I believe that few Political Scientists will disagree when I say that no other trial has had greater impact on European history during the last 100 years than the case against Captain Alfred Dreyfus in Paris in 1894. The modern Zionism and the establishment of Israel as a Sovereign State was but one of several results of this remarkable case. In France the State was completely separated from the Church. The case was exploited for whatever it was worth to advocate practically every conceivable political ideology, from the re-establishment of the "Enlightened Despotism" to the struggle for Marxist-Leninism, from the abolishment of national states in favor of Anarchism to dictatorial syndicalism in Spain, or to the principle of "il Duce" under Mussolino in Italy.

But is not modern terrorism just as inextricably linked to the Dreyfus case by the theories that were voiced by Georges Sorel in 1906-08 ("Réflexions sur la violence"), in which he claimed that society can only change (and consequently be maintained) by violent means, and where the actions of the terrorist are glorified, and made good, even legalized by their "historical mission"?

Terror has been applied systematically against governments, the public, ethnic groups or single individuals since times immemorial, and is definitely not a modern invention. Even in those days the Greek historian Xenophon described the rewards of psychological warfare. Terrorism has been applied by political organizations aimed at targets left and right alike, nationalistic, ethnic and religious factions as well as by revolutionaries, military, secret police, and in full public view by several governments, regardless of their political motivations. Just look at Caucasus, Balkan, Afghanistan, Indonesia, and the rest of the political madhouse. So far in the sad history of mankind terror has again and again proved an efficient tactical means to consolidate strategic positions. Democratic institutions are only in exceptional cases able to resist sustained terrorism. The reason for this could be that democracies are not able to fight the apparent irrationality with adequate and therefore drastic actions, but stumble in their own splendid requirements to "Follow the Rules of Democracy", even to the point of supplying the terrorist with the necessary weapons to carry out his (her) mission. Democracies are their own enemy!

Modern terrorism differs from "classical" terrorism. More often than not it is quite impersonally targeting innocent persons who accidentally crosses the path of the terrorist, or belong to a certain group or "class". The idea is that no one shall feel safe, and that anyone can be hit. Modern terrorism is in nature socially pathologic in nature, and just as detestable, whether it is politically, religiously, personally, or otherwise motivated - for example by racism.

The terrorist is not primarily attracted by or preoccupied with the cause itself. The cause is really not important. The universal driving force is the feeling of power combined with the impersonal aspect of violence.

In all essentials this is the "profile" of the terrorist:

1.) Casual killings of innocents.

2.) Disclaim of responsibility.

3.) Self-pity.

4.) Demand for "understanding".

Hannah Arendt said something to the effect that this is the "Banality of Evil". In a situation of conflict it is very often quite by chance which side the terrorist chooses at any given moment in time. The terrorist seems to be obsessed by a pathological misconception of his/her personal freedom to execute any act of cruelty in complete disregard of the consequences. It is my opinion that the terrorist, unconsciously, without understanding seeks his/her own extinction. When confronted with the inevitable loss of personal freedom to continue his/her acts of violence, the terrorist sees no other way out than that of suicide, thus becoming his/her own victim. This is speculation on my part, but it fits the pattern as demonstrated over and over again both by the Baader-Meinhofs as well as by Islamic terrorists in general. Suicide bombers fall into a special category. Their minds are completely fragmented by expert psychiatrists by a very sophisticated "brainwashing". In the 1950's this technique was introduced and tested out by the North Koreans on American POW's. The number of psychiatrists associated with Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and rogue regimes in general is significant. The real Hamas brain trust is not to be found in Gaza. They are educated in USA and Great Britain.

There is no real difference between "Right-" or "Left-Wing" extreme terror (there is however, a difference in how the word 'extreme' is applied in Left-Wing "Orwellian" language. The recipe for how to change the language was described by Orwell in "1984", and is not to be discussed here). The only real difference is that the Left-Wing terror has an international strategy, while the "Right-Wing" terror is basically national in form.

It is through this metamorphosis of words in marxist-leninistic rhetoric that 'nationalism' has developed into a suitable invective, equivalent to 'racism' and 'extremism'. These and similar words are applied to anyone who is not willing to, or submitting to their point of views. To an amazing degree they have succeeded in this charade.

The words have long since lost their true value. Real racism, religious and political terror are based on plain madness (HAMAS, KKK, WAR, SHINRIKYO etc.)

There is no real difference between "Right" or "Left" terror. The real difference is that the left-orientated terror has an international strategy, while that of the right is pure national in its basic form.