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.
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.
