Terrorists have failed to trigger mass conflict between Muslims and non-Muslims in Europe. We should draw strength from that fact.

Muslim organisations tend to have a low level of organisation. The communities in Europe are quite diverse.

You can't get closer to the heart of national sovereignty than national security and intelligence services.

Europe has a long and tragic history of mostly domestic terrorism.

Ultimately, freedom and democracy are stronger than fear and tyranny.

Terrorists have failed in what is arguably al Qaida's most important objective - to trigger revolutions.

The European Borders Agency in Warsaw has been created to help border forces in Europe cooperate more.

I remain optimistic. What we've seen in Europe and the rest of the world is that freedom has a much stronger attraction than radical fundamentalism.

The violent radicals do not legitimately represent the overwhelming majority of the world's Muslims.

If you exchange information internationally, you must strengthen data protection. Those are two sides of the same coin.

Police forces collect information to be used in a public court to get people convicted. Security services gather information that does not necessarily lead to people being prosecuted and in many cases needs to remain confidential.

If information ends up in the wrong hands, the lives of people very often are immediately at risk.

Terrorists always have the advantage of surprise.

The key to tackling Islamist fundamentalism and terrorism from the Islamist community is in the hands of moderate Muslims.

Terrorists have failed to trigger mass conflict between Muslims and non-Muslims in Europe. We should draw strength from that fact.

In the fight against terrorism, national agencies keep full control over their police forces, security and intelligence agencies and judicial authorities.

If you combat an international phenomenon, it is indispensable to share information internationally.

There are no automatic links between poverty and terrorism. Among millions of poor people in the world, only a few turn to terrorism.

We have an integrated picture of the threat from outside and from within that is provided not only to our foreign ministers but also to our justice and interior ministers.

We remain vulnerable. There is no such thing as 100 percent security against terrorism.

The central role in the fight against terrorism is with national authorities.

There is a series of sectors which could be severely disrupted by terrorist attacks, particularly if they were to happen in several member states simultaneously.

I have never come across a technology that doesn't change. This is inevitable. You have to adapt your systems as technology develops.

The majority of the world's Muslims do not believe that terrorism is a legitimate strategy or that Islam is incompatible with democracy.

In intelligence work, there are limits to the amount of information one can share. Confidentiality is essential.

We are familiar with terrorism. But indiscriminate, cross-border, religiously motivated terrorism is new.

In situations of military conflict, civil strife, lawlessness, bad governance, and human rights violations, terrorists find it easier to hide, train and prepare their attacks.

We still lack a global definition of terrorism.

Our strategy should be to strengthen the hand of moderate Muslims.

The idea is to have global standards. There is so much travel that if you just had a regional standard, it would probably ultimately have to be changed.

We're still stymied by the old stand-off between those who wish to fight terrorism and resistance fighters.

Indiscriminate attacks on civilians ought, under all circumstances, to be illegal in war as in peacetime.

Look at Iraq; look at Afghanistan, where at great personal physical risk people have gone to the polls and have rejected the appeal from Bin Laden and his allies to stay at home.

It's important that we work very closely with moderate Muslim forces locally, nationally and internationally.

Once to every person and nation come the moment to decide. In the conflict of truth with falsehood, for the good or evil side.

There is a contest old as Eden, which still goes on - the conflict between right and wrong, between error and truth. In this conflict every human being has a part.

Many of the Europeans who want Israel to go away don't even know why they do. Nearly a third of those interviewed concede they have no idea what the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is all about. It's enough to know that Israelis are Jews.

What we've proven is that you can protect the environment, use it wisely and grow the economy and that there is no conflict between the two.

The United States cannot feed every person, lift every person out of poverty, cure every disease, or stop every conflict. But our power and status have conferred upon us a tremendous responsibility to humanity.

The due process of law as we use it, I believe, rests squarely on the liberal idea of conflict and resolution.

We have not sought this conflict; we have sought too long to avoid it; our forbearance has been construed into weakness, our magnanimity into fear, until the vindication of our manhood, as well as the defence of our rights, is required at our hands.

The Arab-Israeli conflict is also in many ways a conflict about status: it's a war between two peoples who feel deeply humiliated by the other, who want the other to respect them. Battles over status can be even more intractable than those over land or water or oil.

I am in politics because of the conflict between good and evil, and I believe that in the end good will triumph.

We are not at war with Egypt. We are in an armed conflict.

When the problems in Northern Ireland started, it was not a question of Protestantism or Catholicism, because the Catholic church was the only church at that time-it was a nationalist conflict.

Vetting and verifying information is one thing. Having our government sending out conflicting messages to the American people when conflict can be avoided is another.

Washing one's hands of the conflict between the powerful and the powerless means to side with the powerful, not to be neutral.

The reality is, it will be a significant conflict going for many, many months, if not longer. Saddam Hussein is not a fool. He hasn't been sitting there waiting to get shot for 13 years.

It creates a conflict of interest - what songs would I use for me, and what would I use for the band.