We give parity to all terrorism regardless of ideology.
The idea of a federal betting parlor on atrocities and terrorism is ridiculous and it's grotesque.
We stand stoutly against all forms of terrorism, and cross-border terror is a particular problem that India has. Singapore has a problem with cross-border terror, too, because we are a very small country, and it is quite possible for an attack to be mounted on Singapore from beyond our shores.
For the FBI and for the United States, the war on terrorism is a complex and perplexing issue. It is as complex and perplexing as any issue we have ever faced.
As long as you persecute people, you will actually throw up terrorism.
Ironically, the Canadian naval vessels, aircraft and personnel in the Persian Gulf I mentioned earlier who are fighting terrorism will provide more support indirectly to this war in Iraq than most of the 46 countries that are fully supporting our efforts there.
President Obama has argued there isn't a threat of terrorism from the U.S. refugee program because for individuals who apply it takes two years, 'heavy vetting' and is a relatively long process. It doesn't matter. Jihad is patient, and as ISIS has pledged, it will do whatever it takes to get the job done.
When a man wrote a political screed against the IRS and flew into its building, he was deemed mentally ill, even though it was clearly a political act. There's a double standard, which is: If his name is Muhammad, it's automatically terrorism.
Should we freeze or postpone prospective tax cuts and avoid any new tax cuts until we are sure we have the money to pay for the war on terrorism and the war in Iraq.
If the U.S. and its allies can invade a weaker country on the excuse it is abetting terrorism, then why should not India, say, launch a pre-emptive strike against Pakistan on the self-same grounds?
Our soldiers have done a valiant effort in fighting terrorism and bringing a semblance of law and order to the chaos in the region and it would be shortsighted to lay out a specific timetable to bring U.S. troops home prematurely before their mission is accomplished.
Those are the things that, in the wrong hands - and certainly in our war on terrorism we also must attack proliferation and those nations that proliferate with chemical, biological and nuclear type devices, because that can cause the most catastrophic results.
The threat and use of violence is stimulating nuclear proliferation along with jihadi terrorism.
Because of Iran's support for terrorism, disrespect for human rights, and nuclear proliferation, it has been under U.S. and international sanctions for decades - and companies have been fined billions for circumventing those sanctions.
As the war on terrorism spreads and prolongs, the fruits of ending the threat of terrorism around the world will be tempered with a whole new series of problems to be addressed and resolved.
I spent five years prosecuting some of the most dangerous terrorists in this country, so it would be quite difficult for people to pin the charge of being soft on terrorism on me.
They know the importance of their mission and of America's commitment to combating and defeating terrorism abroad, and they know that they are making a real difference in bringing freedom to a part of the world that has known only tyranny.
Any Human Rights Council reform that allows countries that sponsor terrorism to remain as members, such as Cuba, is not real reform. And in the past, countries such as Libya, Iran and Syria have participated on this council.
We cannot continue to allow immigrants to come here illegally. And in this age of terrorism, we must not let in refugees whose intentions cannot be determined.
Once we relieve them from sanctions, their economy opens up, and they can sell oil and pistachios and whatever else they sell around the world. That was why Iran needed a deal. Everyone knows they fund terrorism around the world. Having that extra money will add a lot of problems and create a lot more hot spots.
