IN HIS reply to me, Stephen Metcalfe (Letters, July 27) makes half a dozen points. How much more persuasive most of them would be if they were either relevant or true.

First, he objects to my use of the term 'terrorists' to characterise the London bombers. But to say, as he does, that one side's terrorists are another side's freedom fighters is to miss the point. Terrorists, whatever their side, target civilians.

The 1956 Hungarian freedom fighters attacked the Soviet Army, not Russian citizens. By contrast, Chechenyan freedom fighters and Palestinian freedom fighters are terrorists because they target innocents. The US in Iraq and the Israeli Army do not.

Second, he asks whether the London bombers should be blamed for their deeds because they 'might have been coerced into doing their brutal work'. Had the bombers been coerced, they could have contacted the police and identified their superiors. He must face reality - the bombers wanted to kill innocents.

Third, Metcalfe informs us that the only solution to the world's problems is socialism. How touching. I was not aware that the London bombers or other terrorists were staunch socialists. Their vision of a Mullah-led theocracy does not quite smack of socialism.

I hope he suffers no stroke on being informed that almost all the former members of the Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics have embraced capitalism, as has China. Socialism is a worldwide failure, capitalism a dazzling success.

Finally, he fails to reply to the one point I did make - that the London bombers, not Tony Blair or Richard the Lionheart, are responsible for their deeds. Instead, he blames everybody but the bombers.

Let me offer an analogy to Metcalfe's position. If someone were to threaten to kill him and his family if he did not at once turn over his house to that person because that person's great-grandfather had wanted the house but purportedly had been gazumped, would he vacate at once?

Robert Segal, Lancaster.