Example collocations logo

Terrorism in sentence

1692 examples of Terrorism in a sentence

This one-size-fits-all approach may be convenient, but the failure to differentiate among suicide bombers vastly oversimplifies the realities that define the fight against terrorism.
Failure to recognize this works to the advantage of religiously motivated terrorists because all the energy spent on fighting terrorism is spent on repression, leaving legitimate nationalist goals unaddressed and strengthening popular support for terrorism of all kinds.
Greater political cooperation would provide a context for discussing issues like the future of Afghanistan, international terrorism, and nuclear proliferation, as well as for creating joint initiatives and strategies that address crucial issues affecting both powers.
To force Libya to hand over the plotters, compensate victims’ families, and cease terrorism, the Council froze all air commerce in an out of the country, all aircraft maintenance, and all arms shipments, as well as reducing diplomatic representation.
Confronting continued, albeit fraying sanctions, Qadaffi threw his weight behind the pragmatists, turning the Lockerbie bombers over to face trial, renouncing the terrorism that he had promoted, and expelling the foreign terrorists who made Libya their home.
My question focused not on Islamist terrorism – the ostensible ground of Trump’s outburst – but on the threat posed by large-scale Muslim immigration to the code of morals that my young friends, like most educated Europeans, now accept without question.
If we are to avoid sleepwalking into a highly troublesome future, we must recognize that failed integration, not terrorism, is the main danger we face.
This, in turn, underlines another fundamental reality – that the fight against international terrorism cannot be won without demilitarizing and de-radicalizing Pakistan, including by rebalancing civil-military relations there and reining in the country’s rogue Inter-Services Intelligence agency.
Make no mistake: the scourge of Pakistani terrorism emanates more from the country’s Scotch whisky-sipping generals than from the bead-rubbing mullahs.
Without reform of the Pakistani army and ISI, there can be no end to transnational terrorism – and no genuine nation-building in Pakistan.
Indoctrination begins at a young age through family, education, and media, and later encourages more aggressive resistance, including terrorism.
Europe's perceived attitude towards rogue states and global terrorism only enhances this perception of self-satisfied inwardness.
Consider Pakistan, which has the world’s fastest-growing nuclear arsenal and suffers relentless jihadi terrorism and separatist violence.
Such terms seek to borrow legitimacy from the past and to explain the present – in a way that most serious scholars of either Islam or terrorism never found very helpful.
Alas, the same holds true for most such challenges, from terrorism and climate change to weapons proliferation and public health.
In the fight against terrorism, the Strategy abandons the predominantly military viewpoint underlying the war against terror, and embraces a more significant role for the intelligence services.
The US is not waging a war against terrorism; it is at “war against a specific network, al Qaida, and its affiliates.”
The Palestinian leader Yasir Arafat turned him down flat and instead returned to a massive campaign of terrorism against Israel.
This approach appealed to the vast majority of Israelis, regardless of their political loyalties, and the victory in January’s Palestinian election by Hamas, which extols terrorism and demands Israel’s extinction, only reinforced the new strategic consensus.
The Algerian TragedyEXETER – Commenting on the recent Algerian hostage crisis on an international news channel, one terrorism “expert” made a remarkable claim: “Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) was founded because of the so-called Arab Spring, after we abandoned our Libyan ally [Colonel Muammar el-Qaddafi].”
Europeans and Americans also worked to enlarge NATO and collaborated against terrorism in Afghanistan.
Bridging these differences will not be easy, even though the US, for all its power, needs partners to fight terrorism, nuclear weapons proliferation, and global climate change.
Bush and his hardline advisers believed that only force or “regime change” would stop these “rogue” states’ terrorism or their programs to acquire “weapons of mass destruction.”
Likewise, many of the problems that we now face – whether climate change, financial crisis, development challenges, terrorism, or nuclear proliferation – reflect growing global interdependence.
This was demonstrated by the American and world reaction to terrorism.
If a state fails to live up to its side of the bargain by sponsoring terrorism, either transferring or using weapons of mass destruction, or conducting genocide, then it forfeits the normal benefits of sovereignty and opens itself up to attack, removal, or occupation.
Political instability, war, and terrorism could result, with dire effects both at home and abroad, including in Europe.
Of course, governments cite all sorts of reasons, security concerns such as those relating to terrorism now being at the top of the list, to justify the repression of NGOs and other civil society groups.
Moreover, they have implemented repressive media laws that amount to state control of the Internet, which they claim is necessary to preserve stability, fight terrorism, or defend national sovereignty from Western interference.
Yet it is also clear that the Palestinians are unable to create a polity untainted by terrorism and free of an ideology that violently repudiates Israel's right to exist.
BackNext