Richard Dawkins Quotes

War on terrorism defines the central preoccupation of the United States in the world today, and it does reflect in my view a rather narrow and extremist vision of foreign policy of the world's first superpower, of a great democracy, with genuinely idealistic traditions.

Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.

America roused to a righteous anger has always been a force for good. States that have been supporting if not Osama bin Laden, people like him need to feel pain. If we flatten part of Damascus or Tehran or whatever it takes, that is part of the solution.

All around the world one heard or read that there was no connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda.

One cannot understate the importance of eliminating Bin Laden. He was a symbolic head of the organisation and, as we now know, an operational head of the organisation.

American credibility in the war on terrorism depends on a strong stand against all terrorist acts, whether committed by foe or friend.

If bin Laden is in fact publicly killed, then the US military will find itself standing around with its hands in its pockets, wondering what's supposed to come next.

I would like to see us find Osama Bin Laden, but let's say we did capture him. Let's say we did kill him. How much good would that do? There's still thousands of people behind him. It's this huge thing.

We cannot solve the problem of terrorism by asserting our will on the world.

Any government that chooses to be an ally of terror has also chosen to be an enemy of civilization.

War on terrorism reflects, in my view, a rather narrow and extremist vision of foreign policy for a superpower and for a great democracy with genuinely idealistic traditions.

Every nation has to either be with us, or against us. Those who harbor terrorists, or who finance them, are going to pay a price.

The potential for regional conflict in the absence of an internationally active America is real.

People seem to forget that Saddam was the only leader in the world who praised the attacks of 9/11 as a good thing.

The war in Iraq, specifically America's role of leadership in this war, is a painful invitation to ask ourselves what, if anything, we've learned from previous wars. I am revolted by the brutal killing of hundreds of thousands of innocent people during any war. And I'm saddened by the apparent inability of human beings to find less violent solutions to conflict and terrorism.

In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man. Support Israel. Defeat Jihad

It is important to stress: Africa is also a victim of the September 11 attacks.

The war on terror, I believe, will be waged by effective intelligence and police work and cruise missiles.

There have been linkages between the Iraqi government and al-Qaeda going back more or less a decade.

In the past, a blow to the international system's strongest power would have been welcomed by its rivals. In the wake of September 11, however, every significant government in the world declared its support for the United States.

Well, you got to remember, bin Laden killed 3,000 Americans and, in some ways, he and his ideology killed tens of thousands of his fellow Muslims, including Pakistanis. I understand that that was provocative and complicated for Pakistan, but only if you accept the idea that he was an acceptable member of Pakistani society.

There is a direct line relationship between what happened in Afghanistan in the work up to 11 September 2001 and what we're doing in Afghanistan today.

Getting rid of Bin Laden is good for the cause of peace worldwide but what counts is to overcome the discourse and the methods - the violent methods - that were created and encouraged by Bin Laden and others in the world.

The whole world has changed after September 11th.

American presence is, you know, the major cause of balance of power and the stability in this region.