I think the debate in our society now is that people have to agree on zero-tolerance to terrorism.
You're always going to have terrorism.
As strong as the United States is, we can't deal with terrorism alone.
Every time you take a train, step into your car, walk into the shopping mall, go to the airport - every single time, something could happen. That's how terrorism works.
What Donald Trump knows is that people across this country and indeed world are afraid of terrorism, and they have a reason to.
Because we're not as serious about terrorism as we can be, people all across the globe feel like they can just murder innocent people.
The hardship, the fighting against vigilance should stop, and terrorism should be fought decisively.
It wasn't until about a year, year and a half in where I began to realize that the Pentagon and our national-security apparatus and the CIA were all getting too comfortable with the technology as a tool to fight terrorism, and not being mindful enough about how that technology is being used and the dangers of a form of warfare that is so detached from what is actually happening on the ground. And so we initiated this big process to try to get it in a box.
We have an interest in combating tactics in war that are abhorrent and that only fuel terrorism because they incite people on the ground.
In the United States the White House has appointed two different independent panels who had full access to classified information for the last 10 years that master balance has been in place in the United States, and they found that despite intercepting the calls - everybody in the country, - it had never stopped a single terrorist attack. So the question is, why would these officials be pursuing these policies, if we know they don't work, if they don't stop terrorism?
We can't simply scare people into giving up their rights, on the basis, oh, this protects us from terrorism.
Now terrorism is not the greatest threat facing our societies.
Terrorism kills far fewer people than cigarettes, or alcohol, or car accidents. But we don't see ourselves restructuring society and lives in order to make those threats go away.
We have to argue forcefully and demand that the government recognise that these programmes do not prevent - mass surveillance does not prevent acts of terrorism.
If you speak [ about violence against Israelis], you are in an unspeakable place, have become a Nazi or its moral equivalent (if there is a moral equivalent). It certainly terrifies, but perhaps also it is a linguistic permutation of state terrorism, an assault that stops one in one's tracks, and secures the continuing operation of the regime and its monopoly on politically intelligible speech.
Because Al-Qaeda has been a non-state centered organisation, many of these scenarios do not exactly apply. These are not wars between states. And yet, it seems to me that we make a mistake if we accept the view that states are fighting terrorism, since we have abundant evidence for accepting the idea of state terrorism, and what is most urgent is to track and expose how state terrorism operates under the rubric of "democracy."
ISIS is not Islam. No, I'm not saying that. The government says that. The left, the media says it. ISIS is not Islam. You've heard Obama say that. ISIS is making a mockery of Islam. In fact, what you really need to understand about the way our government looks at Islam, they look at Islam as anti-terror as well. Islam is anti-terrorism. Therefore, no terrorism can actually be Islamic.
"Radicalized" is a new keyword for you to understand that allows our government to not say "terrorism."
You know, Obama says we can't use the word "terrorism." We can't use the word "foreign." We can't use any of these provocative words that insult them. "Islamic terrorism" is a phrase not permitted to be used by the US government.
Our government denies that terrorism is caused by Islamic doctrine. Now, that is true, and it is a declarative statement. It's not arguable.
Islam, the religion of peace and any terrorism that happens, is not really Islamic or Islamic inspired. This is called a willful blindness. It's also political correctness.
To the government, terrorism committed by people who happen to be Muslim is not in any way a reflection of legitimate interpretation of Islam. You might find this hard to believe, but if you're doubting any of this, just search your own memory. All the times that we have heard that Islam's a religion of peace and that we can't use the word "terrorism" to describe it and Obama will not use it. And then remember all the times that this administration actually claims that violence by white right-wing white Christians poses a greater threat to the people of America than Islam.
To the government, terrorism committed by people who are Muslim is not a reflection on the legitimate interpretation of Islam, even if Islamic supremacist ideology, which endorses jihad violence - Islam, standard, mainstream Islam endorses jihad violence, but our government doesn't want to admit that or deal with it. Here in America, as in Western Europe, this is the key to understand.
What are the policy implications of the government and this fantasy Islam, what are the policy implications of a United States government that believes Islam is as anti-terror as you and I are? Well, it means that Islamic doctrine can never be cited as the cause of terrorism, as a matter of policy. And it never is. It never is.
If the cops come upon a mass murder attack that is clearly instigated by Islamic doctrine, they are not permitted to conclude that it is terrorism because they have been directed by their superiors in law enforcement to maintain that Islam is against terrorism.
Follow AzQuotes on Facebook, Twitter and Google+. Every day we present the best quotes! Improve yourself, find your inspiration, share with friends
or simply: