We sometimes believe that state-sponsored terrorism is a modern phenomenon and generally a weapon of rogue regimes. When we do so, however, we are forgetting the lessons of the past; these demonstrate that it had been used almost two centuries ago by what at that time was considered to be a liberal democracy.

In my view state - "sponsored terrorism" is not the correct phrase to term to describe an assasination attempt of a leading figure, this is assasination - and has a much older tradition than 200 years.

The arms supply of weapons by the British government of those people rebelling at Haiti - to name one example, how would you regard this?