Example collocations logo

Terrorism in sentence

1692 examples of Terrorism in a sentence

When an insurgent organization loses control of territory or battlefield momentum, it resorts to terrorism, reasoning that attacks on softer civilian targets are cheaper, easier, and just as politically effective.
ISIS’s objectives in using terrorism are not new; but its capacity for carrying out attacks is.
The goal of Russia’s intervention is therefore not to contribute to the “struggle against terrorism,” as the Kremlin’s propagandists claim, but to restore political control, at any cost, to the regime that spawned the terrorism in the first place.
No country can defeat terrorism on its own.
Malaysia's ethnic Chinese are also impressed by Dr. Mahathir's skillful response to American demands to combat terrorism.
Unfortunately, most of the alternatives call for the continued use of violence and terrorism.
If Arafat had taken this road - accepting Israel's existence, ending terrorism, and confronting Palestinian extremists - the conflict would have ended long ago.
Then, with Palestinians gaining the upper hand, they can advance to a second stage in which all of Israel is conquered, implying armed struggle - which often takes the form of anti-civilian terrorism - for many more years.
Finally, there is the revolutionary Islamist vision espoused by Hamas, which seeks to continue fighting and using terrorism, regardless of how much time it takes and lives it costs, until it defeats both Israel and Palestinian secular nationalists.
Intelligence services can educate the public, explaining the origins of the alienation that underpins terrorism, how radicalization and recruitment occur, and highlight terrorists' goals, methods, and targeting strategies.
In the aftermath of the Madrid bombings, the EU focused on internal aspects of the fight against terrorism.
On the contrary, the EU regards international cooperation as fundamental in the fight against terrorism.
The EU will be tough on terrorism.
But it must also be tough on the causes of terrorism.
Not all of their efforts are altruistic; in a few instances, crowd-funding and informal networks have benefited terrorism.
The threats emanating from the Middle East are diverse: regional conflicts, totalitarian religious ideologies (mainly led by Shia Iran and Wahhabi Saudi Arabia), terrorism, nuclear armament programs, obstacles to modernization, and unstable regimes.
And, earlier this year, the Cameron government was incensed by a decision that barred the deportation of an Islamic preacher to Jordan on terrorism charges, because his trial there might be tainted by evidence obtained under torture.
The Clinton administration acquiesced in the Taliban’s ascension to power in 1996 and turned a blind eye as that thuggish militia, in league with Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence, fostered narcotics trafficking and swelled the ranks of Afghan war alumni waging transnational terrorism.
America’s fond hope to contain terrorism regionally promises instead to ensure that Afghanistan and Pakistan remain a festering threat to regional and global security.
The bomber was Abdullah Asiri, a Saudi citizen and Al-Qaeda member who had returned from Yemen, claiming to have renounced terrorism and wishing to surrender directly to Prince Muhammad in his palace.
In one of the cartoons, the Prophet Mohamed depicted as a terrorist, thereby explicitly equating Islam with terrorism.
Last year’s National Security Strategy reiterated this view, identifying climate change as a top-level strategic risk to US interests, alongside factors like terrorism, economic crisis, and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
The treaties mark an attempt to balance action and ambition in a context of economic crisis, fiscal consolidation, large-scale defense transformations, increasing interdependencies, and global threats – from terrorism and nuclear proliferation to climate change, resource scarcity, and epidemics – that are impossible to tackle unilaterally.
Moreover, the agreements foresee cooperation on cyber-security, terrorism, satellite communications, and maritime security, which are also key elements of the Lisbon Treaty.
The constant threat of terrorism has made this isolation even more dramatic for the Europe’s Islamic populations.
But the wait for war adds to uncertainties that already weigh on the American, and the global, economy:uncertainties arising from America's looming fiscal deficit, due to macroeconomic mismanagement and a tax cut that the country cannot afford;uncertainties arising from the unfinished "war on terrorism";uncertainties associated with the massive corporate accounting and banking scandals, and the Bush Administration's half-hearted efforts at reform, as a result of which no one knows what America's corporations are worth;uncertainties connected to America's massive trade deficit, which has reached all- time records.
The Bush administration, eager to have a democratically elected government in Pakistan to continue the fight against terrorism, was believed to have brokered the agreement.
A report reflecting the joint judgment of US intelligence agencies warned last year that the use of water as a weapon of war or a tool of terrorism would become more likely in the next decade in some regions.
An odd coalition of Iranian radicals, AIPAC, the Saudi-led Sunni alliance, the Israeli government, and US politicians from both parties have already compelled Obama to promise additional sanctions on Iran for its sponsorship of terrorism.
Otherwise, terrorism is more difficult to combat and the digital revolution risks reversal.
BackNext