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.

Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 5, No. 2, 2006, Page 36
Certainly, there is considerable difference between the measure of violence that the
terrorists of our time are ready to apply and the terrorist violence of earlier epochs.
Whereas the terrorist anarchists of the past were technically limited—provided they did not
constrain themselves by self-imposed limitations—today‘s terror activists appear to be
bereft of any ethical considerations regarding the means and methods they are using. Due
to this fact, and also because of the constantly growing destructive capacity of modern
weapons and war materials, the threat of terrorism becomes ever more severe.
Extensions of the Term Terrorism
In the early 1990s, the term terrorism became extended by two new terms, namely ―drug-
terrorism‖ and ―gray-zone phenomenon.‖ Drug terrorism refers to the targeted use of drug
trafficking by governments or terrorist organizations to reach political goals. The term gray-
zone phenomenon is used to describe the threat against the stability of nation-states
emanating from non-state actors as well as the destabilizing developments and impacts
resulting from external non-governmental actors. These dimensions throw a light on the
dynamically altering character of sub-national conflict as it arose to an ever increasing
degree after the end of the Cold War.
Tackling the phenomenon of terrorism must not leave aside another significant aspect that
plays—or at least can play—a decisive role in the attempt to grasp the threat in its entirety.
This aspect relates to the fact that terrorism has to be considered in many cases as a
psychopathological phenomenon. It is not in a few cases that rational deliberations are
missing what is in the foreground as a driving motive is simply the urge, the passion to kill.
In his book ―The New Terrorism—Fanaticism and the Arms of Mass Destruction,‖ Walter
Laqueur portrays the long ignored fact that has already been described in Wordsworth‘s
famous commentary on a Shakespeare play about the ―motive hunting of a motiveless
malignity,‖ with these words:
―Some creed is usually needed—even blind rage has to find a focus—but how often could a
terrorist of the extreme left, but for some biographical accident, say, the influence of a
friend or some charismatic figure he encountered, have turned to the extreme right or some
sectarian group, and vice versa?‖[9]
This makes more than clear that ideological motivation of whatever political or religious
nature does not necessarily have to be the driving force behind terrorism.
Observations on the History of Ideas and the Origins of Modern Terrorism
Already in antiquity we find organized terrorist groups who tried to spread terror
systematically. Terrorism as an attempt—by way of criminal violence—to generate fear on a
broad scale to attain political goals, can thus look back on an ancient and long tradition. In
the history of terrorist violence we find the members of an Islamic secret society who
perpetrated their terror attacks between the eleventh and thirteenth century in the Middle
East. This society, later called the Assassins (from the French ‗assassin‘—murderer), was
created by the Persian Hasan-I Sabbah. Subsequent to his conquest of the northern Persian
fortification of Alamut in the year 1090, he and his followers threatened the Crusaders as
well as Muslim sovereigns with murderous attacks carried out by his fanatic assassins.
Although these ceased to be a major force, ―their main contribution was perhaps originating
the strategy of the terrorist disguised—taqfir, or deception—as a devout emissary but in fact
on a suicide mission, in exchange for which he was guaranteed the joys of paradise.‖[10]
Terrorism in the narrower, modern understanding goes back to the assaults and violent acts
of the anarchists in the nineteenth century. One of the most prominent forerunners of
modern-age terrorism is the Italian (Republican) extremist Carlo Pisacane. Initially
belonging to the Italian high aristocracy, Pisacane turned away from his class, relinquished
his related societal position and dedicated himself to a year-long fight against the Bourbons,