Noam Chomsky then reveals that while 153 countries voted in favor of the resolution, only two opposed it: the United States of America and Israel. According to him, both countries could not tolerate resistance to the African apartheid regime or foreign occupation which included “the Israeli military occupation, then in its twentieth year” (Chomsky 190). He later states that both countries deny “that such actions constitute legitimate resistance and declare them terrorism.” As for state terrorism, it is, simply put, the use of terrorism by one state against another or against its own citizens. Myra Williamson observes that “Historically, terrorism has been a type of behavior perpetrated by governments against their citizens, whereas it is now more often perceived as a strategy directed against governments by targeting civilians” (39-40). Terrorism in the FilmIn the film, both V and the British government under Adam Sutler used terrorism to achieve their ends. Near the film's climax, V explains to Finch exactly what Adam Sutler and Creedy are hiding: that of their human experimentation to create a virus that they would use against British citizens. By releasing the virus, they create panic in Britain where citizens would sacrifice much 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 that of the British secret police, the Fingermen. V seeks revenge against those who used him as a guinea pig for the virus, but he has decided to attack the root cause of its tragedy: the terrorist state. It begins a series of murders that end the lives of those involved in human experimentation in full... paper... much weight must be given to the change the Wachowski brothers made to the film, in which it was not the anarchy in itself that V defended, but the freedom of a people who no longer wanted to be satisfied with the tyranny of a corrupt government. There is no definitive conclusion when trying 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 United Nations will be able to resolve this age-old dilemma once and for all. And perhaps powerful countries will not willingly confuse terrorism with legitimate resistance. Meanwhile, we have human rights, including the right to self-determination. In the words of Ludwig Von Mises: “No people and no part of a people can be held against their will in a political association that does not want”.” (34).