You cannot make peace with terrorists. The normal dividing lines between war and peace do not apply.

And the terror itself is an example of the world's uncontrollability.

All theory of modernity in sociology suggests that the more modernity there is, the less religion. In my theory we can realize that this is wrong: atheism is only one belief system among many.

And it also became clear that these conditions of inequality and historical injustice have given rise to a feeling of hate in the world - a deeply felt hate that cannot easily be overcome with a few good words.

The basic assumption of the secular society is that modernity overcomes religion.

Initially, the horrific images of September 11th triggered an enormous wave of solidarity.

We are living in a world that is beyond controllability.

You could say that we are living in an internally globalized country.

Europe itself is an embodiment of this diversity.

The world has become so complex that the idea of a power in which everything comes together and can be controlled in a centralized way is now erroneous.

But it then very soon became clear that the response of a war against terrorism, initially conceived of in a metaphorical sense, began to be taken increasingly seriously and came to entail waging a real war.

Global conditions are far too complex to be able to imagine that they could ever be really controlled by one power.

Nonetheless, we continue to be obsessed with finding or inventing a European nation which, as in the nation state, guarantees homogeneity and thus an appropriate form of democracy and centralized government.

That was the first major social sciences conference at which social scientists from all cultures wanted to reach a consensus on whether we can continue to pursue a national course in the social sciences or whether we need a cosmopolitan path that also connects us in a new way.

Western countries in particular can today no longer be separated from Muslim societies, because they have them within themselves. They are themselves internally globalized.

We do not yet have the solutions to these questions, but the awareness that we live in an endangered world is present in more and more life situations.

I forced myself to think what is the new concept and it became clear to me that it was risk, not only in technology and ecology, but in life and employment, too.

In the first instance, therefore, global terrorism created a kind of global community sharing a common fate, something we had previously considered impossible.

When they come to Europe, they are confronted by still closed borders. Thus, the concept of open borders is a very selective concept, one that is not taken seriously at all in the experience of non-Europeans.

Relinquishing apparent national sovereignty does not have to entail a loss of national sovereignty, but can actually be a benefit.

Neither science, nor the politics in power, nor the mass media, nor business, nor the law nor even the military are in a position to define or control risks rationally.

In the final analysis, terror is also another proof of the fact that the superpower is not really a superpower. It was vulnerable.

The idea that you surrender your identity when you relinquish national powers is unhelpful. No, indeed, precisely the opposite is the case: if done in an intelligent way, you attain the sovereignty to better solve national problems in cooperation with others.

Accordingly, globalization is not only something that will concern and threaten us in the future, but something that is taking place in the present and to which we must first open our eyes.

And therefore we must seek dialogue in this networked world. We must ask which voice was actually attempting to make itself heard and saw no other possibility of gaining a hearing. To that extent, for a while this also represented a forced opening of a cosmopolitan view.

I held a conference in Harvard where Americans said they didn't believe in risk. They thought it was just European hysteria. Then the terrorist attacks happened and there was a complete conversion. Suddenly terrorism was the central risk.

You need education. You need subsistence protection. We need jobs and social security. These are preconditions under which it will perhaps be possible to deal with these complex circumstances.

You cannot make peace with terrorists. The normal dividing lines between war and peace do not apply.

This experience actually means the very opposite: the largest military power was unable to stop such a sensitive attack and will be unable to rule out such a possibility in the future. Precisely this is the background to the United States' military interventions.

Accordingly globalization is not only something that will concern and threaten us in the future but something that is taking place in the present and to which we must first open our eyes.

I've made my peace with myself.

At the end, the realization is that she had to get to a place in her life where she could drop her guard and make peace with the fact that whether she had a small amount of time, that she had to kind of live it completely through, instead of living by the rules.

Arafat rejected the deal because, as a dictator who had directed all his energies toward strengthening the Palestinians hatred toward Israel, Arafat could not afford to make peace.

But the deep desire for peace remained with the American people.

Peace does not include a vendetta; there will be neither winners nor losers.

There is nothing more agreeable in life than to make peace with the Establishment - and nothing more corrupting.

One does not need buildings, money, power, or status to practice the Art of Peace. Heaven is right where you are standing, and that is the place to train.

We believe that peace is not just signed papers, but rather a contract between generations for the building of a more promising and less threatening future.

Peace will be when you accept it in your heart.

Never for the sake of peace and quiet deny your convictions.

To me our bombing policy appears to be suicidal. Not because it does not do vast damage to our enemy, it does; but because, simultaneously, it does vast damage to our peace aim, unless that aim is mutual economic and social annihilation.

Peace Train is a song I wrote, the message of which continues to breeze thunderously through the hearts of millions of human beings.

We look forward to the time when the power to love will replace the love of power. Then will our world know the blessings of peace.

Although the troops have struck us, we throw it all behind and are glad to meet you in peace and friendship.

The methods of peace propaganda which aim at establishing peace doctrine by argument and by creating a feeling favorable to peace in general seem to fall short of reaching the springs of human action and of dealing with the causes of the conduct which they seek to modify.

That co-operation and peace rather than industrial strife and strikes will best promote the prosperity of the employees the company and all of the people and even strengthen the nation.

We have the melancholy dilemma of not being in a state to make peace or to prosecute war.

Peace, if it ever exists, will not be based on the fear of war but on the love of peace.

We leave as we came and, god willing, as we shall return, with peace, and hope for all mankind.