Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 5, No. 2, 2006, Page 34
Terminological Clarifications
While some authors and commentators use the terms ‗terror‘ and ‗terrorism‘ synonymously,
others differentiate those terms in the sense that ‗terror‘ refers to the use of terrorist means
―from above,‖ so to say, deriving from the political power structures themselves, whereas
the term ‗terrorism‘ is related to politically motivated violence ―from below.‖
Following these etymological lines, terror can be defined as ―the usage of the domain of
intimidation by the powerful‖ while terrorism can be seen as ―the counterfeiting and practice
of methods of terror by those—for the time being still—‗powerless, despised and desperate‘
who believe not to be taken seriously other than when resorting to terrorist violence.‖[3]
Both terror and terrorism demonstrate pronounced indifference toward the value of human
life, imitate each other in their methods, and—in many cases—are even mutually dependent
upon each other. In the past, for example, dictatorial systems have repeatedly tried to sell
violations of human rights and brutal suppression of individual freedom as inevitable
measures to uphold internal security and national stability.
Terror (State Terrorism) as an Instrument “from Above”
As a historically institutionalized system, terror reached one of its early peaks with the
Jacobin (Terror-) Regime in France near the end of the eighteenth century. The leader of
the French Revolution, Maximilien Robespierre himself, designated the terror applied by the
regime as ―virtuous‖ and emphasized: ―Terror is nothing else but justice, immediate,
unrelenting und unbending justice thus terror is a manifestation of virtue.‖[4]
By the end of the revolutionary period, the ―terror of revolution‖ is frequently found as a
form of violence that, to quote Trotsky, ―reduces all contradictions down to the sole
alternative: Life or death.‖[5] There are, therefore, justifiable reasons to understand and
use the terms terror and terrorism synonymously—not the least of which is that the
terrorism of the National Socialists during the Weimar Republic became a forerunner and, in
fact, was the preparation for the terror of the Third Reich.
Terrorism as an Instrument “from below”
As already mentioned, the term terrorism refers to some kind of politically motivated threat
and application of violence that leads repeatedly, especially in recent times, to severe
disregard of the basic laws of humanity. It seems as though the arbitrary use of terrorist
violence so prominent today does not discern the difference between protected persons or
proscribed ammunitions. In the recent past, therefore, some prominent politicians have
designated the fight against terrorism literally as ―war.‖ In this context, both scientists and
security experts (of different national background) warn against the rise of new, ever more
radical forms of terrorism.
Terrorists want to put pressure on the broad public by spreading fear and uncertainty until
those in power—in the medium or long term—give in to the ideological and political claims
of the perpetrators. Contemporary terrorism particularly fails to show any respect for age,
sex, or descent of the indiscriminately picked victims of their attacks.
Anarchical terrorism as well as political regime terror utilizes the application of violence for
the purpose of spreading fear and intimidation in pursuing either nationalist or revolutionary
goals. Whereas, on the one hand, national terrorism is aiming at getting rid of
heteronymous governance, or attaining national independence or autonomy by way of
illegal use of force, revolutionary terrorism, on the other hand, intends either to bring down
a certain regime or wants to bring about a radical change in the existing political and
societal order.

Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 5, No. 2, 2006, Page 35
However, terrorist groups can also go for both goals at the same time, as is being proven by
the example of the Bask terrorist organization ―Euzkadi Ta Askatasuna/ ETA‖ (Bask
Homeland and Freedom), whose political arm is represented by the left-wing extremist
party, ―Herri Batsuna.‖
Terrorism and Guerilla Warfare
What has been mentioned so far makes it quite conceivable that there is some similarity
between terrorism and guerilla warfare, although the line of demarcation between them is
somewhat blurred. The term ‗guerilla‘ (in Spanish: small war) denotes, on the one hand, the
fight of small (irregular) forces against a hostile armed force, occupational power, or its own
government. On the other hand, the term is also used to designate those forces themselves.
The border between terrorism and guerilla warfare, therefore, is especially blurred when
terrorist groups are fighting for national goals. Thus in the case of revolutionary terrorism
the terms frequently flow back and forth. The ―Irish Republican Army (IRA),‖ for instance,
describes its struggle against the British Forces literally as a guerilla war.[6]
Terrorism and Publicity
In order to confront the broad public with their political goals and ideologies, terrorist
groups and organizations demand a level of renown. It is, therefore, primarily for the reason
of gaining publicity that terrorists do not refrain from the most supreme sacrifices and
cruelties, as they are well aware that the success of their intentions and beliefs is dependent
on their impact on the public.
This is why all conceivable moral or political motives and motivations that could possibly
legitimize—thus, confine and constrain—a terrorist act of violence fall short against the
publicist-aesthetical impact they need to attain in order to succeed. In other words, one
could say that—irrespective of results, costs, and sacrifices—the drama justifies itself simply
because of its exhibitionism. It is therefore primary ―disgust and wrath,‖ which make
foremost certain, rather than overt or covert admiration and sympathy, that ―the news of
terrorist acts and threats disseminates rapidly and widely.‖[7]
From this, a striking difference to regime terror becomes visible, as the terrorist never
intends to draw the public‘s (national as well as international) attention to its own activities.
Very much to the contrary, this type of terrorism profoundly endeavors to conceal its
violation of human rights.
By the refusal of terror regimes to let their own political actions become public, such
regimes prove impressively the immorality of what they do. As Immanuel Kant has made
clear in the supplemental part of his work entitled ―Perpetual Peace,‖ if one abstracts from
all the material of public law (from the various empirically given relationships of men in the
state, or of states to each other)
―there remains only the form of publicity, the possibility of which is implied by every legal
claim, since without it there can be no justice (which can only be conceived as publicly
known) and thus no right, since it can be conferred only in accordance with justice.‖[8]
Thus, it is this ―harmony which the transcendental concept of public right establishes
between morality and politics‖ that seems to be the fundamental gauge for the moral worth
of social and political actions.
Most interestingly, with terrorism this phenomenon presents itself from the other side, as it
were. Whilst terrorism is not bothered about either morality (moral law) or the public law
that rests upon it, terrorism does not hesitate to go public with claims that are devoid of
any moral or legal claim.