Gross insult to fighting forces

Come on, Mr Pittock.

He did, however, raise more questions than answers. Apart from the simple fact that a national army has the legitimate task of defending its country's interests, be they at home or elsewhere, what is the task of the terrorist organisations such as the Taliban/al Qaeda?

What indeed is the defining factor that Mr Pittock uses to differentiate between terrorist (freedom fighter?) and common criminals? Would the drugs barons of South America, complete with armed guards who are so powerful as to sub-rule over lands with brute force, be legitimate freedom fighters? How about the Mafia? The Yardie gangs?

The attempt to equate the legitimate forces of both the USA and the UK, bound as they are by "Rules of engagement" with an organisation that is little more than a gang of cut-throats, is a gross insult to our honourable fighting forces.

The dropping of two atomic bombs on Japan had more disastrous consequences than was envisaged at the time of dropping, when it was believed, by the military at least, that they were simply bigger and better bombs. Their radiation fall-out was not known at the time.

This being so, and the entire Japanese nation prepared to fight with whatever they could, the saving of life all round justified their dropping. Hindsight, of course, gives us all cause for regret, but the action itself was not dishonourable. Nor were they acts of terrorism

I hold a brief for neither Israeli nor Palestinian. However, if it is wrong for the USA to provide arms and support to Israel, was it not also wrong for all European states plus Russia to arm the entire Arab states? The extent of this was slightly disclosed when it was stated that Saddam Hussain had some 700 tanks and 500 warplanes at his disposal during the Gulf War.

This, should people such as Mr Pittock doubt it, results in all our casualties in the Middle East being caused by our own weapons. Comforting, isn't it?

F Isherwood

Latham Road

Blackrod, Bolton