Enhancing long term national security requires that we have a clear-eyed view of radical Islamic terrorism without ascribing radical Islamic terrorist views to all Muslims.
[Barack Obama] believes climate change is a bigger threat to our country than these barbaric Islamic terrorists that have as their organizing principle the destruction of Western civilization.
That, by the way, is perhaps the most ludicrous comment I've ever heard, that climate change is a bigger threat to our country than radical Islamic terrorism.
If you look around us, there are an awful lot of men out there, and women, but mostly men, who believe that they have got a fast-track path to Heaven, if they do the things that they believe God is telling them to do, and I don't just mean Islamic people. I mean Fundamentalist Christians.
If you didn't know better, you might have thought in 2003 and 2004 that U.S. government strategy was being set by people trying to make enemies rather than friends in the Arab-Islamic world. And if you didn't know better, you might think that the Chinese government's approach to the Olympics is being set by people trying to make the country look bad.
Osama bin Laden, the Saudi-born revolutionary who is believed by most Arab and Iranian observers to be the inspiration of the attacks in New York and Washington, is the best known of the Islamic militants to have emerged in the past 20 years and the least difficult to fathom.
Before, revolutions used to have ideological names. They could be communist, they could be liberal, they could be fascist or Islamic. Now, the revolutions are called under the medium which is most used. You have Facebook revolutions, Twitter revolutions. The content doesn't matter anymore - the problem is the media.
Turkey is viewed as a very modern country and a great place to go and visit and yet Islamic as well. Iran is in some ways like that... with the difference that Iran is probably more influential than Turkey in affairs that are of interest to us.
From a geo-strategic point of view, I consider Iran a bigger problem than the Islamic State. ISIS is a group of adventurers with a very aggressive ideology. But they have to conquer more and more territory before they can became a geo-strategic, permanent reality. I think a conflict with ISIS - important as it is - is more manageable than a confrontation with Iran.
If Tehran insists on combining the Persian imperial tradition with contemporary Islamic fervor, then a collision with America and, indeed, with its negotiating partners of the Six is unavoidable. Iran simply cannot be permitted to fulfill a dream of imperial rule in a region of such importance to the rest of the world.
The members of the Islamic Staye have cut the throat of an American on television. This is an insult to the United States, which requires that we demonstrate that this is not an act that is free. I would strongly favor a strong attack on ISIS for a period that is related to the murder of the American.
There are three stories that are foundational to the Islamic narrative in which women, and in two of the three cases, single women, are not just part of the story. They're at the very center of the story. Yet, that is not something that you would imagine to be true if you survey the Muslim world from the outside or from the inside. Part of the reason is that we don't really take our text seriously. We don't take our stories seriously. We're almost afraid of thinking complicated thoughts.
I've had two fatwas issued against me by despot mullahs opposed to education - and important to know that the great majority of Imams and Islamic religious leaders support education for all children.
Thomas Jefferson creates the Marines for the Islamic pirates that were happening.
I know where we today in Europe have enormous influx of... in the last decades of people from Islamic countries, that our society has changed. That it has worsened for that reason.
We address the problems of so many Dutch citizens that are afraid to go out in their neighbourhoods after 10pm, who are afraid to send their children to school because of all the harassment they get from this parallel Islamic society. And people are not extreme in Holland.
I'm proud to say you are not a racist or a bigot or anything like that if you say that the Netherlands, as Australia, is a culture based on Christianity, on Judaism, on humanism, and it should not, nor ever will become a society based on Islamic failures.
I hope I can tell you what happened in Europe and support you in your fight to preserve freedom for your children and your grandchildren, and tell them what I believe the Islamic threat is, and to discuss it with anybody - also people who don't agree with me. This is democracy. This is civil society. We should cherish that.
I never would like to be a country that is that multicultural that, for instance, the Islamic values become more dominant. We should not do that. We should stop that.
When considering the Islamic world, Turkey is the best example of a country where democracy irreversibly gained a foothold despite religious and cultural traditions still respected today. With some reservation, this can be said about Pakistan, too, where we can observe dynamic political processes going on [and] governments change as a result of elections. In my opinion, it is up to the ruling elite to initiate cardinal changes.
After all, from the Muslim Brotherhood's inception in Egypt in 1928, it has been a revolutionary organization committed to the imposition worldwide of a totalitarian, supremacist Islamic doctrine they call shariah.
These Muslim Brotherhood fronts - the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the Muslim Public Affairs Council, the Islamic Society of North America - we need accountability for what these groups are doing and need to understand that in many ways they are as toxic and dangerous for America as are their violent counterparts, which have exactly the same goal that they do, which is imposing the Shariah doctrine on all of us.
There is the enormous corpus of Islamic law that is very rich. However, law is one rational exercise of reason. Philosophy is very different. Philosophy wants to try to understand everything. It is a better dialogue partner with faith than law.
The thing about the Islamic situation is we don't have a church. We don't have an ordained priesthood, which makes it a little complicated. But we do have a tradition of scholarship, and rules of scholarship. It's very much like any field of knowledge.
What else is wrong with 'suicide' bombing? Legally, less than what one might believe. While it may or may not be good strategy, it appears to be permissable under international law.
