A Quote by Alan Dershowitz

Asymmetrical warfare is a euphemism for terrorism, just like collateral damage is a euphemism for killing innocent civilians. — © Alan Dershowitz
Asymmetrical warfare is a euphemism for terrorism, just like collateral damage is a euphemism for killing innocent civilians.
Islamic law is clearly against terrorism, against any kind of deliberate killing of civilians or similar 'collateral damage.'
Wanton killing of innocent civilians is terrorism, not a war against terrorism.
Faith is a euphemism for prejudice and religion is a euphemism for superstition.
What I do know is that drones are a modern weapon. When used effectively, when taking out ISIS or terrorist leaders, that's pretty impressive. When bombing wedding parties of innocent people and killing dozens of them, that is, needless to say, not effective and enormously counterproductive. So whatever the mechanism, whoever is in control of that policy, it has to be refined so that we are killing the people we want to kill and not innocent collateral damage.
We used to have a War Office, but now we have a Ministry of Defence, nuclear bombs are now described as deterrents, innocent civilians killed in war are now described as collateral damage and military incompetence leading to US bombers killing British soldiers is cosily described as friendly fire. Those who are in favour of peace are described as mavericks and troublemakers, whereas the real militants are those who want the war.
Euphemism is a euphemism for lying.
There are no innocent civilians, so it doesn't bother me so much to be killing innocent bystanders.
We need to make sure that whenever we're engaging in a cyber-warfare campaign, a cyber-espionage campaign in the United States, that we understand the word cyber is used as a euphemism for the internet, because the American public would not be excited to hear that we're doing internet warfare campaigns, internet espionage campaigns, because we realize that we ourselves are impacted by it.
So here we have it. The equivocating distinction between civilisation and savagery, between the "massacre of innocent people" or, if you like, "a clash of civilisations" and "collateral damage". The sophistry and fastidious algebra of infinite justice.
The definition of terrorism is killing civilians with the intent of changing their political affiliation.
Can a nation use the methods of terrorism? Can it harm innocent civilians in the process? What are the costs? Where is the line?
A lot of my friends are gangsters. Not like gangsters - well, yeah, all sorts of levels of criminality - but not the types that are preying on innocent people. I have no interest in the type of criminality that has no respect for collateral damage.
We have got to bring together the best resources in America to understand that cyber warfare is the new warfare of the asymmetrical enemies that we face in this country.
Our enemy of international terrorism respects no laws of warfare or morality, and its individual members take innocent lives, just to create chaos for news cameras.
When John Murtha, for example, said the Marines are killing innocent civilians in cold blood.
Gratitude is a euphemism for resentment.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!