use of terror, often violent, especially as a means of coercion. In the international community, however, terrorism has no legally binding, criminal law definition.” – from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism.  Now then we can look at “coercion”, to wit: coercion “is the practice of forcing another party to act in an involuntary manner (whether through action or inaction) by use of threats or intimidation or some other form of pressure or force” – from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coercion.

Now that we know what is at play with Benghazi and other similar events around the globe, we must honestly consider what our reactions should be in light of the fact that it is precisely our response that is being solicited by such acts!

Should we call it terrorism, thus, validating the acts and reinforcing their commission by its pundits? Or should the attacks be truthfully recognized as criminal acts against humanity and those who commit such heinous crimes against the innocent and defenseless, the most vile of criminals that need be vetted out even by the Muslim faithful whose faith is soiled by such lack of Godly love towards souls that may have been won over to Islam any other day of the week?  Are we to fear senseless acts or form a strong resistance against suffering its intended victim – not the lives lost, but our freedom to live with free thought and expression being our most valued inheritance of social evolution and God.

We must consider that if we continue to fear the attacks as greater than the criminal acts they truly ( and in essence) are, we are first losing our autonomy to the likes of them who care not for freedom but insist on the unquestioned control of the masses in lieu of divine governance and we spur on the waves of future attackers with this, often time, their only source of self worth and valuation.

Why should we insist that the White House call it terrorism? In essence, we are trying to coerce the Government into leaving our ideals and sensibilities unprotected!  Is it not better to call it what it is – a crime – and to pursue criminals until caught and brought to justice?  Why give the criminal masterminds another medal and trophy embodied by our fears?

I think that the Government should approach this with understanding and not keep the populace ignorant in relation to these issues.  Let us deal strongly and decisively against crimes committed against Americans and any other country, for that matter.   But let us not succumb to fear – let us be feared because of our understanding, truth and resolve!