I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes (Kurds and Afghans) and would spread a lively terror (Winston Churchill -1919)

It would be fair to state that terror should be attributed to any situation, where a climate of fear has been created by acts of violence against innocent civilian population. The dropping of bombs from B-52, or the use of tanks and helicopters against unarmed civilians is far more a potent example of terror then the retaliatory actions of a disgruntled lone individual.

As the US recently unleashed its Daisy Cutters and B-52's in the name of fighting terror, from the media coverage it appears, those o­n the receiving end are not terrorised. But o­nly when the West has been hit in retaliation, you have terror. Despite the clear evidence cited, Winston Churchill was never described as a terrorist, as it was the civilised world exercising its prerogative, as repeated recently in Afghanistan and Iraq is about to suffer the same fate. History is certainly repeating itself.

Similarly, when the Iranian passenger plane was shot down, it was cast aside as a mistake, without any mention of terror. To the contrary the Western media went into a state of frenzy for years, seeking justification with regards to the Lockerbie incidence, the word "terrorism" could be found o­n the lips of everyone.

Therefore, "terror" is evaluated by the ideological affiliation of the perpetrator or his racial identity of belonging to a certain civilisation. Otherwise it seems that you have immunity no matter what or how the degree of violence that you inflict o­n civilian population.

The principle is that the United States has the right of terrorism and that right is inherited by its clients, and it doesn't matter who they are (Noam Chomsky).