We’re never going to be able to get rid of terrorism, because there is always going to be evil in the world.
Israel, an embattled democracy, has been fighting terrorism for over 100 years.
No state should be allowed to profess partnership with the global coalition against terror, while continuing to aid, abet and sponsor terrorism.
India has a consistent and well-known position on terrorism. We oppose all acts of terrorism, wherever they occur. We have repeatedly said that no cause can justify violence and destruction, particularly aimed at civilians.
If Pakistan claims to be a crucial partner in the international coalition against terrorism, how can it continue to use terrorism as an instrument of state policy against India?
Terrorism attacks Jews, but it targets all countries and Western values. Israel is just an hors d’oeuvre.
Of course, the overwhelming majority of Muslims are not terrorists or sympathetic to terrorists. Equating all Muslims with terrorism is stupid and wrong. But acknowledging that there is a link between Islam and terror is appropriate and necessary.
Of course, the overwhelming majority of Muslims are not terrorists or sympathetic to terrorists. Equating all Muslims with terrorism is stupid and wrong.
In India we only read about death, sickness, terrorism, crime.
Asymmetrical warfare is a euphemism for terrorism, just like collateral damage is a euphemism for killing innocent civilians.
If America has the right to target Osama bin Laden, or terrorists, of course Israel has the right to defend itself from terrorism.
Anyone with a gun can go out and commit an act of terrorism, even without a political affiliation.
Now we are showing to the world that this fighting against two terrorist groups was feasible and now we have an isolated case which doesn’t mean that terrorism is alive, as it was before.
The attacks in Jordan, just like those before it in Indonesia, Egypt, Spain and the United States, demonstrate that terrorism does not discriminate by race, ethnicity or region. Instead, terrorists indiscriminately target those seeking to live a peaceful, loving and free life.
On average, since 9/11, the FBI reckons that just over 100,000 terrorism leads each year have come over the transom. Analysts and agents designate them as immediate, priority or routine, but the bureau says every one is covered.
As of September 2012, 168 out of the 602 released Guantanamo Bay detainees are suspected of returning to terrorism. So, is this a winning scenario for the United States? Of course not.
I seek to lead a democratic Pakistan which is free from the yoke of military dictatorship and that will cease to be a haven, the very petri dish of international terrorism.
I heard an Israeli speaking on Palestinian human rights issues, an interesting guy, and he said ‘There’s no military solution to terrorism. If there were, Israel would be the safest place in the world. But there’s no military solution.’
Today, we talk a lot about terrorism, but we rarely talk about state terrorism.
The threat of terrorism is great and with today’s porous borders, someone could bring a biological weapon into our country or sneak a dirty bomb across unmanned portions of our borders.
My point was that removing Saddam should not have been our highest priority. Fighting terrorism should have been our number one concern, followed by the Palestinian peace process.
While I agree that homegrown terrorism and the jihadist threat deserve continuing attention, a single-minded approach ignores all other threats.
International terrorism is throwing down a challenge, and not just to Russia.
Despite fearful rhetoric to the contrary, terrorism is not a transcendent threat. A terrorist attack cannot possibly destroy our country’s way of life it’s only our reaction to that attack that can do that kind of damage.
It’s frustrating terrorism is rare and largely ineffectual, yet we regularly magnify the effects of both their successes and failures by terrorizing ourselves.
And it is essential that in fighting terrorism, sacrifices should not be made on democracy.
I don’t believe we are, because I believe that just as 9/11 was an attack on a very populous area, terrorism also looks to see where you can go and where you’re not expected.
It would be a tragedy if the remarkable international coalition against terrorism, successfully marshalled in the aftermath of 11 September, were to fragment over a unilateral U.S. strike against Baghdad.
Terrorism is the tactic of demanding the impossible, and demanding it at gunpoint.
Surely, it’s one of terrorism’s intended effects, to literally stun our morale, to blow up strength and will along with buildings, and the reaction is hard to counter.
Then the administration tied it in to the regional dispute between Israel and its enemies, as if that’s about international terrorism. No, it’s not.
Fighting a war on terrorism is like fighting against crime. We can never hope to eradicate crime, so we shouldn’t bother fighting it.
There are people, particularly in the United States with which I am most familiar, who would say how ironic that Tehran would be the sponsor of an anti-terrorism conference, because there are people who say that Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism.
On foreign policy, President Obama has kept our nation safe from terrorism and restored our standing in the world. When it comes to one of our closest allies – Israel – President Obama has been resolute.
In 2001, terrorism was fought in a completely different way.
The people of New Hampshire want someone in the U.S. Senate with clear, concise views on terrorism. They’ll judge a congressman based on the people he associates with, his voting record, and his campaign contributions.
We are in a war on terrorism. We need to conduct that war and take it to the terrorists, not here at home.
I think Gadhafi is on the mark. And up until this point in time, I think they truly want to turn this around and become a positive player with the West after years and years of terrorism and stagnation.
The only way to address terrorism is to deal with the issues that create terrorism, to resolve them where possible, and where that’s not possible to ensure that there is an alternative to violence.
I’m not for one second condoning the actions of terrorists at all, but I do think there’s a kind of terrorism that the media carries out on its own citizens, certainly in this country – and it’s fear.
Cyber terrorism could also become more attractive as the real and virtual worlds become more closely coupled, with automobiles, appliances, and other devices attached to the Internet.
In the ’70s, terrorism was much more serious, in that many more people got killed.
The bottom line is this. When it comes to preventing violent extremism and terrorism in the United States, Muslim Americans are not part of the problem, you’re part of the solution.
Publicly, we’re saying we’re better at fighting terrorism. Privately, we know that the bureaucracy has only gotten worse, since the high-level people are scared of being held responsible for 9/11.
The dreadful terrorism perpetrated by Palestinian terrorist organizations has affected thousands of Israeli citizens, has destroyed families, and has tried to disrupt the lives of the citizens of Israel.
The mishandling of the would-be airplane bomber Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab’s visa is only the latest piece of evidence that the granting of visas should be taken away from the State Department. For the granting of visas – especially today, when terrorism is such a complex threat – is far closer to being a law-enforcement function.
After 9/11, we did see Palestinian terrorism in the context of all terrorism.
President Bush was disgusted by the Assad regime’s oppression of the Syrian people as well as its support for terrorism, interference in Lebanon, and encouragement of jihadist attacks on Americans in Iraq.
Israel will not and should not leave until it is clear that the West Bank can be policed by Palestinians and that the region will not be a source of terrorism against Israel, as Gaza and South Lebanon became when Israel left there.
The United States already has in place comprehensive trade sanctions against Sudan, imposed because of the regime’s support for terrorism. While we maintain diplomatic relations, we do not staff our embassy there.
Terrorism exploded after the Camp David talks broke down in 2000 because the Palestinians’ leader at the time, Yasser Arafat, supported it.
We know that we can defeat Islamist terrorism without violating our ideals indeed, we must. These ideals, these American ideals.
Islamic law is clearly against terrorism, against any kind of deliberate killing of civilians or similar ‘collateral damage.’
Islamist terrorism has declared war against us, against France, Europe, the entire world.
We are familiar with terrorism. But indiscriminate, cross-border, religiously motivated terrorism is new.
Terrorism is not a public health threat, relative to cancer and heart disease and malaria and so forth.
Charlie Hebdo’ had been nondenominational in its satire, sticking its finger into the sensitivities of Jews and Christians, too – but only Muslims responded with threats and acts of terrorism.
Much of the international unease with the Sochi Games has focused on the threat of terrorism, Putin’s domestic repressiveness, and the Russian campaign of anti-gay propaganda.
Terrorism’ itself is not an objective term or legitimate object of study, but was conceived of as a highly politicized instrument and has been used that way ever since.
We have our own home-grown terrorism, and to the extent that we can obliterate terrorism all over the world, then our own terrorism will be much easier to neutralize.
I know the pain of having to deal with terrorism. And that’s why, after 9-11, I was one of the first to join the international coalition to fight terrorism.
I was at Ground Zero, and it was, to me, such a graphic illustration of what terrorism has done to our world.
Even before 9/11, the Philippines was already fighting terrorism in southwestern Philippines. That’s why when 9/11 happened, we could understand the pain.
This was not an act of terrorism, but it was an act of war.
In the area of national security, I urge the swift passage of an anti-terrorism law that will protect rather than subvert, enhance rather than weaken, the rights and liberties that terrorism precisely threatens with extinction.
We fight terrorism. It threatens our sovereign, democratic, compassionate and decent way of life.
In Kenya, crime and terrorism are deeply linked, not least by the failure of successive Kenyan governments to control either.
You can gesture at the transnational problem of Islamist terrorism all you like, but it’s just hot air unless you invest in proper security on the ground in your own country, with the right safeguards to civil liberties.
When you have armed militants, aided and abetted by a major country like Russia, able to use surface-to-air missiles to bring down a commercial airline, that is a form of terrorism.
For years, even before 9/11, I’ve been trying to warn that the threat from amateur biolabs will ultimately turn out to be far more troublesome than leakage from military labs – perhaps even more costly and deadly than nuclear terrorism.
If it is terrorism, if it is war on terror, then the Afghan people will join you on terror.
It is changing the face of terrorism. It is basically bringing it to the United States, to our great citizens. We know the terrorists are barbaric and murderers that attack innocent civilians, as they did in this case.
I think about terrorism in terms of popcorn. You can’t tell which kernels are popcorn and which are not, but you assume you’ll always have some kernels that are going to pop.
The atmosphere is different in Congress after September 11. Terrorism is no longer an abstract issue, but a real, tangible threat.
We often speak of domestic terrorism and hate crimes in the same breath, and there is a fine line between the two, and certainly overlap in some cases.
Yesterday I, along with a bipartisan Congressional Delegation of lawmakers, inspected the detention facilities at Guantanamo used to house individuals detained in the War on Terrorism.
We all recognize that the Mid-east is dissolving into crises, and we know terrorism did not start with 9-11.
President Obama and Hillary Clinton most definitely signaled to Islamic State leaders that they had no intention of seriously challenging them, or even of calling radical Islamic terrorism by its name.
Since September 11th, federal terrorism investigations have resulted in charges against more than 400 suspects, and more than half of them have been convicted.
President Obama is more and more beginning to look like the hypocrite-in-chief when it comes to the war on terrorism. All sorts of things that he criticized the president for, he’s actually continued and even extended. This drone attack program, he’s got it at the highest level ever.
Democracy is stronger than terrorism, and we will not cower to the terrorists’ campaign of fear.
We don’t want the Taliban to put down roots, or the al Qaeda to put down roots in Afghanistan that can facilitate Afghanistan becoming – once again – a launching pad for international terrorism.
During the 1990s, world leaders looked at the mounting threat of terrorism, looked up, looked away, and hoped the problem would go away.
Terrorism needs to be fought against and certainly delegitimized or attacked, but some of the underlying grievances that might in fact lead individuals astray to terrorism cannot be ignored.
If we destroy human rights and rule of law in the response to terrorism, they have won.
Upholding human rights is not merely compatible with fighting terrorism, it is essential.
The Hussein regime’s support for terrorism, within and outside of its borders, its appetite for the world’s most dangerous weapons, and its openly declared hostility to the United States were a combination that was a gathering and growing danger to our country.
By ending the Hussein regime, the United States has taken away yet another incubator of terrorism.
Since the September 11 attacks, nearly 400 individuals have been arrested by the Justice Department as a result of ongoing investigations into international terrorism. Of that total, over half were convicted as a result of their actions.
The unspoken thing, the elephant in the room, is the war against terrorism, it’s tainting everything.
The FBI. is a massive culture. It’s been a culture that served America well, and it’s been focused on prosecution. But what we need in terms of terrorism is prevention.
The EU and the U.S. often work together to develop international standards. This is the case in fighting terrorism and transnational crime, advancing trade liberalization, and combating piracy and intellectual property violations.
If we want to build the Iraqis’ confidence about our intentions in their country, if we want to stop adding fuel to the fire of insurgency and terrorism, we must clarify our intent.
It is important to recognize the differences between the war in Iraq and the war on terrorism. The treatment of those detained at Abu Ghraib is governed by the Geneva Conventions, which have been signed by both the U.S. and Iraq.
Terrorism is resorted to for practical reasons because there is no other tool available. And those who use terrorism, and then subsequently become the targets of terrorism, understand its power and how difficult it is to counter it. Not just militarily. But especially in terms of international perception.
We were in opposition to the decision to go to war. But after the war happened, it was clear that you could not sit and look-there would be a breeding ground for terrorism or a new collapsed or failed state named Iraq!
If we continue to create a world where there is poverty and disrespect, there will continue to be terrorism.
What causes terrorism is disrespect, a lack of justice, and poverty.
If you are talking about terrorism, you need to sit down and understand what is making these people put dynamite around their waists and blow themselves up.
At times one feels that what is being said in the West is that the fact that you are a Muslim predisposes you to this blind, stupid terrorism.
I think that American presidents, that position in itself, as well as American foreign policy, it has terrorism in it. CIA agents going to overthrow certain governments – they’re using terrorist tactics. They’re not going in there like, ‘Hey, you wanna have some cake?’
You know, people have actually changed the way they think about nuclear weapons now, post-Cold War, post-9/11. The threat of nuclear weapons is not so much Russia attacking the United States, China. It’s not a state-to-state – it’s obviously terrorism it’s proliferation.
In some ways, the best novel about terrorism, though it’s not a novel, is ‘The Looming Tower’ by Lawrence Wright or ‘Perfect Soldiers’ by Terry McDermott.
As strong as the United States is, we can’t deal with terrorism alone.
It is true that when there’s a drone attack, those – that the – the terrorists are killed, it’s true. But 500 and 5,000 more people rises against it, and more terrorism occurs, and more – more bomb blasts occurs.
Islamist terrorism is a cancer on Islam, and Muslims themselves must fight it at our side.
Political leaders still think things can be done through force, but that cannot solve terrorism. Backwardness is the breeding ground of terror, and that is what we have to fight.
There are no globalized, youth-led, grassroots social movements advocating for democratic culture across Muslim-majority societies. There is no equivalent of Al-Qaeda without the terrorism.
Nothing, nothing justifies terrorism.
This is the new wave, the new generation of terrorism. It’s gone viral. It’s very dangerous, and it’s very hard to stop.
I’m over here with the French counterterrorism experts talking about the ‘Charlie Hebdo’ case, how we can stop foreign fighters from coming out of Iraq and Syria to Europe, but then we have this phenomenon in the United States where they can be activated by the Internet, and, really, terrorism has gone viral.
When terrorism strikes, divisive anger is a natural response.
No one can truly be prepared for such devastation and pure malevolence, but the United Kingdom can always look to the United States as an ally resolved to stand firm in the war on terrorism.
The president feels not only do we need to change these rogue regimes, but even our friendly allies, who really basically have, sort of, benign dictatorships, need to get with the program if they want to have long-term security and prosperity from terrorism.
Mr. Speaker, I agree with those who say that the Global War on Terrorism is actually a Global War of Ideas and that terrorism is one of the tactics used in that War.
An escalating, violent tit-for-tat may lead to terrorism.
As the CIA tried to find itself, the threat of international terrorism emanating from the Middle East, Africa, North Africa and Central and Southeast Asia grew with each strike: the first World Trade Center attack in 1993, the bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, and the 2000 attack on the U.S.S. Cole.
It does surprise me that intelligent people in the 21st century could claim that if you respond to the terrorists with force, you spawn terrorism, but if you appease them, you somehow tame them. This argument, as I said, is very interesting, and very surprising.
The nexus between terrorism and nuclear weapons, or even nuclear material, is obviously a current concern.
The fate of Syria hangs in the balance, but it is entirely possible that the fall of the Assad regime will result in anarchy and cause Syria to turn into a second Afghanistan, a base for anti-Israel terrorism.
At the NYPD, a judge doesn’t need to sign off on opening up an investigation into a mosque as a terrorism organization. The oversight is internal.
It is necessary to name the enemy of human civilization, and this enemy is international terrorism associated with religious fundamentalism and religious intolerance.
We should not look at terrorism from the nameplates – which group they belong to, what is their geographical location, who are the victims. These individual groups or names will keep changing.
The fault lines are shifting from the boundaries of nations into the web of our societies and the streets of our cities. And, terrorism and extremism are a global force that are larger than their changing names, groups, territories and targets.
This thing called Patriot Act, through which we abdicated a lot of our civil rights to defend the country against terrorism, it’s a four-year story.
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.
Everybody’s worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there’s a really easy way: stop participating in it.
Spaniards were condemned for appeasing terrorism by voting for withdrawing troops from Iraq in the absence of U.N. authorization – that is, for taking a stand rather like that of 70 percent of Americans, who called for the U.N. to take the leading role in Iraq.
Wanton killing of innocent civilians is terrorism, not a war against terrorism.
Terrorists regard themselves as a vanguard. They’re trying to mobilize others to their cause. I mean, every specialist on terrorism knows that.
I’m not afraid of terrorism at all. I’m afraid of loss of our freedom, loss of mobility, loss of global comradeship.
Human rights are not only violated by terrorism, repression or assassination, but also by unfair economic structures that creates huge inequalities.
Before September 11, terrorism was viewed as something ugly but you lived with it.
The key battleground in the war on terrorism, therefore, is in the minds of the American public.
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.
Well, one thing’s very clear, that terrorism isn’t just a threat which is external to Western countries. It’s not simply a foreign menace that comes from overseas to strike our cities. It can and it does, as we now know, come from within our own countries and from inside our own populations.
Therefore, every country has to understand that fighting against international terrorism is not for the sake of the United States, but for the sake of themselves, and, to a larger extent, in the name of stability of international relations.
Many senior government officials, CIA, FBI, counter terrorism officials – when they look back at the decade, they effectively conclude that the United States overreacted after 9/11.
I look forward to taking on issues regarding the Constitution, intellectual property, terrorism, and other legal and regulatory reforms.
Do we fear terrorism so much that we throw out our Constitution, and are we unwilling and afraid to debate our Constitution?
If U.S. occupation is a primary recruitment tool and what inspires Islamic terrorists, are many of our current efforts overseas actually fighting terrorism and diminishing the threat?
The West is in for a long, irregular confrontation – not with terrorism, which is simply a tactic, but with radical Islam.
For years, members of Congress have heard from constituents who want them to protect the nation from crime, terrorism and intellectual property violation. They have not faced equally robust demands that online rights and freedoms be preserved.
For some, the very act of intelligence gathering seems illegitimate when applied to the crime of terrorism.
True satisfaction and true justice, in my belief, will only come for Americans, and for that matter now for Spaniards and Turks and Saudis and Moroccans, when we put an end to terrorism.
Wherever you have weakening states and turmoil, you will have a fertile petri dish for terrorism.
In the United States, it’s the mandate of the FBI to gather information relating to terrorism, go out and collect it, to do the interviews, to do the investigative work.
No one in this body wants to see terrorism and the rule of force prevail in Iraq. Some on the other side say otherwise, but I believe they know better.
When facing terrorism, especially in the wake of awful events, there is a tendency to despair, to see in the battle a problem without a solution.
We are keeping New Jersey one step, several steps, ahead of terrorism.
I am one who believes that we are, in fact, engaged in a worldwide war against terrorism. We must have the serenity to accept the fact that war is not going to go away if we ignore it.
All of the leading terrorism experts are clear on one thing: that in terms of protecting America, we are almost never going to know a place or a time of an attack.
Before 9/11, absolutely, there were concerns about terrorism but the world fundamentally changed.
In 1985, the Iranian sponsorship of terrorism was clear, solid evidence.
Out-of-step intellectuals like Noam Chomsky and the deceased Edward Said have often been dismissed as crazy extremists, ‘anti-American,’ and in Mr. Said’s case even, absurdly, as apologists for Palestinian ‘terrorism.’
When a person is humiliated, when his rights are being violated, and he does not have the proper education, naturally he gravitates toward terrorism.
Dick Clarke, who was head of counter-terrorism in the National Security Council, pushed constantly for the Principals Committee, which is the key national security group of top officials to take up the issue of terrorism.
The attack on Clinton on terrorism is entirely politically inspired by the right-wing of the Republicans, and has no basis in fact whatsoever.
What happened to the Bush Administration regarding terrorism is that they regarded it as a secondary issue, and associated with Clinton. One of those Clinton issues.
That’s driven by any number of factors, the most prominent of which have been the combat experience of two major campaigns – one in Afghanistan and the other in Iraq – and the ongoing demands of the global war on terrorism.
Whistle-blowing and publishing should not be seen as a crime, and certainly not as terrorism.
Britain has a Terrorism Act, which has within it a portion called Schedule 7, which is quite unique. What it is is it gives officials the ability to detain people at the border as they go in or out or even transit through the country.
I think all members of Congress are very concerned about the fact that, while we want to see our law enforcement agencies have every means they can possibly have to combat terrorism, we’ve got to remember that we’ve had a Constitution in place for 225 years, and it has served us well.
After 9/11, the businesses in my district and throughout the New York metropolitan area saw firsthand the result of a lack of availability of terrorism insurance.
The Secret Agent’ remains the most brilliant novelistic study of terrorism as viewed from the blood-spattered outside. But ‘Under Western Eyes’ dares to leap inside – not only into the terrorist mind, but also into the troubled zone that divides West from East, ‘the autocracy in mystic vestments.’
If Syria wants to be part of the international community, there are some conditions that they have to meet. And the first one is to stop embracing the terrorism.
The fact that a terrorist was killed, and it doesn’t matter if it was in Dubai or Gaza, is good news to those fighting terrorism.
Look, we constantly live looking at the issue of the threat of terrorism.
The purpose of terrorism lies not just in the violent act itself. It is in producing terror. It sets out to inflame, to divide, to produce consequences which they then use to justify further terror.
Transnational terrorism, in the form of the Salafi Jihadist movement, is fundamentally a function of globalization.
Al Zarqawi had a long history of terrorism. He was responsible for several bombings and beheadings in Iraq, including Pennsylvania native Nicholas Berg.
But it then very soon became clear that the response of a war against terrorism, initially conceived of in a metaphorical sense, began to be taken increasingly seriously and came to entail waging a real war.
If you have a major disaster involving hundreds of thousands, or in this case millions of people, whether it be a natural disaster or an act of terrorism, the first 72 hours are going to be totally chaotic no matter what you plan to do.
If you allow thousands or millions of unidentified persons into your house, the risk of… terrorism will significantly increase.
We will not import crime, terrorism, homophobia, and a brand of anti-Semitism that sets synagogues ablaze.
In the face of terrorism, a united front is one of the strongest weapons.
And finally, let me just say it is a fact that not every city can dedicate resources to terrorism.
Like crime, terrorism is a fact of life. I grew up in Israel, where every unattended bag was a suspected bomb when my family moved for a few years, it was to London in the early years of ‘the Troubles.’
Palestinian terrorism has to be rejected and condemned, yes. But it should not be translated defacto into a policy of support for a really increasingly brutal repression, colonial settlements and a new wall.
I think the forms of terrorism are becoming very diverse, amongst them cyber-terrorism, for example.
Civilisation, the orderly world in which we live, is frail. We are skating on thin ice. There is a fear of a collective disaster. Terrorism, genocide, flu, tsunamis.