It will take a very long time for race relations to improve in the US. However, something like this advances the conversation and in time things will get better.

Now that word will spread world-wide, and in my very humble opinion, those in the majority (see, not extremist) will eventually lose those moderates who could sway in their direction and see things differently. Give it time!

Those who see Obama as a weakness that opens the terrorist floodgates have been sold-out and ripped-off. Brainwashed by the fear.

I’m politically agnostic.

I think countries like France will be encouraged. I think it’s very telling that Iran’s leader has extended congratulations to Barack Obama (whether it’s a ploy or not).

We’ve already seen this President-Elect challenged by several sovereign nations. These nations’ statements tell me that they see a marked difference between Obama and Bush, and are willing to test Obama early to better understand the strength of his resolve.

I will be viewing world politics with greater interest for the next few years, hoping to see a miraculous return to greatness in this country in both its internal and external policies.

The reality is that after 9-11 the entire nation and much of the world rallied behind George Bush in his “War on Terror”. He had the highest presidential approval rating in history. But he squandered good will and trust nationally and internationally, with deceptive and misleading justifications (WMDs, etc) and his dogged pursuit of unilateral action in Iraq. Now we have succeeded only in dividing our allies and uniting our enemies, and most experts agree (unless you ask Hannity & the likes) that we are no safer (if not less safe) now than ever, and certainly more alone and less powerful in the global arena.

I believe – like Colorado says – nations do follow these paradigms, and under the leadership of Obama I hope we can expect to see positive results for how we are perceived internationally.. So while we may be no safer from the unpredictable and irrational actions of terrorists, at least we may regain some of the trust and respect we’ve pilfered at home and abroad in the last 7 years under Bush.

Sovereign nations on the other hand, will respond to a new President. Our allies will be energized by Obama’s presidency, where enemies of the Nation like Iran and Nations that are dangerously close to dictatorship like Russia will use this opportunity to test Obama, but not with direct and large-scale attacks on the States, but by threatening our allies and with insincere attacks against the us. But I am confident that with Obama’s natural leadership, and Biden’s years of experience in foreign policy, we will not only overcome aggression, but come out of it with higher standing and more respect.

Obama believes he can charm our enemies with just another speech (unbelievable ego). We are going to be hit, and we are going to be hit hard, and it will be within the first year of his presidency. I do hope Obama will be in the white house when terroists detonate a nuclear device in one of Washington’s suburbs.

This article “Seven Habits of Highly Ineffective Terrorists” explains:
Terrorists (1) attack civilians, a policy that has a lousy track record of convincing those civilians to give the terrorists what they want; (2) treat terrorism as a first resort, not a last resort, failing to embrace nonviolent alternatives like elections; (3) don’t compromise with their target country, even when those compromises are in their best interest politically; (4) have protean political platforms, which regularly, and sometimes radically, change; (5) often engage in anonymous attacks, which precludes the target countries making political concessions to them; (6) regularly attack other terrorist groups with the same political platform; and (7) resist disbanding, even when they consistently fail to achieve their political objectives or when their stated political objectives have been achieved.

It then puts forward that “People turn to terrorism for social solidarity[ ...] people join terrorist organizations worldwide in order to be part of a community, much like the reason inner-city youths join gangs in the United States.”

The logical extension of all of this is that socially marginalized communities that turn to terrorist organizations for social cohesion should not be impacted by the US executive branch. Counterterrorism strategies will need to focus on strategies designed to weaken social bonds w/in terrorist organizations.. “Driving a wedge between group members”

Finally, I don’t think sovereign nations such as Iran, Syria, & Korea (mentioned in the post) are relevant to this conversation as much as the marginalized individuals that may inhabit them. It is not right to label these countries as terrorist nations. These kinds of generalizations are dangerous.

Best,
Hannah

The first WTC attack came just over a month after Clinton’s inauguration. The second attacks within the first year of the Bush presidency. Obama has described himself repeatedly as “a friend to Israel”, a Christian; which if you’re in the terror business translates roughly to “that’s not change, that’s more of the same.”

As I said above, any new president is likely to be tested by Al Qaeda. Terrorists aren’t fighting for America to have a black president. Terrorists are fighting for a Global Muslim Theocracy.

It’s a waiting game, but I for one don’t have much faith in Obama keeping us safe. I’m just glad I don’t live in NYC or LA!

With WWII being completed the U.S. played a major part in the financing and rebuilding of France. And then we played there “majorly” as if it were the new playground we had built. We did this without much regard of the French culture, and as a result anti-American sentiments slowly but steadily arose to the point it becomes a by-line joke in National Lampoons “European Vacation” with Chevy Chase.

The tie-in around the world, is the perceived philosophy of our actions. We are seen as a country that simply does what it wants, frequently without regard for our global neighbors. That may not be simply a Republican thing, but it is arguable that they have been worse at it. Now, it is also argued that, being the most powerful country, we have protected others (or tried to) and therefore have an “excuse” to “jump to the front of the line” or do what we want when most other countries are bound by a more extensive international decorum.

In interviews in Spain, Italy, South America, etc… we were described as a disrespectful people–of our elderly, our sick, our neighbors etc… That our priorities were wrong with healthcare and education and a visible disdain was the result. Despite our tremendous power.

Terrorism, on the other hand, is about chaos interruption, and skewed religious beliefs resulting statement actions.

Whereas I am inclined to think that the steady, methodical approach and controlled demeanor we have seen from Obama will continue in his interaction with our global neighbors, probably resulting over time in less anti-American sentiment; I’m not sure if it will lessen terrorism bent on U.S. disruption. Because they are about statement actions, terrorists will strive to make the largest statements when possible.

America is an advanced target. Whereas part of the activity, on our soil which we have seen, has been reprisal for our actions abroad (arguable) and may lessen *some*, we are still seen as the place to make the biggest statement. “Attack the infidel power!” I’m not convinced we’re much more, or less, of a target due to an immanent change in leadership and subsequently global decorum and perception. Their actions can’t be just about targeting strength–China is arguably stronger in military might. But they tend to keep to themselves relative to our activity abroad. Perhaps they too will become more of a target. They have had some small activity, in 1992, and a “foiled plot” in Beijing in 2009. Other than some minor Seperatist Muslim activity, they’re okay.

Simply put, I believe *general* anti-American sentiments will lessen, but I am inclined to think that any planned path of terrorist interruptions will continue more or less as they have; even with this new President-Elect. Whether or not they will step things up because Obama is a Democrat which some perceive as militarily flacid, who can know? I *do* think they see him differently than many Americans do. I think they seem him as shrewd. Intellegent. Controlled. Perhaps even unpredicable. That may not equate to a desired conflict.

In these shows, each President supposedly upholds the “United States does NOT negotiate with terrorists” stance in public, but cowers to the whims of the madman in private. In those fictional scenarios, the ends always justifies the means, so principles pretty much fly out the window.

I’m very curious to see how Obama handles foreign relations, and what kind of stance he will at least publicly take with terrorism and perceived threats against national security or interests.

I’m obviously not qualified to speak to what extremists/terrorist think or believe. But perhaps at best we can expect Obama’s leadership to parse former terrorist threats into two camps:

First might be the group who hated Bush, but now feel more respected and therefore turn their attention elsewhere.

Second might be those with a grudge: those who’ve lost friends, family, and loved ones in previous military conflicts. Blood feuds aren’t likely to stop no matter who is President… at least that’s my guess.