Noam Chomsky then reveals that while 153 countries voted for the resolution, only two opposed it: the United States of America and Israel. He said both countries could not tolerate resistance to the African apartheid regime or foreign occupation which included "the military occupation of Israel, then in its twentieth year" (Chomsky 190). He later claims that both countries deny "that such actions could constitute legitimate resistance and characterize them as terrorism." When it comes to state terrorism, it is simply the use of terrorism by one state against another or against its own citizens. Myra Williamson notes that "historically, terrorism was a type of behavior perpetrated by governments against their citizens, whereas today it is more often seen as a strategy directed against governments by targeting civilians" (39-40). film, V and the British government under Adam Sutler used terrorism to achieve their ends. Towards the climax of the film, V explains to Finch exactly what Adam Sutler and Creedy are hiding: that of their human experimentation in order to create a virus which they would use against British citizens. By releasing the virus, they are creating a panic in Britain in which citizens will sacrifice most of their freedoms in favor of a more orderly nation. Through this revelation, the public is confronted with the most blatant example of terrorism, even more offensive than the British secret police the Fingermen. V seeks revenge on those who used him as a test subject for the virus, but has decided to attack the root cause of his tragedy: the terrorist state. It begins a series of murders ending the lives of those involved in human experimentation...... middle of paper ...... great importance must be given to the change the Wachowski brothers made to the film , in that it was not anarchy per se that V advocated, but the freedom of a people who no longer wanted to submit to the tyranny of a corrupt government. There is no definitive conclusion when seeking to clarify the concept of terrorism. There is only human madness. Perhaps in the future there will be a more comprehensive definition of terrorism. Perhaps in our lifetime, the UN can resolve this age-old dilemma once and for all. And perhaps powerful countries will not readily confuse terrorism with legitimate resistance. In the meantime, we have human rights, including the right to self-determination. In the words of Ludwig Von Mises: “No people or no part of a people will be held against its will in a political association which it does not want. ».” (34).