Noam Chomsky underlines the above point in a discussion entitled the New War on Terror. Chomsky alerts us to the fact that are many more forms of terror than bombing or direct violence that are often extremely devastating and morally indefensible. This in fact constitutes a form of terrorism in the moral sense of the terms. He notes for example that,

..there are 7 to 8 million people in Afghanistan on the verge of starvation. That was true actually before September 11th. They were surviving on international aid. On September 16th, the Times reported, I'm quoting it, that the United States demanded from Pakistan the elimination of truck convoys that provide much of the food and other supplies to Afghanistan's civilian population.

(Chomsky)

Chomsky refers to this as a form of "silent genocide." The existence of state-sponsored economic and other forms of terror is referred to by a number of modern political theorists. Chomsky claims that these are also forms of terror that fall morally into the same category as physical terror and violence.

Furthermore, Chomsky also make the important point that, "...it's a very serious analytic error to say, as is commonly done, that terrorism is the weapon of the weak." (Chomsky)

Rather, according to Chomsky, terrorism is, "... primarily a weapon of the strong, overwhelmingly, in fact."

4. Conclusion

The above discussion leads to the obvious conclusion that, morally speaking, state, sub-state and individual or group actions that impact and negatively affect innocent people in the world are identical. The point being made by Chomsky and many other thinkers and theorists is that to relegate terrorism only to certain groups or types of terror is avoid the reality that many forms of terrorism are being practiced by developed nations and governments. In moral terms they too are terrorists, even though they use more formal and outwardly acceptable forms of terror.

This leads naturally to the central question under discussion. Military regimes and governments are...

Military actions that intentionally target innocent people in the ' fight against terror' are no less morally reprehensible than the action of a suicide bomber in a crowded marketplace. Both are morally unacceptable, despite any ostensible reason or claim of legitimacy.
Bibliography

Bergesen a.J. And Lizardo O. 2004, Terrorism and the World-System, Sociological Theory, Vol. 22, No. 1, Theories of Terrorism: A Symposium.

Bonanete L. 1979, Some Unanticipated Consequences of Terrorism, Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 16, No. 3, pp. 197-211

Burnham J. 1974, Antiterror Problems, National Review, vol 26.

Chomsky new War on Terror, viewed August 9, 2008, http://www.counterpunch.org/chomskyterror.html

Cohn M. 2002, Understanding, Responding to and Preventing Terrorism, Arab Studies Quarterly.

Dershowitz, a. 2002, Why Terrorism Works: Understanding the threat, Responding to the challenge, Melbourne, Scribe.

Evans, E. 1979, Calling a Truce to Terror: The American Response to International Terrorism, Westport, CT, Greenwood Press.

Fouda Y. And N. Fielding (eds) 2003, Masterminds of terror, Melbourne: penguin.

Hamilton L.C. And Hamilton J.D. 1983, Dynamics of Terrorism. International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 27, No. 1, (Mar., 1983), pp. 39-54

Johnson, Chalmers a, 2000, Blowback: the costs and consequences of American empire, Chalmers Johnson, New York.

Livingston, M.H., Kress, L.B., & Wanek, M.G. (Eds.) 1978, International

Terrorism in the Contemporary World. Westport, CT, Greenwood Press.

Nagengast C. 1994, Violence, Terror, and the Crisis of the State, Annual Review of Anthropology, Vol. 23, pp. 109-136

Said, Edward W. 1995, Orientalism, London, Penguin

Sardar, Ziauddin, Merryl Wyn Davies, 2002, Why do people hate America?, Cambridge, Icon.

Sinclair, Andrew, 2003, an Anatomy of terror. A History of Terrorism, London, Pan Macmillan.