Example collocations logo

Civilians in sentence

633 examples of Civilians in a sentence

The strategy – that is, the mandate for the means – is to protect civilians.
Antoon opposed both Saddam Hussein’s brutal dictatorship and the 2003 US-led invasion, which plunged the country into chaos, inflamed ethnic tensions, and killed hundreds of thousands of civilians.
The Second Intifada, with its waves of suicide terrorist attacks that slaughtered hundreds of innocent civilians, followed the Israeli concessions offered at the 2000 Camp David Summit.
Presidential assassinations do not necessarily lead to civil wars, but in Burundi, a large-scale massacre of Tutsi civilians by Hutu immediately followed the coup attempt.
It invokes its effects not by sheer destruction, but by dramatizing atrocious acts against civilians.
It follows, then, that the more liberals from New York or San Francisco, or indeed Houston, agitate for ways to control the sale of guns to civilians, the harder proponents of the right to own lethal weapons will fight back.
At worst, they sometimes employ terrorist tactics (commonly defined as violence that deliberately targets civilians).
These groups might kill civilians, but their main targets are the police and security personnel who threaten their activities.
After one recent disaster, in which more than 100 civilians died, the Pentagon immediately insisted that such bombing operations would continue.
And, unfortunately, Yemeni civilians have paid a high price, with an estimated 10,000 killed since the conflict began.
Moreover, claims that the Saudi coalition has intentionally targeted civilians – or infrastructure, for that matter – have not been substantiated by neutral parties.
If, say, the United Nations agreed to shoulder that responsibility, the war in Yemen could be ended very quickly, protecting civilians from further casualties.
By contrast, authoritarian regimes’ repression of civilians, and their non-differentiation between civilians and killers, provides extremists with fertile recruiting conditions by discrediting the government in the eyes of a significant part of its population.
It would be a mistake to believe that the deaths of thousands of civilians, along with arbitrary imprisonment and torture, do not contribute to the spread of terror in Iraq.
Thailand’s public sector is historically plagued by frequent military coups, managed with rare exception by incompetent generals and civilians who rule with condescension towards the people who pay them to serve.
Israeli Apache and Cobra gunships armed with Hellfire missiles regularly hit their targets from great distances, as do F-16 fighter jets armed with laser-guided munitions, but not without frequent “collateral damage” to innocent civilians.
Suicide bombers who target innocent Israeli civilians – and sometimes legitimate military objectives – rightly or wrongly appear to counterbalance Israeli “strategic” strikes.
Principles of international law – in particular, the emerging “responsibility to protect” doctrine and enforcement of the global ban on the use of chemical weapons – dictate that some form of military intervention must occur in order to deter others from using WMDs, particularly against civilians.
Indeed, multilateral leadership requires not only clearer and bolder rules, but also a demonstrated willingness to bear the costs of those rules, whether by creating safe zones to uphold the “responsibility to protect” civilians or taking concrete steps to reduce – and eventually eliminate – nuclear arsenals.
If the PKK is able to launch a major attack on troops or civilians inside Turkey, the public outcry might leave Erdogan with little choice but to up the ante.
For years, the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina escalated, alongside a “diplomatic process” marked by a series of broken promises, culminating in the massacre at Srebrenica of thousands of civilians supposedly under United Nations protection.
But when a country’s dysfunctional governance has caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians and threatens neighboring countries, such complaints have no place in the debate.
By 1998, the GIA’s primary target was not the army, but civilians, rival leaders’ relatives, and FIS strongholds.
In the name of the “global war on terror,” they have tolerated torture; accepted – and even endorsed – the illegal invasion of Iraq; and allowed innocent civilians to become collateral damage of mechanical drone strikes.
But Sunni extremists have launched some 50 suicide attacks in the last month, killing 500 mostly Shia civilians.
In the Caucasus, everyone is losing, though some more than others – foremost the civilians who have lost their lives or homes.
While roughly 500 people per month were killed from March to August 2011, some 100,000 civilians – around 3,200 per month – died between September 2011 and April 2015, with the total number of dead, including combatants, reaching perhaps 310,000, or 10,000 per month.
It was a brutal war for territory, in which civilians were targeted more often than combatants, making a mockery of international humanitarian law (indeed, it has taken decades to round up known war criminals, some of whose trials remain ongoing).
If the main justification for an attack is humanitarian – to end the senseless slaughter of Syrian civilians – US military intervention would do more harm than good.
It has been proven repeatedly that military intimidation of civilians does not break their morale and turn them against their own leaders, however terrible the regime.
BackNext