(maybe you want to visit my front page...)
Sir: I was interested to read Keith Gilmour's report (letter; 25th November) on the anti-Bush protests. Clearly, his excellent vantage point in Glasgow provided an insight into those attending that I missed out on, sandwiched as I was between poets, priests, Labour activists, British Muslims and old-age pensioners.
His is a letter in support of the "war against terrorism". Going solely by what we hear from US reports from Kabul and Iraq, there's plenty of terrorist attacks going on there. Turkey, also, seems to have a bigger terrorism problem at the moment than it did before.
Throughout the "war against terrorism", the logic of the Bush administration has been, that 'if you support terror, you will be destroyed'. Bush has struck a great blow in support of terror: we are merely using his own logic in branding him a terrorist.
Mr. Gilmour makes the point that "terrorists such as al-Qaida target the innocent... President Bush, by clear contrast, targets the guilty". On the assumption that this is true, there is the unhappy problem that al-Qaida are very accurate in their targeting, whereas Bush fails miserably.
Recently, we heard that 20,000 people, or so, have died in Iraq since the beginning of the recent invasion. How many of these were the guilty ones that Mr. Gilmour claims were targeted? Almost half were civilians; many of the rest were conscripted.
Of course, it's all very well to target Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden, but you have to expect people to complain when you miss so embarrassingly.