Far worse has been done in the name of fighting terrorism, after all.

The idea is that we have to fight terrorism at the local level.

Still, isn't the Bush administration doing its best to fight terrorism?

President Bush has provided a strong sense of purpose to fight terrorism.

The move is part of the agency's increased efforts to fight terrorism.

He also called on the world leaders to join forces to fight terrorism.

It is already clear that we need to fight terrorism.

We must do everything in our power to fight international terrorism.

Democrats said they would stand by the president in making available the money needed to fight terrorism.

And the government will need more money to fight terrorism.

Indeed, Stein wrote an editorial for The New York Times critical of those who would rather make money in the world of finance than fight terrorism.

The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 the Pentagon and the Twin Towers in New York as well as the bombings in Madrid and London in 2004 and 2005, respectively, marked a watershed for the international intelligence community and returned to put the fight international terrorism as a major threat to security and stability.

In my opinion it's not rational thinking to undermine 20 years of peace building, 20 years of developing democratic institutions, 20 years of respecting neighboring countries (Ethiopia and Djabouti), 20 years of fight terrorism and Piracy, in Somaliland.

Helping fight terrorism would be a plus, he said, given that the original inspiration was to fend off - but not kill - men like the ones who attacked him 11 years ago.

We cannot cover up the questions that have been raised, because that would seriously harm public confidence at a time when we need all the confidence we can get in order to be able fight terrorism effectively, yet fairly, of course.