Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 5, No. 2, 2006, Page 39
which he is fighting. Because the one who fights for a just cause and for the freedom and
liberation of his own land in order to set it free from intruders and colonialists, can never be
called a terrorist….‖[16]
What strikes one‘s attention with this and similar positions of the past and present is the
exclusive fixation on the question ―Why.‖ In other words, what is significant is that the focus
is being laid upon the aim and goal of revolutionary violence. The complex sphere of what in
the broadest sense of the word can be understood as the ―jus in bello‖—i.e., the question
about what means and methods are permitted and prohibited when it comes to the
politically motivated use of violence—is neglected and entirely left out of the picture.
Left Wing Terrorism in the Twentieth Century
During the 1960s and 1970s, terrorism was almost exclusively represented by revolutionary
terrorist organizations ideologically motivated from the left side of the political spectrum. As
terrorist groups normally do, these groups tried to draw the world‘s attention to their
political goals. The Italian Red Brigades (Brigate Rosse) attempted to overthrow the existing
societal order by brutal acts of terror among which assaults and kidnapping were most
prominent. In the early seventies, it was the ―Rote Armee Fraktion‖ (RAF), as the Baader-
Meinhof-Gruppe called itself, which released a kind of mob-war against the then West
German political establishment. When the major proponents of the RAF were incarcerated
by 1972, several successor groups and sympathizing elements continued the fight by
committing further terror attacks. The links between the social-revolutionary left wing
terrorism and the Arab-nationalist terrorism were proven not least by the kidnapping of the
Lufthansa airplane by Arab terrorists in 1977. Subsequent to the spectacular liberation of
the hostages by the German Special Forces of ―GSG 9‖ in Mogadishu/Somalia, several
alleged RAF-terrorists committed suicide in the correction facility at Stammheim.
Religious Terrorism as a New Threat
In the 1990s a new generation of terrorists emerged, committing ever more dangerous
violent acts inspired by religious motives. Islamic extremists, ―bible-prone‖ right wingers,
and ―Judgment Day‖ sectarians pursue irrational goals through irrational means. The
Japanese Aum sect under its then leader Shoko Asahara used chemical weapons in its
assault on the Tokyo underground in 1995. This terrorist chemical attack resulted in twelve
deaths and five thousand-five-hundred injured people. The Aum sect dedicated itself to a
―theology of destruction,‖ aiming at the creation of a new ―race of superior man‖ (quite
naturally built by the members of this movement) who were to re-generate the remnants of
a post-apocalyptical world. The ―global reign‖ the Aum had in mind may serve as an
example for possible followers in the future.
The radical Islamic (Shiite) organization ―Hisbollah‖ (Party of God), on the other hand, fights
for the termination of the state of Israel, as well as for the foundation of an Islamic divine
state following the image of Iran. The terrorist organization ―Hamas‖ (Devotion), also wants
to demolish the state of Israel and erect the Islamic state of Palestine. What is common to
the internationally operating Islamic terrorist organizations is their shared goal of fighting
and bringing down the ―big Satan,‖ the United States.[17]
On the Mental Foundation and Psychic Manifestation of Terrorism
At the bottom of the various forms of terrorism—as it is the case with any political, social or
religious movement that stipulates a totalitarian claim—lies a physically as well as
psychically constructed struggle against plurality. It seems to be essential, however, to
distinguish a ―mental fundamentalism‖ from an ―operating fundamentalism.‖ In the
permanent mental dispute between culturally, religiously and politically motivated ideas and
values, we have to distinguish the one who is convinced by his attitudes, but who is

Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 5, No. 2, 2006, Page 40
nevertheless tolerant toward those holding different values, from the one who attempts to
enforce his convictions upon others by political and social realization.
It is for this reason that several commentators have introduced the distinction between
―fundamentalism‖ and ―integralism‖ in order to suggest these differences in thinking and
acting. In the German-speaking realm, the foremost philosopher to emphasize this
differentiation is Robert Spaemann.[18] In Spaemann‘s view, ―fundamentalism‖ represents
an ideology based on a solid and hierarchical system of values, which tries to persuade by
dialogue while basically being tolerant toward other value systems. ―Integralism,‖ in
contrast, encompasses all ideological orientations that attempt to achieve their beliefs and
convictions by use of physical or psychical violence in the here and now.
Thus, generally speaking, we may comprehend more or less all collectivistic-totalitarian
systems as integralisms. The French philosopher Andre Glucksmann is of the opinion that
what happened during the twentieth century and what is continuing into the twenty-first,
has to be viewed as part of the permanent struggle between the various forms of
integralism—as the violent manifestation of fundamentalist thinking—against the open
Western societies. ―The goal of integralism is always de-structuralization, aiming at the
destruction of Western society.‖[19] Glucksmann not only mentions the Islamist integralism
but also the totalitarian ideologies of National Socialism and Marxism-Leninism. In this
―mental chaos,‖ Glucksmann observes a basic struggle between the various kinds of
Integralism, on the one hand, and the democratic-pluralistic societies of the West, on the
other. Collectivistic-ideological groups and parties set up the breeding ground for mental as
well as physical forms of terrorism. The radical Left of the West, to name but one example,
has ever since 1968 sworn itself to an equalizing Marxist dogmatism that aspires toward a
revolution of values that paves the way for spiritual totalitarianism. The value-arbitrary
society is consequently not an open but rather a deeply inhuman society based upon the
might of the powerful.
Moral-Philosophical Reflections and Ethical and Legal Implications of Terrorist
Violence
Among the most controversial problems of the political world today we detect the
justification of the principles and actions of political justice. The chance for conflict—
politically speaking, the chance for war—simultaneously determines the problem of peace.
This challenge has to be seen in the diverse claims for freedom of individuals, interest-
groups, and of social, political and religious nations, states, and state-coalitions, indeed,
entire cultures, which have to be reconciled and, if feasible, peacefully arranged.
Terrorist deeds ground themselves without exception in a ―pre-juridical‖ or, to speak with
Kant, ―moral-juridical‖ realm. Only a moral philosophical reflection on terrorism and the
incentives and goals of terrorist actions, therefore, may enable us to finally answer the
decisive question: ―Are terrorism and terrorist actions morally and ethically justifiable?‖
The instrument of terrorism, the path along which terrorism walks to attain to its goals, is
unlimited application of violence, a direct physical (in an indirect way frequently also
psychic) form of violence, tendentiously devoid of any self-imposed limitations and
confinements. (Compare Graphic Annex 1, ―Structure of Violence‖). Hence, the question
about the moral vindication of terrorist actions can be equated with the essential question
for the legitimate use of violence and force to put through political and ideological goals.
Morality and Violence
The notion of violence in the physical meaning of ―violentia‖ explicitly refers to the
application of physical power and strength to an individual or his material property against
his will. Long ago, already Aristotle reflected on violence as a force imposed upon a victim
without this individual directly contributing to this effect or being able to withdraw from it.