A Quote by Malcolm Wrightson Nance

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.
Because of the 9/11 attacks, the framing of terrorism by politicians, the media, and the public too often in the past decade and a half has been that it is Islamist political violence that is the terrorism we need to be concerned about.
You know, Obama says we can't use the word "terrorism." We can't use the word "foreign." We can't use any of these provocative words that insult them. "Islamic terrorism" is a phrase not permitted to be used by the US government.
Terrorism is the intentional use of, or threat to use violence against civilians or against civilian targets, in order to attain political aims.
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.
It was a step forward to charge Pinochet with terrorism, and to acknowledge that the essence of the crime is the use of political violence to induce great fear in society and against those who are innocent, and not just such violence that is directed against the state by opposition groups.
Our party never tolerated those who use violence for political ends. Our leaders lost their lives standing against terrorism.
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.
Terrorism, to me, is the use of terror for political purpose, and terror is indiscriminate murder of civilians to make a political point.
I think NATO is obsolete. NATO was done at a time you had the Soviet Union, which was obviously larger - much larger than Russia is today. I'm not saying Russia is not a threat. But we have other threats. We have the threat of terrorism. And NATO doesn't discuss terrorism. NATO's not meant for terrorism. NATO doesn't have the right countries in it for terrorism.
We want from here to express our solidarity and our support to all the victims of these acts of terrorism and their family members. We reiterate our complete, emphatic rejection of all forms of violence and all forms of terrorism.
When I say that terrorism is war against civilization, I may be met by the objection that terrorists are often idealists pursuing worthy ultimate aims -- national or regional independence, and so forth. I do not accept this argument. I cannot agree that a terrorist can ever be an idealist, or that the objects sought can ever justify terrorism. The impact of terrorism, not merely on individual nations, but on humanity as a whole, is intrinsically evil, necessarily evil and wholly evil.
Outside Westminster, political debate must seem like white noise that bears little relevance to people's everyday lives. But political choices made by the governments we elect have a real impact on how we live.
Terrorism is not an expression of rage. Terrorism is a political weapon. Remove a government's facade of infallibility, and you remove it's people's faith.
We cannot simultaneously fight terrorism, we and our allies, while with the other hand we fund terrorism, arm terrorism and train terrorism.
I think that building political power has to come from the outside and from within. Meaning, we have to build political alternatives to the existing system, and we have to try to impact what is happening in the existing system.
When a man wrote a political screed against the IRS and flew into its building, he was deemed mentally ill, even though it was clearly a political act. There's a double standard, which is: If his name is Muhammad, it's automatically terrorism.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!