I AM totally opposed to British participation in the bombing of Syria.

It will kill far more ordinary civilians than were killed by Isis terrorists in Paris, and therefore, like Isis' is itself an act of terrorism.

States are the most deadly terrorists of all because they have much greater power and military resources than non state terrorists like Isis.

It is significant that Isis claims to be a state because that claim accounts for their extreme ruthlessness.

But could Isis possibly have killed 3,500 civilians as the British and Americans did at Dresden in 1945 or the hundred thousand civilians killed at Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

And how did the criminal invasion of Iraq begin? With 'shock and awe' in which the terrorism involved was explicit.

Modern war is inextricably linked with terrorism; that was shown in the Second World war where more civilians were killed than military personnel, which was not true of World War One.

What is strange is those who retrospectively attempt to justify Dresden and Hiroshima should profess themselves outraged by what they claim is the supreme wickedness of Isis.

No decent person can be prepared to press the nuclear button; but many Labour party members in Parliament are such dedicated 'nuclear terrorists' — those who would press the button and initiate the wickedest terrorist act of all — that they are prepared to destroy the party because they are led by a politician who would emphatically NOT press the button.

What will the result be if Britain bombs Syria? More outrages like those in Paris. Don't people realise that the attacks on European civilians are the only way the Middle East and other terrorists have of getting back at the West.

Malcolm Pittock

Bolton