A Quote by Gijs de Vries

We are familiar with terrorism. But indiscriminate, cross-border, religiously motivated terrorism is new. — © Gijs de Vries
We are familiar with terrorism. But indiscriminate, cross-border, religiously motivated terrorism is new.
We cannot simultaneously fight terrorism, we and our allies, while with the other hand we fund terrorism, arm terrorism and train terrorism.
There is no such things as "Islamic terrorism," because terrorism differs from Islam. There's just terrorism, not Islamic terrorism. But the term "Islamic terrorism" has become widespread.
We stand stoutly against all forms of terrorism, and cross-border terror is a particular problem that India has. Singapore has a problem with cross-border terror, too, because we are a very small country, and it is quite possible for an attack to be mounted on Singapore from beyond our shores.
The world's biggest challenge comes from the threats of climate change and terrorism. In India's case, terrorism is not bred in some faraway land but from across our border.
There are two kinds of terrorism. Rational terrorism such as Palestinian terrorism and apocalyptic terrorism like Sept. 11. You have to distinguish between the two.
If you view terrorism in Syria from one perspective and terrorism outside Syria from another perspective, it can create problems. If you view terrorism in categories such as good terrorism and bad terrorism, that too can create its own challenges.I think we should not look at these questions individually.
So far, the official definitions of terrorism have the role of demonizing the enemies of the United States and Israel, and of sanitizing recourse to indiscriminate force by both governments that causes widespread death of innocent civilians. This double standard is built around the current way in which the vocabulary of terrorism is being used in this country.
Beyond the futility of armed force, and ultimately more important, is the fact that war in our time inevitably results in the indiscriminate killing of large numbers of people. To put it more bluntly, war is terrorism. That is why a 'war on terrorism' is a contradiction in terms.
We believe America is practicing all kinds of terrorism against Libya. Even the accusation that we are involved in terrorism is in itself an act of terrorism.
A war against terrorism is an impracticable conception if it means fighting terrorism with terrorism.
There should be no cricket and Bollywood ties with Pakistan till Pakistan stops cross-border terrorism.
We have to decide why terrorism is a new threat. There has always been terrorism.
Initially, terrorism was a certain mixture of politics, economics, and religion. Now, it seems that terrorism is more individual and done to avenge personal grudges. So there are two kinds of terrorism.
People of the United States have to really consider whether they want to be an empire. Sweden is not worried about terrorism. New Zealand is not worried about terrorism. Holland is not worried about terrorism. Why not be a modest little country without all of these enormous ambitions?
Part of this new world of completely improvisational terrorism is that there were codes of war that disintegrated in the face of terrorism.
There's a problem of terrorism in the world. There's always been terrorism. There will be terrorism. You have to deal with it surgically. You have to deal with it in a serious way.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!