“To assume someone because of their age or gender, that they don't pose a threat, would be wrong.”

— Sean Spicer

' White House Tells Dissenters in State Department: 'Get With the Program' or Quit http://time.com/4653958/white-house-dissent-state-department-response/', Time, January 30 2017 (defending the detention of a five year old child)

Adopted from Wikiquote. Last update June 3, 2021. History

Help us to complete the source, original and additional information

Do you have more details about the quote "To assume someone because of their age or gender, that they don't pose a threat, would be wrong." by Sean Spicer?

Sean Spicer6

American political strategist and former White House Pres… 1971

Related quotes

“Iran, Cuba, Venezuela — these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don't pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us. And yet we were willing to talk to the Soviet Union at the time when they were saying, `We're going to wipe you off the planet.”

Barack Obama (1961) 44th President of the United States of America

Campaign rally in Pendleton, Oregon (18 May 2008) http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5glI7UtjQLctRJGUYNpAuFHulunKgD90OUQ4O0 <br class="br">2008

“Better to assume the worst and be wrong than assume the best and be wrong.”

Laurell K. Hamilton book Obsidian Butterfly

Source: Obsidian Butterfly

“Islamic State (IS) is a perversion of the religion of Islam - a poisonous death cult that poses an existential threat.”

David Cameron (1966) Former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom

Cameron is not asking the big question on Islamic State http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33344454 BBC News (2 July 2015) <br class="br">2010s, 2015

“The advent of the nuclear age posed an unprecedented question: not whether war would exact yet more lives but whether war would preclude human existence altogether.”

Bernard Lown (1921–2021) American cardiologist developer of the DC defibrillator and the cardioverter, as well as a recipient of the…

A Prescription for Hope (1985)
Context: The hope of a benevolent civilization was shattered in the blood-soaked trenches of the First World War. The "war to end all wars" claimed sixteen million lives, and left embers which kindled an even more catastrophic conflagration.
Over the sorry course of 5,000 years of endless conflicts, some limits had been set on human savagery. Moral safeguards proscribed killing unarmed civilians and health workers, poisoning drinking waters, spreading infection among children and the disabled, and burning defenseless cities. But the Second World War introduced total war, unprincipled in method, unlimited in violence, and indiscriminate in victims. The ovens of Auschwitz and the atomic incineration of Hiroshima and Nagasaki inscribed a still darker chapter in the chronicle of human brutality. The prolonged agony which left 50 million dead did not provide an enduring basis for an armistice to barbarism. On the contrary, arsenals soon burgeoned with genocidal weapons equivalent to many thousands of World War II's.
The advent of the nuclear age posed an unprecedented question: not whether war would exact yet more lives but whether war would preclude human existence altogether.