The big bankers of the world, who practise the terrorism of money, are more powerful than kings and field marshals, even more than the Pope of Rome himself. They never dirty their hands. They kill no-one: they limit themselves to applauding the show.
Failure of government programs prompts more determined effort, while the loss of liberty is ignored or rationalized away...whether is it is the war on poverty, drugs, terrorism...or the current Hitler of the day, an appeal to patriotism is used to convince the people that a little sacrifice of liberty, here or there, is a small price to pay...The results, though, are frightening and will soon become even more so.
Funny, for all surveillance, Osama bin Laden is still freeand we're not. Guess who's winning the "war on terror?
The threat of terrorism is not stronger than the will of the American people.
One might have thought the world would stop ascribing moral equivalence between acts of terrorism and acts of punishing terrorism. It has not happened that way.
Fighting a war on terrorism is like fighting against crime. We can never hope to eradicate crime, so we shouldn't bother fighting it.
We can fight the War on Terrorism in other places around the world or we can fight it here in America. The right choice is to fight those terrorists where they are.
We need new partnerships in fighting terrorism and building peace.
We must pass a national energy policy to continue our successes in the War on Terrorism.
Every dollar that we send in State Department aid or humanitarian aid that saves us from having to get involved with very expensive military actions is a good investment. And frankly, helping Israel fight terrorism in the Middle East is much cheaper than us fighting it here on our shores.
The original PATRIOT Act greatly increased our nation's ability to share intelligence information, made better use of technology, and provided terrorism investigators tools that have long been available in cases involving illegal drugs and organized crime.
Therefore, every country has to understand that fighting against international terrorism is not for the sake of the United States, but for the sake of themselves, and, to a larger extent, in the name of stability of international relations.
I sincerely hope that the difficulties that are there in Iraq and Iran can be resolved, that Iraq will see a new era of hope in which its people will enjoy a full sovereignty. And also the problems that there is with Iran can be resolved through dialogue through giving diplomacy a chance.
I sincerely hope that whatever influence the United States has in Pakistan, it will convince Pakistan that using terrorism as an instrument of state policy has no place in the world that we want to build.
Many Syrians understand that the only way to protect your country is to live with each other with integration, not only in coexistence, which is actually more precise to call cohabitation, when people interact and integrate with each other on daily basis in every detail. So, I think in this regard I am more assured that Syria will be more unified. So, the only problem now that we face is not the partition, but terrorism.
Climate change isn't out biggest problem. It's Islamic terrorism.
Presidents are afraid to lose wars. They're afraid to be outflanked on the right by the militarists. They don't want to be seen as soft on either communism or soft on terrorism or whatever. So presidents are constantly tugged away from their domestic commitments to foreign policy.
I think since the systematic emergence of terrorism and the assassination attempts, everything has tightened. My hope is that it loosens back up once I leave.
The whole country saw how unfit [Hillary Clinton] was at the Townhall , where she refused to take accountability for her failed policies in the Middle East that have produced millions of refugees, unleashed horror of radical Islamic terrorism all over, and made us less safe than ever before.
We're working with NATO, the longest military alliance in the history of the world, to really turn our attention to terrorism.
You know, NATO as a military alliance has something called Article 5, and basically it says this: An attack on one is an attack on all. And you know the only time it's ever been invoked? After 9/11, when the 28 nations of NATO said that they would go to Afghanistan with us to fight terrorism, something that they still are doing by our side.
Hillary Clinton, herself, in a leaked State Department email identified the Saudis as still the major funder of Sunni jihad around the world. And we would basically say to our allies that we will no longer support such policies which we, ourselves, have been a party to and that we would put a freeze on the bank accounts of countries that continue to fund jihadi terrorism.
You know, terrorism in Afghanistan had everything to do with the support for the mujahidin by Saudi Arabia and by the CIA that sought to create an international religious extremist group to fight the Soviet Union.
We cannot simultaneously fight terrorism, we and our allies, while with the other hand we fund terrorism, arm terrorism and train terrorism.
I fight terrorism as if there was no peace process, and I negotiate the peace process as if there was no 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: