Example collocations logo

Terrorism in sentence

1692 examples of Terrorism in a sentence

More than 2,000 terrorism suspects and those suspected of other major forms of crime have been arrested and extradited on the basis of a European Arrest Warrant.
But, while Europe’s defenses have been considerably strengthened, the threat of terrorism has not diminished.
Afghanistan remains a critical front-line state in the fight against terrorism.
While progress on the road to peace between Israel and the Palestinians would not by itself stop terrorism, it would deal a powerful blow to terrorist incitement and propaganda.
Detention without trial is counterproductive in the fight against terrorism.
As if that weren’t enough, there is the unraveling Middle East, advancing climate change, terrorism, and now a new disease – the Zika virus – on the march.
The fear in some circles in India remains that Singh’s government has run out of ideas when it comes to dealing with Pakistan – or at least that it has no good alternatives to a counterproductive military attack on the sources of terrorism or a stagnant silence.
Progress on the big questions – the Kashmir dispute and Pakistan’s use of terrorism as an instrument of policy – will require much more groundwork and constructive, gradual action.
Retired high-level officers from all branches of the US Armed Forces have taken this logic a step further, telling congressional leaders that combating terrorism requires addressing its causes, such as lack of opportunity, insecurity, injustice, and hopelessness.
Only recently, George W Bush evicted North Korea from his “axis of evil” by removing that country from America’s list of countries that sponsor terrorism.
Second, in order to understand how to cope with the problems that plague us – from terrorism to nuclear proliferation – it is sensible to know how and whence they emerged.
To be sure, even a decisive regional strategy by the US and its Western partners will not stop terrorism and violence in Iraq or, indeed, in the Middle East overnight.
Four Americans out of ten agree with him, whereas less than three in ten deem terrorism or Iran more dangerous.
And, on the bottom board of transnational issues outside the control of governments – including everything from climate change to pandemics to transnational terrorism – power is chaotically distributed, and it makes no sense at all to claim American hegemony.
Nowadays, activism and terrorism provide, or rather impose, a new source of legitimacy.
Many see this movement as something negative, emphasizing the fact that these people are socially uprooted, which leads to alienation and, for some, to terrorism.
The top board of military power is unipolar; but on the middle board of economic relations, the world is multipolar., andOon the bottom board of transnational relations– comprising issues (such as like climate change, illegal drugs, Avian flu, and terrorism) – power is chaotically distributed.
America needs to use hard power against terrorists, but it cannot hope to win the struggle against terrorism unless it gains the hearts and minds of moderates.
Probably the greatest danger is the intersection of terrorism with nuclear materials.
Preventing this requires policies for to counteringfight terrorism and promote, non-proliferation, better protection of nuclear materials, stability in the Middle East, as well as greater nd attention to failed states.
Anti-capitalist radicalism pushed many Western protesters toward the extreme left, rejection of liberal democracy, and, in some cases, terrorism.
By comparing Islam in general – not only Islamist terrorism – to fascism, as the right-wing populists do, and to suggest that Europe faces a threat comparable to the Nazis, is not just wrong, but dangerous.
But however justified criticism of growing US unilateralism may be--in the so-called war on terrorism and elsewhere--the gravest risks facing Russia lie elsewhere.
Afflicted by corruption, the law-enforcement authorities are not in a position to prevent the threat of terrorism or to crush organized crime.
But the toughness was reserved solely for the current Palestinian leadership: without mentioning Yasir Arafat by name, Bush clearly called for a new Palestinian leadership, one "not compromised by terrorism."
The current leadership, he maintained, has not fought terrorism, but has instead encouraged and even "trafficked" in it.
He condemned the Palestinian Authority's rejection of Israeli peace offers and promised US support for statehood if the Palestinians change their leadership, reiterating that "a Palestinian state will not be achieved by terrorism."
By adopting this policy, Bush is walking a fine line between Arab pressure to support the emergence of a Palestinian state and his own commitment to fight terrorism and not reward suicide bombers.
But until now, at least, the Palestinians have not been good at building institutions that are not contaminated by terrorism.
These leaders preferred terrorism, because they were not ready for a historic compromise with the Jewish state.
BackNext