Its still a dangerous world

Actually, where Al-Qaeda is weakest is more due to their methods than our fighting. People have been turned off to their methods--decapitation has that effect on people. But initially, Al-Qaeda gained recruits especially after the invasion of Iraq.

The other point that should be made is that there is not a single definition that can adequately describe Al-Qaeda because of the complexity of the situation. Al-Qaeda can refer to a more general ideology in addition to referring to a specific group identified with Bin Laden. In addition, what state dept stats have shown is that world terrorism has both spiked and plateaued since our invasion of Iraq. Plus, whatever you wish to say about Al-Qaeda, we have lost ground in Afghanistan which is a country that never had a good solution.

It is a dangerous world because of every country and group that so easily and readily relies on violence--and that includes us.

Unfortunately sometimes force becomes necessary, but when this happens should one use it sparingly? We are not progresing as we ought because we kowtowed to the UN a bit too much. Had we done what Franks wanted to do in the first place it'd be well over by now, but the politicians got too scared.

There wil be (relative) peace when the last muslim is buried under the rubble of the last mosque on the planet.

how fickle are voters. look what they did to winston churchill.

once you make them safe, they don't feel like they owe you their vote any longer. it's like the vietnam guys coming home all over again. the guy helps carry out the mission of your nation so you can, in turn, reject him. i'm not saying you should always have to vote for a person or party who does you a good turn, but the media's shameless efforts in helping you to forget are really repulsive.

to excuse the killers.

Anyway,

I heard about this on the radio and thought the same thing about how good it was that the defensive measures have been put up.

People on the left don't want to accept that we are in danger of terror, and that this is the future for the world, and we can never let down our guard.

Unfortunately this kind of attack won't register with the leftists as something we need to deal with here.

1) What danger? This is a head in the sand its all ok philosophy

2) Is our own fault....If we were just more tolerant and understanding and peaceful, they would accept us and if we were attacked the whole world would feel our pain and condemn those who hurt us......

Just as they all feel Georgias pain and sympathize, and just as they all felt Czechoslovakias pain in 1938....

it's a sad thing that people can't see the truth of the dangers out there...

will create more enemies, because the terrorists love their mindset, and use their words against us, wil.

Obama will unite the world, and his administration will be just as vigilant and aggressive at defending us as Bush. Besides, as a prominent TH blogger told me once, there's more risk in my family getting into a car crash than Al Queda killing them. So since there's no difference between the candidates, go with the one who'll lead us to a conservative nation faster. Okay, sarcasm off.

monolithic definitions of Al-Qaeda are not only dangerous but outmoded. In addition, there are terrorists from other groups than Al-Qaeda.

The stat that is most important isn't so focused on one group or on terrorism alone, but on the use of violence. We should only note that according to State Dept statistics as well as a 2006 report by Bergen and Cruickshank, that terrorism increased significantly after the invasion of Iraq. The State Dept stats showed that terrorism, outside of the Afghan and Iraq hotspots, increased significantly and then plateaued.

But what is a much more threatening issue is the precedent we set by invading Iraq. When Russia responded to Georgia's attack on S. Ossetia, they simply laughed at the US response to the Russian retaliation. Of course, what wasn't told by many reporters was that because of the history of the region, Russian peacekeepers were stationed in that region and were attacked when Georgia commenced their assault. So as wrong as the Russian retaliation may have been, it was understandable.

But the point here is that those with power see no need to use due process and international entities to solve disputes. They simply use force and the stronger one is, the more deterrents one has to intervention from the outside.

Who set the precedent for Russia's criminal incursion into Georgia? It was the US and their attack on Iraq.

Caday is right in part.....there are multiple terror organizations unconnected but with some similar goals....Al Qaida, Hamas, Hezbollah, Muslim Brotherhood, Islamic Jihad, etc.....The group that claimed responsibility for the Sa'na embassy attacks was a subsidiary of Al Qaida as far as I can find info....

As for the rest of that, the Russians invaded Georgia because we set a precedent by invading Iraq? That is a big stretch and not even close to accurate. This is to long for a comment, so I will make a new post.

You shouldn't feed the troll, because he doesn't have anyone visit his site! The only attn C4 gets is to blast off on other's blogs!

Shameless plug, new post on my site re: the Constitution which I have a copy of by my front door.

Actually I have not excused any killers whether they are American or not American.

We should take all terror seriously whether it is practiced by those outside our country or by America.

Actually, for most of the summer my blog has been a top ten PA blog. I haven't had time to write articles lately because of work.

But it is interesting. I have not attacked the character of anyone here or of America but I have listed facts about what we have done. And what was the response? The response here has neither been factual nor logical but attempts to make personal attacks.