Global terrorism is extreme both in its lack of realistic goals and in its cynical exploitation of the vulnerability of complex systems.
Jurgen HabermasRead
Partisans fight on familiar territory with professed political objectives to conquer power. This is what distinguishes them from terrorists
Interpretation
Partisans engage in political conflicts with declared goals, while terrorists lack legitimate political aims.
In this quote, Jurgen Habermas distinguishes between partisans and terrorists, emphasizing that partisans operate within a recognized political framework and aim to achieve specific objectives related to governance and power. In contrast, terrorists act outside this framework, often pursuing violence without legitimate political motives, thereby highlighting the importance of political legitimacy in conflicts.
In practice
In a political debate, one might quote this to explain the distinction between legitimate political resistance and acts of terrorism.
Global terrorism is extreme both in its lack of realistic goals and in its cynical exploitation of the vulnerability of complex systems.
I cannot imagine a context that would some day, in some manner, make the monstrous crime of September 11 an understandable or comprehensible political act
If the September 11 terror attack is supposed to constitute a caesura in world history, it must be able to stand comparison to other events of world historical impact.
The scenarios of biological or chemical warfare painted in detail by the American media during the months after September 11 only betray the inability of the government to determine the magnitude of the danger.
Perhaps September 11 could be called the first historic world event in the strictest sense: the impact, the explosion, the slow collapse - a gruesome reality literally took place in front of a global public.
The difference between political terror and ordinary crime becomes clear during the change of regimes, in which former terrorists become well-regarded representatives of their country.
Politicians like to tell people what they want to hear - and what they want to hear is what won't happen.
There is no excitement anywhere in the world, short of war, to match the excitement of the American presidential campaign.
It's time for political leaders across the ideological spectrum to realize that, while partisanship is understandable, hyper-partisanship is destructive to our country. We need more visionary leaders who will earnestly strive for bipartisanship and finding policy solutions that can move America forward.
All my games were political games; I was, like Joan of Arc, perpetually being burned at the stake.
It is amazing how soon one becomes accustomed to the sound of ones voice, when forced to repeat a speech five or six times a day. As election day approaches, the size of the crowds grows; they are more responsive and more interested; and one derives a certain exhilaration from that which, only a few weeks before, was intensely painful. This is one possible explanation of unlimited debate in the Senate.
In primary school in south-eastern Nigeria, I was taught that Hosni Mubarak was the president of Egypt. I learned the same thing in secondary school. In university, Mubarak was still president of Egypt. I came to assume, subconsciously, that he - and others like Paul Biya in Cameroon and Muammar Gaddafi in Libya - would never leave.
Subscribe for the occasional hand-picked quote. No noise.