PETER Dawson (Letters, November 30) calls me an apologist for the terrorists who bombed London in July. That is a serious charge, and very unfair. I made no apology for the bombers, nor would I do so.

He says this because in replying (November 25) to a correspondent who praised Tony Blair I wrote that, but for his war on Iraq, the bombings would probably not have occurred. That is not a defence of those who caused them. They bear direct responsibility. But I hold Mr Blair indirectly responsible. And I'm not alone.

According to a poll, 64 per cent of Britons questioned placed at least some responsibility for the London bombs on Tony Blair. An MI5 team called the Iraq war a "focus of a range of terrorist-related activities in Britain". Home and Foreign Office experts deemed British foreign policy "a major contributor to Muslim extremism in Britain". Are they all apologists for terrorism?

Mr Dawson ridicules my claim that the war on Iraq was unprovoked. But he doesn't say what provoked it. The attacks on the USA in September 2001 were not Iraq's doing. And Saddam Hussein's terrible regime was not a legitimate provocation, as Tony Blair himself admitted (February, 15 2003). Mr Dawson says the war on Iraq was legal. By the UN Charter one state can only lawfully use force against another in self-defence (Article 51), or when authorised by the Security Council (Chapter VII). Many authorities, including UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, hold that neither justification fits the invasion of Iraq.

One more thing, Mr Dawson. You asked which planet I was on before the Iraq war. The same one as you, and only streets away. Welcome to Planet Earth.

John Heawood,

Eastwood Avenue,

Fulford, York.

Updated: 10:32 Wednesday, December 07, 2005