I READ with amazement the views of Sarah Wheatcroft (Letters, August 25) who does not think Clinton was targeting Muslims, but retaliating - rightly or wrongly - against terrorist attacks.

I have always believed that terrorists should not have any rights whatsoever, but she thinks, "rightly or wrongly" it is fine for Americans to attack anyone they believe to be terrorists, even though these so-called terrorists still receive millions of dollars of aid to be terrorists against another nation.

So what if Americans killed few more innocent people as their cruise missiles fell so inaccurately all over the area, including one several hundred miles away in Pakistan, killing people there as well?

After all, their lives are not worth the same as American or British lives are they?

But other Muslims must not protest for the fear of being called terrorist fundamentalists and being bombed or faced with sanctions and 'no-fly' zones. Ms Wheatcroft says it was the self-declaration of the terrorists themselves that brought the religious issue to light.

May I inform her that you would not believe the frustrations and suffering Muslim countries have endured through the two-track policies and rank hypocrisy of Western governments and America.

Undemocratic and corrupt Muslim governments are fully supported if they are friendly and do what they are told by the West and America.

Their track record on human rights is totally ignored and always covered up.

But, of course, Ms Wheatcroft would not know - she is not a part of the system.

But, at least, she admits to being embarrassed by British support of everything America tells her.

By contrast, I could not agree more with the remarks of Albert Morris on this issue in the same edition.

G R CHOUDHRY (MR), Tenby Close, Blackburn.

Converted for the new archive on 14 July 2000. Some images and formatting may have been lost in the conversion.