MR ISHERWOOD has not quite got my point.

I am not justifying or condoning any kind of killing. All I am basically saying is that, if the state can claim a right to kill for political purposes (which apparently includes, in Mr Isherwood's view, a right of massacre as at Hiroshima), then it inevitably follows that organisations that are not states, and individuals (yes, even criminals), will regard themselves as entitled to follow suit. And it is impossible to show that they are wrong.

Osama bin Laden regarded Hiroshima as giving him a green light to kill Americans: Timothy McVeigh likened his Oklahoma bombing to the bombing of foreign targets by the US military, and one or two commentators noticed the significance of the fact that the Brixton nail bombings here and the Colombine massacre in the US occurred during the bombing of Belgrade.

The most futile response to September 11 is for the state to kill "terrorists" as a way of showing them that they are wrong to kill people. The US has fallen into that trap, and so have the Israelis in connection with the suicide bombings.

Political killing, whether by the state or so-called terrorists, will only get worse if attempts at repression are seen, as they undoubtedly now are, as preferable to a search for justice. This is obvious in relation to Israel and Palestine, where Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories, the dismantling of settlements and the granting of Palestinian Israelis' full rights of citizenship are the only way to end the suicide bombings.

And Bin Laden too has political aims, some of which are reasonable. He wants the US to withdraw from the Middle East and Saudi Arabia, and he is opposed to the continuing sanctions on Iraq, which he clearly regards as criminal.

Yours in peace.

Malcolm Pittock

St James Avenue

Breightmet, Bolton