Quotes About Radical

Radical Islamist terror is a crime against the entire free world, including against Israel.

We are in a struggle against the forces of radical Islam and terror, which must be defeated for our children and our grandchildren.

The West is in for a long, irregular confrontation - not with terrorism, which is simply a tactic, but with radical Islam.

We can't be afraid to call the enemy what it is: Radical Islamic terrorism.

And if you want a commander in chief who will fulfill the most solemn obligation of the president to keep this nation safe, then support a candidate who has demonstrated the commitment, the judgment, the experience, the clarity of vision, to identify our enemy, to call it by its name, radical islamic terrorism.

GTMO has been a goldmine of intelligence about radical Islamic terrorism.

In the past, rogue members of the State Department flew the flag of the radical Marxist group, Black Lives Matter. The domestic terrorists represented by that flag have burned down our cities with the mission of defunding our police.

And, these Islamic fundamentalists, these radical terrorists, these Middle Eastern monsters are committed to destroying the Jewish nation, driving her into the Mediterranean, conquering the world.

Now, I am not saying that there is one single type of individual who is a better type of terrorist than another. What I am saying is that the circumstances that push certain individuals over the edge, to become terrorists, are generally very, very similar.

And I believe only with a strong America will we defeat this radical group, this apocalyptic group called ISIS. That's why when I'm president we are going to rebuild our intelligence capabilities. And they're going to tell us where the terrorists are. And a rebuilt U.S. military is going to destroy these terrorists.

We need to make sure these Islamic terrorist organizations don't become mainstream. We're fighting an ideology as much as a group of radical terrorists.

When one supports a certain radical position, one should know the conservative position that one is rejecting. What troubles me is the unexamined adoption of a radical stance.

This book seeks to foster that progress by identifying a place of reconciliation between the two poles outlined in the exchange between Paul Mason (whose optimism we relish) and Nigel Pollitt (whose realism we value) within a society that has already changed radically. We

In a consumer society, contentment is a radical proposition. Recognizing abundance rather than scarcity undermines an economy that

In a consumer society, contentment is a radical proposition.

In a consumer society, contentment is a radical proposition. Recognizing abundance rather than scarcity undermines an economy that thrives by creating unmet desires. Gratitude cultivates an ethic of fullness, but the economy needs emptiness.

In a consumer society, contentment is a radical proposition. Recognizing abundance rather than scarcity undermines an economy that thrives by creating unmet desires. Gratitude cultivates an ethic of fullness

Some Washington observers floated scenarios of a constitutional showdown in which Johnson would deploy Grant and the military to silence Congress. Suddenly Grant's political tendencies became of more than theoretical interest. Ben Butler, now a Radical Republican, wondered privately whether "Grant can be trusted to disobey positive orders of his chief? When the hour of peril comes, shall we not be

Independent radical women often live lonely lives if they expect equality.

Although in this life one may find solace in the crowd from God's radical demands, "In eternity you will look in vain for the crowd. You will listen in vain to find where the noise and the gathering is, so that you can run to it." In actual fact, "For the Infinite One, there is no place, the individual is himself the place.

Most of the time she preferred to be sardonically out of line, out of step. To sound harsher than she was. Which fooled nobody, strangely enough. People saw through her tough-guy routine, even liked her for it, and the cruder her formulations, the harder she tried to be this radical alienated individual, the more profoundly she was loved.

Religious moderates seem to believe that what we need is not radical insight and innovation in these areas but a mere dilution of Iron Age philosophy.

The stronger a culture, the less it fears the radical fringe. The more paranoid and precarious a culture, the less tolerance it offers.

But why, then, do these ideas persist? Why haven't the scientists with the better and more accurate ideas eclipsed these old theories? Hart tells me bluntly: Almost all the funding for research into illegal drugs is provided by governments waging the drug war—and they only commission research that reinforces the ideas we already have about drugs. All these different theories, with their radical implications—why would governments want to fund those?