Quotes About Terrorism

We have this unfortunate habit in the United States of dividing terrorism into different categories. External, foreign terrorism, which manifests itself overseas or in the United States, or domestic terrorism.

Unfortunately, in this Obama Government, we have charges of drug trafficking and terrorism. For Evo, it's drug trafficking. For Hugo, it's terrorism. Evo Morales, drug trafficking. Hugo Chavez, terrorism.

I think the Saudis are not only not supporting terrorism, they're fighting it. And why? Because it is in their interests to fight it. We don't agree on everything, but I do believe that the Saudis for their benefit, they're fighting terrorism and fighting it quite aggressively.

Obviously radical Islamic terrorism is a big problem, but there are all sorts of kinds of horrific terrorism that take place.

It isn't poverty that breeds terrorism, but terrorism that breeds poverty.

Sometimes people say to me, 'Well, what was the difference between Kosovo, which was a successful intervention, and Iraq and Afghanistan that have been so difficult?' And the answer is perfectly simple. In Kosovo, you have, after the removal of the loss of its regime, you had a process of political and economic reconstruction that took its part without the intervention of terrorism. If you had the intervention of terrorism, by the way, it would have been extremely difficult there - but we didn't.

The law enforcement agents believe they cannot call terrorism "terrorism" unless and until they uncover evidence proving that the Muslim mass murderers have some tie to a designated non-Islamic terror group like ISIS or Al-Qaeda, and bingo, bingo. What do we get today? "There's an ISIS connection," and once again none of this has anything to do with Islam. That's how it works at the highest levels of our government.

There are no automatic links between poverty and terrorism. Among millions of poor people in the world, only a few turn to terrorism.

As many critics have pointed, out, terrorism is not an enemy. It is a tactic. Because the United States itself has a long record of supporting terrorists and using terrorist tactics, the slogans of today's war on terrorism merely makes the United States look hypocritical to the rest of the world.

No one can have two viewpoints about terrorism. There is no religion of terrorism. I am often asked my viewpoint on this, maybe because i am very proud to be a Muslim

Certainly, the fight against terrorism is a legitimate fight. And certainly whoever commits terrorism should be brought to justice.

The terrorism of the suicide bomber and the terrorism of aerial bombardment are indeed morally equivalent. To say otherwise (as either side might) is to give one moral superiority over the other, and thus serve to perpetuate the horrors of our time.

If you're going to fight terrorism, to me, you fight the root causes of terrorism.

We have to decide why terrorism is a new threat. There has always been terrorism.

The core belief that drives terrorism is the notion of a "holy place," along with the idea that some people belong there and other people don't. That's why the only solution to terrorism is for religious scholars to hold a global summit to agree on the definition of "holy place." Once they agree on a definition, it will be easier to mock it into submission.

Terrorism really doesn't strike at physical structures as much as it strikes at ideas, and its main fear is ideas. And cartoonists are particularly effective at distilling ideas.

When we think of the major threats to our national security, the first to come to mind are nuclear proliferation, rogue states and global terrorism. But another kind of threat lurks beyond our shores, one from nature, not humans - an avian flu pandemic.

Alternatively, suppose Qaddafi winds up hanging from a lamppost in his favorite party dress. If you're a Third World dictator, what lessons would you draw? Qaddafi was the thug who came in from the cold, the one who (in the wake of Saddam's fall) renounced his nuclear program and was supposedly rehabilitated in the chancelleries of the West. He was a strong partner in the war on terrorism, according to U.S. diplomats. And what did Washington do? They overthrew him anyway.

We can't simply scare people into giving up their rights, on the basis, oh, this protects us from terrorism.

I intend to vote for President George W. Bush in the next election, because in my view, he is best able to wage the war against international terrorism.

My point was simply that the war on global terrorism is going to be a long one, and we need to adapt as our enemy adapts.

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.

Terrorism thrives on a free society. The terrorist uses the feelings in a free society to sap the will of civilization to resist. If the terrorist succeeds, he has won and the whole of free society has lost.

All American and Israeli goods and products should be boycotted in a way that undermines American and Israeli interests so as to act as deterrence to their war against Muslims and Islam that is being waged under the pretence of fighting terrorism. This boycott should become an overwhelming trend that makes these two states feel that their economies are in a real and actual danger.

It's not only America. Terrorism now is a threat to the whole world.

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.

You must use force against terrorism.

Perhaps worse still is what liberal societies might do to themselves in the face of this new and different threat [of terrorism]. They begin, by small but dangerous increments, to cease to be as liberal as they once were. They begin to restrict their own hard-won rights and freedoms as a protection against the crminial minority who attempt (and as we thus see, by forcing liberty to commit suidcide, succed in doing) to terrorise society.

We have an interest in combating tactics in war that are abhorrent and that only fuel terrorism because they incite people on the ground.

It [9/11 tragedy] was the spectacle, what al-Qaeda gets its main power from - why their terrorism truly earns the word "acts." They are very theatrical, always - the simultaneous violence, the grandiose, symbolic gestures (the number 911, "United" and "American" flights, the World Trade as target etc). And then its aftermath.

We're looking at a president [Barack Obama] who's engaged in double-speak where he doesn't call radical Islamic terrorism by its name. Indeed, he gives a speech after the San Bernardino attack where his approach is to try to go after the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens rather than to keep us safe.

A faithful person who prays regularly does not go and plant bombs here and there. It is just people who pretend to be Muslims, those who depict themselves as Muslims, who perpetrate bombings, or Darwinists who make it clear that they are terrorists or communists who commit terrorism. Consequently, they are all Darwinists.

The enemy for the fanatic is pleasure, which makes it extremely important to continue to indulge in pleasure. Dance madly. That is how you get rid of terrorism.

We have to be on guard that we don't spend so much time worrying about terrorism and guarding ourselves that we start to lose the essence of who we are as an open, freedom-loving people, welcoming to the rest of the world.

Failure of government programs prompts more determined effort, while the loss of liberty is ignored or rationalized away...whether is it is the war on poverty, drugs, terrorism...or the current Hitler of the day, an appeal to patriotism is used to convince the people that a little sacrifice of liberty, here or there, is a small price to pay...The results, though, are frightening and will soon become even more so.

There's a lot of anxiety about terrorism among the country at large. There's also a feeling the country has stagnated.

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.

The Iraqi elections struck a blow to the heart of global terrorism.

[Iranians] are a sponsor of terrorism around the world and we have to address that.

You made these things up yourselves and now scare yourselves with them and even use them to plan your prospective policies. These policies have no prospects. The only possible future is in cooperation in all areas, including security issues. What is the major security problem today? Terrorism. There are bombings in Europe, in Paris, in Russia, in Belgium. There is a war in the Middle East. This is the main concern. But no, let us keep speculating on the threat from Russia.

I would say, we have had a lot of problems with radical Islamic terrorism, that's what I'd say.

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.

Because we're not as serious about terrorism as we can be, people all across the globe feel like they can just murder innocent people.

What is the influence of Sun Tzu in the world today? Perhaps there are others who are better qualified than I to speculate about that question. Sun Tzu's ideas, as expressed in his famous treatise, have undoubtedly influenced the nature of many revolutionary movements that are arrayed against more powerful forces, and in some cases - as in Vietnam - have played a useful role in bringing about success. But such ideas are always in conflict with other deepseated emotional factors, which propel dissident movements into the rampant use of terrorism and other forms of anarchistic struggle.

Everything has become very corporate and very careful. Before we had a real democracy going and there were a lot of freedoms and now there's this terrorism thing that everybody's focused on, which is really a boondoggle in my opinion. It's just an excuse to clamp down on people's free speech. And corporations intimidate people and everybody's gotten intimidated and that's really what it is, and they just keep going along. It's almost like - a little bit like that Charlie Chaplin movie, Modern Times, or 1984, Orwell

I think that my stance on having people come in to this country that we have no idea who they are and in certain cases you will have radical Islamic terrorism. I'm not going to have it in this country. I'm not going to let what happened to France and other places happen here. We have hundreds of thousands of people that have been allowed into our country that should not be here. They shouldn't be here. They have no documentation and they were allowed under the previous administrations, they were allowed into our country. It's a big mistake.

Hamas retains the right to defend Gaza by the use of the weaponry at its disposal, and is thus not committed to nonviolence, but it does offer the possibility of greater peace and stability for both Israelis and Palestinians if the label of "terrorism" was abandoned and the search for accommodation was commenced in good faith.

It is changing the face of terrorism. It is basically bringing it to the United States, to our great citizens. It is -- we know terrorists are barbaric, and murderers that attack innocent civilians, as they did in this case.