IT was disturbing to read Tony Kelly’s accusation that the Americans were “deliberately”

targeting civilians with drone strikes (HAS, Oct 19).

In a few paragraphs, Tony charged, tried and found the US guilty. He even supplied a possible motive. However, to make his argument convincing, could he please supply some evidence?

Kev Mcstravick, Darlington.

I AM grateful to Tony Kelly for his support (HAS, Oct 22) but I should make it clear that I did not accuse our American allies of deliberately targeting civilians.

My view is that drone strikes are being authorised on the basis of unreliable intelligence and that inadequate effort is being made to distinguish between innocent civilians and “combatants.”

Guilty unless posthumously proven innocent is not good enough.

Only two per cent of those killed by drones are “high level”

al Qaida or Taliban leaders.

It would be a step in the right direction if drone strikes were authorised only when such individuals are clearly identified.

Killing civilians ensures a limitless supply of recruits for the jihadists.

Even assassinating Pakistani Taliban leaders is of uncertain value.

In many cases they have been replaced by more hard-line extremists.

The fact is that the “war on terror” is a disaster – there is no military solution to terrorism.

The US and its allies have spent the 11 years since 9/11 battling along a blind alley, leaving hundreds of thousands of Muslims dead. Al Qaida has not been defeated, but has dispersed across the globe; and the Taliban, undefeated in Afghanistan, have grown in strength in Pakistan.

Pete Winstanley, Durham.