A Quote by Caleb Carr

The definition of terrorism is killing civilians with the intent of changing their political affiliation. — © Caleb Carr
The definition of terrorism is killing civilians with the intent of changing their political affiliation.
Wanton killing of innocent civilians is terrorism, not a war against terrorism.
Anyone with a gun can go out and commit an act of terrorism, even without a political affiliation.
Terrorism, to me, is the use of terror for political purpose, and terror is indiscriminate murder of civilians to make a political point.
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.'
It is changing the face of terrorism. It is basically bringing it to the United States, to our great citizens. We know the terrorists are barbaric and murderers that attack innocent civilians, as they did in this case.
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.
The commonly accepted definition of terrorism is that it is politically motivated violence directed at civilians by entities other than a state. These kind of attacks can come from the far right, the far left, racists of every stripe, as well as jihadists.
Iran uses terrorism very instrumentally as an element of foreign policy; they are not just intent on just killing as many people as possible, like al Qaeda. There's no reason to believe that would change.
India has a consistent and well-known position on terrorism. We oppose all acts of terrorism, wherever they occur. We have repeatedly said that no cause can justify violence and destruction, particularly aimed at civilians.
Terrorism is the intentional use of, or threat to use violence against civilians or against civilian targets, in order to attain political aims.
I make a difference between genocide and Holocaust. Holocaust was mainly Jewish, that was the only people, to the last Jew, sentenced to die for one reason, for being Jewish, that's all. Genocide is something else. Genocide has been actually codified by the United Nations. It's the intent of killing, the intent of killing people, a community in this culture so forth, but no other people has been really interested.
I love being able to be political without any political affiliation.
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.
When we use the word domestic [terrorism], we discount its actual impact as political terrorism, which is, of course, political violence meant to impact an audience outside of the immediate victims.
People are easily shocked when their routine is disrupted and their ease of travel is restricted. We are dealing with a complete new face of terrorism - killing for the sake of killing.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!