There was a very convincing argument made that the extremists have won and the aggression is now supported by the majority, therefore fighting until surrender was the only alternative.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
To defeat the aggressors is not enough to make peace durable. The main thing is to discard the ideology that generates war.
The forces that led to radical Islam, the Muslim Brotherhood, Al Qaeda, Islamic State, can ultimately only be defeated by moderate Muslims around the globe, countries like U.A.E. that have led the fight within their own border to promote tolerance.
In the Muslim world, there are many people who have been vocal and we have been very vocal against extremists. But how to win this battle is an ongoing battle. And we must continue to wage the battle for peace.
This bloody past suggests to us that enemies cease hostilities only when they are battered enough to acknowledge that there is no hope in victory - and thus that further resistance means only useless sacrifice.
My people were divided about surrendering.
The invasion of Iraq, particularly, gave a big shot in the arm to the jihadi extremists.
Abatement in the hostility of one's enemies must never be thought to signify they have been won over. It only means that one has ceased to constitute a threat.
The United States did not choose to fight Islamic extremists. These terrorists chose to fight our way of life. They chose to challenge our existence.
The idea of trying to fight against extremism was written off as naive.
There is hardly such a thing as a war in which it makes no difference who wins. Nearly always one side stands more or less for progress, the other side more or less for reaction.
No opposing quotes found.