I DID not answer Mr Isherwood's first letter, as I thought that I had made my position clear enough already.

But since he challenges me again (Bolton Evening News, May 1), I had better restate it

I am opposed to the so-called "war on terrorism" and regard it as intellectually incoherent. If war is inherently legitimate, then "terrorism", merely being a form of war carried on by non-State agents, is also inherently legitimate.

If, however, "terrorism" is to be considered as murder, then so must war. What it is impossible to maintain with any logic is that war is a legitimate way of killing people but terrorism is not. Indeed, the very fact that "terrorists" can be dubbed "freedom fighters" according to political sympathies, shows that there is confusion on the issue.

It is, in fact, ridiculous to claim that what the Israelis are doing is legitimate (war) and what the Palestinians are doing is illegitimate (terrorism). States, because of their resources, are responsible for acts of terror worse than anything that non-State agents can be guilty of -- Hiroshima and Nagasaki were probably the worst single acts of terror in human history.

What should be done with the prisoners in Cuba? Ideally they should be immediately released. Since that is not going to happen, the next best thing is to support groups like Amnesty which campaign to have them treated in accordance with international law. Ideally too (of course, I know it will not happen) the US should close down all its bases in Asia, call off the sanctions regime against Iraq and stop arming the Israelis.

The chief reason for the violence by non-State agents in the area is widespread resentment at US interference in Middle East affairs and continuing identification with Israel. The only way to fight "terrorism" is to try to eradicate its causes.

Malcolm Pittock

St James Avenue

Breightmet, Bolton