This reminds me of something Merlin tells Arthur in "The Once and Future King." Basically, he says that Kings go to war for sport. In the giant battles fought in heavy armor with hundreds of knights on heavy horse, the warriors are about as capable of harming each other as King Pellinore and Sir Grummore were in their joust; or, to draw a more modern metaphor, players in American football, with their helmets and heavy padding. It's the serfs and commoners who fight without armor who have the heaviest casualties, all while the kings keep score and observe the unwritten sporting rules.

As a side note, it's interesting to observe the correlation between T. H. White's condemnation of communism in the ant colonies, and what seems to be U. S. foreign policy these days. (I apologize, but although I wish I could quote part of the ant chapter here, I don't have the book with me.)

Steve Church, Johnson City, TN, USA

I now have a mental image of Matthew Parris sneaking behind some terrorists, squawking "You don't want to do it like that!". Oh dear.

Good article, by the way.

Jack, Fareham, Hampshire

They would have to be very busy to match the accidental/natural disasters across the US. i.e falling bridges, overturned burning gas tankers, derailments, ships running aground, oil spills, hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, forest fires, madmen with guns, snakes, plane crashes, ice storms, floods, mine cave-ins, etc.

Name Withheld, Ventura, california

It is clear the sole point of terrorists is not just utter terror. They attack symbolic targets which they believe are the epitome of western culture. This is why there are attacks on the WTC, embassies and US Army spaces (representing the aid sent to Israel). Other attacks are on night clubs, trains, and buses. All are frequented by western tourists.

If the terrorists really wanted to spark random "terror" they would attack small towns and go into random malls and banks and blow themselves up. This leaves the sense of "no one is safe" and instills fear in ALL citizens, and not just those who are flying or are in the big cities. But they do not do this, why? Because the backlash would be extreme. In September 11th, the terrorists did not assume the backlash which occurred... a backlash which, if harnessed correctly by Bush, might have meant a global front against terror.

The terrorists are certain, however, that comepletely random attacks would have this effect, and thus avoid them.

Chris, Ames, Iowa

I think that this is one of the most interesting articles that I have read. Rules of war? Rules of terrorism? Both seem very odd when thought about rationally. The anger and / or hatred that is behind acts of terrorism is rarely acted upon without a degree of self control. Why?

Peter, Aberdeen,

I like your "politics as sport" metaphor. Certainly the case in the US, where I live; I observed that we treat politics as a spectator sport, not something to participate in. And who pays attention to the water boys, or the front-office managers? It's all about the coaches' vision, the players' personal foibles and the ritual conflict. And the media coverage :)

Robert, Clinton, Washington

You seem to have no idea of the difference between a polician and a bureaucrat. Politicians are not interested in "running things", they are interested in ideology and establishing the societal framework, not organising train timetables. The role of the market v regulation, social equity, rights/liberty and the law. The framework, not the detail. You join the public service if you want to run things.

As for the idea that pivotal historical battles occur at agreed places, agreed times and by agreed rules that is beyond absurd.

David, Melbourne, Australia

<i> "If you want something to worry about, worry about the far right." <i/> The far right will only be a problem if the mainstream parties hand them power on a silver platter. Of course, judging by the current crop of politicians in most of the western world, we are well on our way there. Extremist parties gain support when they offer "simple" answers to complex problems, the very existence of which is denied by the mainstream politicians. Uncontrolled immigration / lack of assimilation would seem to be such an issue. It is not a simple issue, but a simple solution can have a great emotional appeal to the disenchanted. In the US, both parties have not only failed to get control of teh border, neither party seems like it wants to even try; however illegal immigration is of great concern to many Americans.

Mike, New York, NY, USA

good points made, it's like we are staring at a car crash from far away, putting a steel locks on our front doors yet overlooking the big glass window in the living room

here's some questions I have:

is this a war?

I think it's unsporty, the US military is shooting fish in an oil barrel

why do we allow a moron to lead us?

why are we allowing our freedoms to be taken with all the increased security over these imagined fears?

shane, Marion,

They don't bother to attack us any more - because our politically correct (and gutless) government has already surrendered.
You hadn't noticed? You really should pay more attention to the steady drip-drip-drip of concessions made in our name (but without our consent!)

Mike Bibby, St Albans, England -not EU

You see, your thinking about terrorism is jaded. You see it with Western eyes of war. Why don't they bomb us and bomb us into submission as we think we can do. Terrorists don't need those tactics. Terrorists victories are achieved when they achieve "terror." Why would they need to bomb the US again? They have already won. We are living in a state of constant surveillance and paranoia. We started a war over our paranoia that had nothing to do with them, and over oil of course. Terrorist victories are not mass casualties; they are to cause fear, and when that fear begins to subside, they will then hit us again to remind us. You see the US believes that if we defeat terrorists, then ultimately we defeat terror and evil. Confused little men of power clinging to that hope brought on by a victory in WWII. But was that even a victory, all wars and death and bombs being built by rogue nations was started in that victory over evil. What horrors will this "victory" bring?

Roach, St. Louis, MO, USA

To follow on from Nick:

Hitler's early "successes" (my quotes) were mainly down to the fact that so few could understand the significance of events before they unfolded.

Hitler, who communicated (very) long range strategic intent through so called "directives" - thought for example, that Germany might be in a position to challenge the US by around the mid 1980s.

In the event, in a fit of pique, Hitler "unilaterally" declared war on the US following the attacks on Pearl Harbour, much to the relief of Churchill who had long been hoping for deeper US involvement in a mainly European war.

Hitler's obsession with German supremacy, of which he was it's most perfect expression (sic) was his undoing.

Following Barbarossa, German forces were initially hailed as liberators in the Ukraine, but were soon to be turned upon by a Red army united only in it's hatred of an oppressive invader. It was this that led to the routing of the German war machine in the East.

Sunbeam, Nederlands,

This is something I've wondered about too. I work in an office where the public have free access, and I've often thought how simple it would be to just leave a bag under a chair in the waiting area and leave quickly. It may be that as the demographics of Britain change, with muslims making up a greater percentage of the population, terrorists will attack a wider range of targets, but we can only hope that day doesn't arrive.

Steve, West Midlands,

The answer should be clear.

There really aren't many terrorists. The entire business has been blown out of all proportion since 9/11.

So many of the cases have involved "home-grown" terrorists.

Where these aren't cases of agent provocateur operations by police, they are inept malcontents, whose activity would have been given another name just a decade ago.

To this day it is not absolutely clear that an organization called al-Qaeda even exists. We get messages from the Internet, as though security people couldn't locate the ISP in hours.

We get the odd, phony-looking video of Osama mumbling meaningless things, Osama having been almost certainly been killed in the bombings of Tora Bora.

Osama did have some kind of operation, but its significance has been totally exaggerated.

The CIA's camps in 1960s Florida, aimed at killing Castro, made Osama's operation look amateur with little funding.

9/11 was real of course, but U.S. policy has made so many foes abroad.

JOHN CHUCKMAN, Toronto, Canada

No, the creepy subliminal pact is between the terrorists and the media. We aren't seeing the alluded attacks because they are to 'mundane' for the media. The terrorists need the hype machine and the media need the money the hype makes. The politicians are developing their own pact with the media by generating hype to counter the political pressure from the terrorist hype. Maybe all this dysfunctional behavior would improve if the media weren't part of the problem?

Brian, Feet, Hampshire

This shows how terrorists think. They believe that the West is big but brittle, like a big vase. Hit it hard enough once, and it will shatter. They believe the vase is hollow, that we are shallow. They mistake our tolerance for cowardice and weak-mindedness. They think that because we have a long fuse, that we are wet dynamite. That is where terrorists who think like that are wrong. As in World War One and Two, it takes a lot to get us going. But once we are wound up, we stay wound up for quite a while. And in an organised, effective way. That is the difference between the West, and the hotheads. Our anger is slow to come, but it persists. Wake not the sleeping giant.

Paul Francis, Brisbane, Australia

Exactly Nick. I have never heard of the Islamic Jihad against Pylons and Safe Drinking Water. It doesn't have the same ring to it.

Ben, York,

No, Robert Campbell, it is not easy to do the things you say, and that's the reason it's not been done, just as it 's not easy to derail a tr. The Twin Towers attack was as spectacular an attack as you could get so they're not averse to doing it! It was easier than now because the US had not real experience of dealing with terrorism. Once they'd had a taste of what we put up with here from the Provos for so long, and what others like the Israelis have put up with, then counter measures were indeed taken. We benefitted because PIRA had nowhere else to go but negotiations after the US realised they were bombers and murderers just the same as al-Queda. Having said that, terrorists prefer bombing as it is akin to acts of war, and perhaps they think that 'legitimises' it. The 7/7 bombers caused the same sort of injuries and fatalities as the RAF did when it bombed innocents in Belgrade, including a 16 year old make-up girl in the TV tower. Victims are victims, whoever the perpetrator

David Short, London, UK

I too have wondered why terrorists don't grind down our defenceless infrastructure instead of killing innocents and themselves. Electricity pylons and sub-stations would provide very good soft targets, causing disproportionately huge disruption. But I think Nick has the answer in his post - terrorists go for spectaculars to gain maximum effect and publicity - they don't see their warped cause as part of a drawn out war of attrition. Basically, terrorists know in their hearts that they are operating at the margins and get their obscene thrills from the most shocking and eye catching of outrages. They are the ultimate perverts.

Richard Marriott, Kidderminster, England

The emotional impact of a terrotrist attack is considerable and politicians react to emotion and not to statistics. In any nation of 60 million you might expect one million to die every year, mostly of disease and accidents (what else is there?). I think I read that 1.6 million are injured globally every year from motor accidents: Many thousand die every year by military action sponsored by politicians (even UK politicians). Viewed in this light, terrorists look badly trained and lacking in support , ideas and money to attempt very much. Indeed this is confirmed in the last three years as terrorists have not accomplished very much. One might forecast that a few dissident young men will blow up something important somewhere soon. But 99.9% of us six billion can sleep soundly in our beds!

Brian Lewis, Manila, Philippines

Why do terrorists go for the difficult high profile targets, particularly metropolitan ones? Because they're the easy ones for the media to cover and for the media to hype up the idea "It could have been you ...". The selection of target is driven by the expectation of publicity, the other examples just wouldn't cut it. How many television images of blooded passers by would knocking down a pylon generate? No-one would feel worried about such an attack, just inconvenienced briefly, oooh, a power cut for a few hours, let's get out of the Middle East now! It would be ineffective; no terror, no media hype, no benefit. Only a sustained campaign of such attacks could have any political/media impact and a sustained campaign would be vastly more difficult to mount and sustain. Make no mistake, terrorists NEED publicity, they NEED the media over-response "high profile" targets generate.

EB, Slough,

Well said, at last!

I have long suspected that, contrary to the political hype, there are not many terrrorists and they are not well armed. Because it would be so easy to attack a mass target and kill scores of people. Yet in the US, there hasnt been anything since 7/11. And here, only by UK grown amateurs, seemingly copying an Al Quaeda that may in fact barely exist.

Of course the security people cant downplay the threat because a single successfull attack is devastating, while Bush and Blair had invested too much in the threat politically .

But I do not believe that a well organised well funded well armed international terrorist network in fact exists. Though pervesely the myth we created has inspired local amateurs who are threat enough. And the one audience we have convinced is oursleves - at great cost to our sense of security, and to civil liberties.

julian, london,

Terrorism - like politics - is theatre.

You need to have an audience

You need to have a message that your audience can understand

You mustn't make your audience too uncomfortable

Matthew Williams, London, Ontario, Canada

Wow! Matthew Parris has finally vocalised thoughts that have lurked in my mind for quite some time.

Anarchy, chaos, mass violence... We are so far from all this and yet, practically speaking, it would be very easy to enact. But at the end of the day, people do fall in line and as we can see, even terrorists attack in organised patterns.

It IS a game - shame that points are scored at a very real cost.

N.H. , London, UK

It is a matter of fact that the IRA for most of its existence tried to avoid civilian casualties. Bombs were usually preceded by warnings so that the area could be cleared.

Those occasions when bombs were planted without warnings are looked upon with some shame now often ascribed to the work of British agents.

That is because the IRA perceived themselves as an army.

So the question is what, in its perception of itself influences the choice of targets by Al-Queada. Why airports, trains and night-clubs and not football matches, shopping centres and schools.

Henry94, Cork, Ireland

I aree with Matthew's analogy of conflicts, whether local or national, resembling sporting events. Since time immemorial,the world has always been at war, either in the name of territory, religion or political ideals. As in sport, what happens off the field becomes far more interesting than what happens on it, hence the millions of words of commentary on the Rise and Fall of Empires, always in the name of the people.
Today the conflict has moved more local, with terrorism the new threatening "ism", set piece battles are now out of fashion. Why the terrorists choose to target hard targets rather than soft ones, simple answer, better TV coverage, but 7/7 broke the "rules", even the IRA deemed the Underground system off-limits.
Your worst fears article was indeed scary, but to Bob Crow, London's most hated man of the week, the mention of driverless trains, his worst nightmare, something even your former nerd colleagues are equally scared to suggest.........in the name of the people!

M. Fishman, London,

Exactly what I've been thinking. It turns out that terrorism always has rules, always has limits. Firstly, terrorists always need public support somewhere for what they are doing. Look at how Al Qaeda's number two told Al Qaeda in Iraq to stop beheading people; it was "giving Al Qaeda a bad name". Haha. Yes, it sounds ridiculous, but it's true; there are people, actually lots of them, by no means all Muslims, who openly support or tolerate mass killing by terrorists, because they see it as a kind of political campaign. So terrorists, in the end, have to be like politicians. There are certain constituencies that they can't upset. They have to stick to a set of unwritten rules. Notice that Al Qaeda periodically attempts to divide the West and to blackmail and threaten us with its pronouncements. It has managed to convince some countries they'll be safe if they don't send troops to Iraq, for example. It couldn't do this if it engaged in total, indiscriminate mass killing.

David Pritchard, Madrid, Spain

You echo my thoughts Mathew, we as an Island are vulnerable in so many places, often I have wondered why nothing has happened at our weak points.
Maybe there is a case where the more dangerous the deed the better quality of the 72 virgins , & as is rarely mentioned , the 28 young pre-pubescent boys, of perpetual freshness like scattered pearls.
Muhammad was very shrewd, he catered for all tastes in his reward system of paradise. Even wine is promised !
Deny all in this life, then an orgy awaits you once you have fulfilled his wishes, what young impressionable youth wouldn't want to take the journey to such pleasures. ?

maggie millington, Brittany , France

Since the 1980's just how many people have the "terrorists " actually killed ( not counting IRA --just Muslims ) ?

The current death toll in Iraq alone is per Lancet around 1.2 million.. and westerners started all that.........

An insightful piece by the way Mr Parris


To Nick..I am one of the sceptics re 9/11 but that is another debate

M McGregor, Tunbridge Wells, Kent

The obvious reason the islamofacists have not attacked much lately is that they are preparing for a really devastating attack that they think will be enough to collapse Western civilization and get everyone on Earth to convert to (their brand of) Islam, ruled by a Caliph who claims direct descent from Mohammed.
In the States much of the concern over border security stems from reports that one of the captured Al Qaeda leaders revealed under interrogation that 6-7 "suitcase nukes" had already been smuggled into the United States. Since there are at least 40, and perhaps as many as 70, of such devices missing from the Soviet arsenal, along with technicians who would know how to maintain and set them off, the obvious plan would be to set them off at random times in random cities all over the U.S., Europe, and perhaps some other countries, with the demand that we all surrender and convert. Western nations have no obvious effective course of retaliatory response to such attacks.

Jon Roland, Austin, Texas, USA

I too have always wondered why there are rules in war. Regards Jeff P

Jeff Pollitt, Romiley, Ches

Why don't terrorists attack us more? I suggest for the same reason 99 percent of people fail to reply to one's emails or phone calls today. "Is there anybody out there?" asks the song. Inactivity and passivity are the human default mode: in the case of terrorism, thank goodness; day to day it's frustrating in our dealings with one another!

Peter Eales, Poole, Dorset

As he claims not to be a conspiracy theorist, perhaps Dr Strauss can point us all to this 'mounting evidence' of heinous acts he seems to know about. G. W. Bush killed 3000 people to give him an excuse to invade Afghanistan and Iraq. Since when have presidents need excuses and moreover how could such a plot be kept secret? Interesting that this is what the Muslims say too. A Zionist plot?

billcarr, Turku, Finland

I myself have often pondered this, be it on a packed Tube train, in a bustling shopping centre or a crowded check-in area at Gatwick. A single grenade thrown into the middle of all these would be catastrophic. I could list more ways that people could inflict horror but that would be tantamount to an invitation.

I think the reasons that attacks like these do not happen regularly are because A) The terror networks are not always as organised as we fear. Their modus operandi of cells means that coordination is often difficult. Reason B) is that they do usually want the grand spectacle of collapsing buildings and dismembered trains - the 'James Bond Complex' as someone below said.
In Andy McNab's (ex-SAS) book Immediate Action, he mentions that if the SAS went rogue, they could bring down governments in weeks. This is because they have extensive and specialised demolitions training. Thankfully, the terrorists dont. Yet.

Jamie B, Chaldon, UK

Matthew, this fellow countryman and many of his friends have thought the same thoughts as you express here. It almost seems that the terrorists are being lured into attacking hard targets. Just how long this lure will last is a cause for worry.

Andrew Jones, Birmingham, UK

A good article. Something I've noticed subconsciously quite a few times I think.

James Kennedy, Reading,

I often drive under a remote railway bridge on a main line and each time think what a good target it would be. Resistance fighters would have had it blown up before you could say "Osama Bin Laden ".

It was interesting what you had to say about politicians caring little about public administration.

If Tony Blair had done nothing more in his ten years than create a world class NHS he would have had a legacy bar none.

Anthony, London,

Nick of London takes issue with the suggestion that battles "seemed to take place to take place with agreement" and consequently ignores the important message of Mr Parris' article.
If the "terrorists" really wanted to win they could do so but not in "a slow, drawn out grind to victory" but quickly and with relative ease. It does not take too much thought or action to close down the rail network into, say, London, cut power supplies to critical area, cut land line communications (the mobile network could not cope in such an event) or seriously impede food distribution. We simply do not have enough resources to either protect, eliminate key points in, or quickly restore, essential networks.
For reasons unknown, our adversary has "agreed" that occasional mass murder is preferred to a sustained attack on our indispensible infrastructure.

Mike, Ely, UK

"The first clue is something that has mystified me about politicians ever since I first became one. Few of them are at all interested in government. By “government” I mean not grand debates about national destiny, but sound, capable, efficient public administration: the effective running of the country. "

The top echelons of the Civil Service ain't bovvered either. They can pass the buck using the the alibi of ministerial responsibilty which is rarely accepted by a minister. And so the not so merry-go-round trundles on to destination disaster

Chris, Essex, UK

"Why don’t the terrorists attack us more?"

Because they are too busy making home videos?

Beatrice Waller, Stoke,

What a remarkably naive article. Have you not heard of power and its corrupting influence on simple humans?

The challenge in politics is finding someone who can function without turning into a lunatic - almost impossible as you seem to have noticed.

The very worst of our society turn to the thrills of power; it has ever been so, and without the strict hand of religion, (in itself nutty, but useful) now gone from everyday life, the game of politics will only get worse before it gets better.

harry wolf, vancouver, canada

To echo Mathews first point,that terrorists can do the society they attack very little harm.They can kill a few of us but their real result comes from the changes we make for ourselves,we as Blair did,begin to disassemble the freedoms and values that set the civilised apart from the rabid and ignorant ,who value innocent life,not at all.
This conncects to his second point ,for we in this, as in most debates ,alow the politician to argue the high flown retoric,the debate of the grand student bodies they never leave behind.
Self serving oratory occupies us while the governments we elect politicians to run are mired in hopless incompetence.
I no longer have any faith in my vote .I am no longer caught up in the real "great game" of effite nonsense that is called
" policy ".How about making what we have work instead of shouting about the new gimmicks they wish to infflict on us.
Call me a cynic - please!

robert everitt, wolverhampton,

Some historical battles had to be fought by appointment since large armies were used and there was no way of preserving food so they could only fight when there was fresh meat and produce available for the men and horses. There was little infra structure so using the 'element of surprise' was limited and communications were poor. Battles could only be fought when the weather conditions were right. It is not easy to move large amounts of men,horses heavy cannons etc when the ground on which to fight man to man is soggy . QED.

Martin, London, UK

They attack to gain attention. If a reporter, instead of reporting facts, meditates publicly on how he would go about being a terrorist if that were his job, then the terrorists have succeeded in their efforts.

Edmund Burke, Kingston upon Thames, England

Mathew is quite correct. Medieval warfare was underpinned by the institution of feudalism, which ensured that both sides operated under the of banners of heraldry and the auspices of a chivalric code. Opposing armies obviously didn’t communicate with each other directly but often tacitly waited until both forces were in position before commencing battle. Why didn’t the French, who vastly outnumbered the English overrun the camp of Henry V the night before Agincourt, instead of spending the evening in entertainment?
Wellington is alleged to have famously refused permission to an artillery officer to fire a shot at Napoleon himself by stating “Leaders of armies have better things to do than fire at each other!”
There is also some truth that terrorist operate within certain guidelines. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is an example of one who did not. His subsequent betrayal and death has been attributed to the horror many ordinary Iraqis felt at his policy of beheading his hostages.

Stan, Stanmore, England

Matthew, you don't sound very much like your self in this write up. Is it an anathema or some prognostic forewarning for the Jihadis and terrorist groups to do some handy work with their DIY devices and go on with a bang and strike the world and its peaceful existence. Lo and behold, let us prey that their sinister minds and dirty thoughts don't go haywire and replicate another 9/11 . Why am I sounding so vitriolic or acerbic, because I witnessed a bomb blast in Delhi last winter during the festival days of Diwali. It was perhaps the most horrifying sight ever seen by my eyes, with human flesh , blood and gore splattered all around and helpless people scurrying and going about in absolute frenzy. Now a year later, though life seems to be normal , it left some indelible marks and etches on the lives of many aggrieved families, their kith and kins. We turn complecent, turn a blind eye,our cops and their vigilance become lackadaisical and listless.You rightly said, they can strike back .

Witty, New Delhi, India

Here in Colombia the FARC narco-marxist terrorists do blow up electricity pylons and isolated bridges, and they murder or kidnap people on country roads....and yes...they are pretty universally viewed as a bunch of cowardly maggots.

James, Cordoba, Colombia

I enjoyed your article...are you the first mainstream writer I have witnessed hinting there may be 'in side' jobs?..there appears to be mounting evidence that 911 and 77 where false flag operations....we know the media is owned by the government, however a true professional should ask the hard question before all are 'freedoms' are removed.
For the record I am not a Conspiricy Theorist I just look at the evidence.

Dr D Strauss, London, UK

I suppose it's because terrorist bombs copy the act of war, and therefore signify war, more than derailing a train does. Resistance groups did this during WW2, and it was called sabotage, which doesn't have quite the samet ring to it. And derailing a train is not as easy as it seems; hauling a piece of concrete big and heavy enough couldn't be done by one or two people without serious equipment.
Whenever terrorist bombs go off and the media publicise the gruesome effects, I do wonder why people don't realise that these injuries are the same or possibly less gruesome than those inflicted in our name when the RAF bombed the TV tower Belgrade (killing among others someone's 16 year old daughter) not so many years ago, or when the Americans shell and bomb the Iraqis. By putting themselves in danger or at grave risk, these terrorists are claiming the right to be viewed as combatants.
And like Parris, I've wondered how battles happen. Are times and places agreed beforehand like a duel?

David Short, London, UK

The present style of attack upon our civilisation is carefully calculated not to provoke an effective response by the authorities: it is far more sinister than that. It is intended to intimidate the media in their reporting; individual politicians who wish to avoid assassination; and above all the public, who it is thought will cave in to demands for power by the terrorists.

If it sounds far-fetched, just think back to the violent uniformed gangs who accompanied fascist leaders in the 1920s and 1930s. When the violence and fear reached a sufficient level of intimidation, people voted for them rather than oppose them.

The instinct to appease is powerful, and that is what we are seeing right now in the concessions being made to those who are challenging our democracy.

But appeasement never works.

Vincent Coles, Forfar,

Mr Paris views have to be respected but Terrorism is not fought as an all out war. It is a carefully timed and (regrettably) usually well executed series of hit and run attacks.

It is foolish to consider that terrorists of any ilk would stage military style attacks on a modern army. Their weapon is terror. This is predominantly psychological. More cctv, airport restrictions, telephone tapping, rendition kidnappings, and layers of identity papers dont hamper their actions; they hamper ours! That is their purpose to make us sit up and notice them.

Thatcher was rarely right, but she was bang on the nose in denying these people the oxygen of publicity.

Find them and deal with them covertly - no one will mind. The whirl of self defeating surveillance we have created does not affect them one bit. Remove them by covert means.

concerned, aberdeen, scotland

Consider too that Al-Quaeda, by raising the bar on the terrorist atrocity, may have discouraged many less ambitious projects and saved many lives. A single bomb is no longer enough, the modern outrage demands a complex and co-ordinated series of attacks (London and Madrid). Such stylish attacks are tough to resource, tough to pull-off whilst increasing the number of people in the know and thus the chances of being caught. Which is what happens, frequently. Thanks Osama.

Graham, Reading, England

9-11 was a totally spectacular act of terror that will make a lasting mark on history.
However, Parris is correct, the level of terror created by other acts of terror (bus, train, night club, and airliner-in-flight bombings) could be created and exceeded by easier means.
With "only" 10 people killed, the US domestic 2002 Washington Sniper Spree created terror for weeks, because the attacks were random, kept occurring, and responders were overwhelmed.
Or blow up several major power lines in the northern USA in winter, or the southern USA in summer, to overwhelm responders, and tens of thousands will die from the climate.
The widespread release of deadly levels of a pathogen or slow poison could likewise overwhelm responders.
Overwhelm the ability of responders, and a real-life horror story will slowly unfold, while discussed and examined in the media.
What could create more terror?
But imagine the retribution.
And limiting retribution is why we have rules of war.

Keith Terrence, Winnipeg, Canada

Or maybe it's ALL for show...

Permanent war has a permanent allure to some who consider themselves the master architects of history. We need look no further than the arrangements laid out so straightforwardly in Orwell's 1984.

TK, Long Beach, CA, USA

Yes, it makes you wonder why "terrorists" have not committed more ongoing acts of disruption over the past few years. The fear of terror and terrorism have been blown up out of all proportion by politicians and the media. George Bush acts as a proxy terrorist by continuously mentioning the threat of terror, and the war on terror, on a daily basis. Why? Why does the White House want us to be continuously afraid of an unseen/unknown/unquantifiable threat? The White House is currently the world's greatest terrorist and George Bush uses Double-Speak to keep us all afraid of "them" when we should really be afraid of him.....

Sam, London,

The interesting thing about the terrorism we face is why we take it seriously at all. Yes, they could poison water supplies and derail trains, they could attack us every day of the week and kill lots of people. The problem for the terrorists is that people can get used to anything. They can't kill enough of us to really make an impact and if they try we'll become desensitised to it, look at germany and london after being bombed for years on end. In fact given how rife sex and drinking were during WW2 they may actually make us even more decadent and immoral (by their definitions, I personally like drunken debauchery), which'll really make them mad.
Even worse for the terrorists, if the traditional political parties were seen as unable to stem the tide of terrorist attacks they may wake up one morning with the BNP in power who, needless to say, would probably find a rather quick and nasty way of ending the war on terror.
If you want something to worry about, worry about the far right.

Alex, Sutton Coldfield,

I had the same thought during last week's tube strike. i was travelling home on the Jubilee line, thousands of us crammed in together. If the terrorists struck now, I thought, none of us are getting out of here. Thankfully, the exponents of Terror aren't that creative.

Tristan Slocombe, London, London

Quite brilliant. I hope you win some serious journalistic award for this piece. I have pondered the very same question many times. Please follow this thought from time to time.

Tony, London, UK

I think soldiers and terrorists generally have goals, and causing death or terror are only means to that end.

Bin Laden's 9-11 attack, while damaging the US economy and US military totally out of all proportion to the cost of the attack, was not successful, because it did not accomplish the desired result. 9-11 damaged the USA, and it may eventually destroy the USA as a democracy, but damage to the USA was not Bin Laden's stated objective.

Bin Laden wanted the USA physically and politically out of Saudi Arabia and other Islamic countries. 9-11 did not achieve that objective. It created too much terror. It drove the USA more deeply into Islamic countries.

Like Pearl Harbour, 9-11 was too destructive, created too much terror, and caused the victors of the event to loose the overall war.

Keith Terrence, Winnipeg, Canada

Nick, you're pretty well wrong, and Matthew that much right.

A force that doesn't want to fight - then - can usually avoid battle. 'By agreement' may be a little strong, but these do tend to occur when settling the issue suits both sides. William (not yet the Conqueror) had to engage at Hastings, or somewhere thereabouts, because Harold's forces would otherwise have savaged the rear of his army and driven off his fleet; Harold, because his troops were levied under feudal obligations of limited duration and would shortly disperse. At Verdun, von Falkenhayn chose a point of attack “for the retention of which the French would be compelled to throw in every man they have.” The enemy fleet was markedly superior, and confident thereby, at Trafalgar, which Nelson won by exploiting a transient advantage brilliantly.

There are, as Matthew observes, covert conventions in conflict. 9/11 itself was a breach of these, and more effective thereby. We need to be alert for others.

Noel Falconer, COUIZA, France

HERE'S WHY !

The terrorists looked at the USA. They saw George Bush in charge... and felt very sorry for the American people.

Then they looked at Britain and saw Tony Blair at the helm. They were sorely distressed and grieved at the
misfortune of the British people. The jury is still out on Gordon Brown.

So, my friends, the terrorists believed that Britain and the USA have suffered enough because of their bad governments, and any terrorists acts that they could
conduct would, in comparison, be supeficial, redundant and insignificant.

Why bother?

Garth Strong, San Diego, USA/CAL

Because the IRA were not particularly distinctive, Irish accents are no guide to provenance of the possessor, the IRA were relatively successful. The distinctive characteristics of our new foes are quite blatantly obvious. A terrorist in Britain needs to embed. Skills have to be learned, experience gained. The recent successes of the police will soon be confounded as the perpetrators learn their trade on the backs of their fellows that fail. Some individuals will never be allowed to do certain jobs in Britain; to chance them working in a nuclear or major defence facility, no matter what human rights decree, is tantamount to stepping in front of a fast moving train, the outcome is not in doubt. Equality in our society is impossible now. Anyone whose first loyalty is to a deity rather than a state has it in them to be casual about loyalty, have no regard for fellow man, are dangerous. The acceptance of so many people here with an agenda to displace our natural order is beyond belief.

Malcolm Turner, Alsager, England

Robert Campbell is so right.

Allan Lee, London, UK

Maybe they leave the railways alone because they have to commute too!

Murph, Madisonville, USA/KY

Nick is generally right but not completely. Napoleon did not order Villeneuve to fight: insofar as he gave any orders a all, they were to break out to the Mediterranean and create havoc there. Villeneuve was also motivated by the fact that his replacement was on his way, and he did not want to surrender his command in complete ignominy. I suspect he was also probably motivated by the fact that Cadiz could no longer support two large fleets with water and supplies and was probably 6' deep in sewage and rubbish by that time.

Rassendyll, Cambridge, UK

I completely disagree, the modern day Islamic terrorist has absolutely no rules or etiquette, the article in some ways could be related to the IRA back in the 70's&80's-they would knowingly sit with a undercover operator in a pub and there would be some form of "playing the game".
The reason why the fundamentalists dont go for power lines, train derailments or localised poisining is because it is boring. They want spectacular attacks that will grab the headlines and further promote their cause; inturn helping to recruit more ill educated or jealous individuals to their cause (as per Nick's comments above).
Another reason is that they are predominantly idle, felling a power line (properly) would require recconnaisance- time spent in an observation post more than likely cold, wet and dirty. This can be reflected in their main battlefield in Iraq. Attacks will reduce if the weather is cold and or wet.
Having said all this you may have just given them an idea!!

Toby, Baghdad, Iraq

I think I can see what you are driving at. It seems to me that a good answer to your question would be because their attacks are essentially irrational or pointless and thus there is no reason for them to attack us more. What have terrorist attacks ever done for terrorists? From my observation nothing more than jail or death after living possibly years of social deprivation. The only obvious beneficiaries of terrorist attacks are the security forces and businesses supplying anti-terrorist materiel, plus, I have to observe, the media who possibly benefit from the news value. What, conceivable benefit could these terrorists be getting from their attacks? Individual members may be getting large amounts of money from funding sources, which they might not otherwise do, but as a collective they are absolute losers.

Henry Percy, London, UK

I call the apparent need for terrorist to terrorize with style the "James Bond Complex". It's no good just killing your oponent, it has to be done with style. Thank goodness.

Shaun OKane, London, London

Perhaps the terrorists realize that their success would bring their destruction. It would be no great feat to poison a municipal water distribution system and fatally infect thousands before it was discovered. A large cruise ship could be sunk with an explosive-laden boat near any of the sea lanes that are less well protected than major ports. It is impossible to protect all of the targets.

But what would be the result? The greater the success, the greater the response. If 3000 more are killed the war on terror would be expanded. If 20,000 then there would be a no-quarter war on the usual suspects which would sweep up the innocent as well as the guilty.

As long as we are in this pseudo-war we are crippling our economies with little damage to the terrorists. If they are successful then the civilized processes that now protect them would be set aside and they would be destroyed.

Robert Campbell, Salem, New Hampshire, USA

Profoundly insightful writing from Matthew Parris.

Charlton CH, London,

Matthew, very few pivotal battles took place by agreement - and none of your examples are in that tiny group. At Hastings, Harold gave battle to avoid further harrying of the countryside, Verdun was selected by German strategists as a perfect killing zone to bleed the French army (which was deployed in its trenches, not for a battle of manouevre) , while at Trafalgar, Nelson forced an action that the Franco-Spanish fleet would have preferred to avoid, but which Napoleon had effectively ordered Villeneuve to fight. The reason why terrorists go for spectacular attacks is because it gives them publicity - via terror. Destroying pylons would be annoying - but hardly the same as 9/11. This is a rational strategy for a group that cannot "win" a slow, drawn out grind to victory, and which needs to motivate recruits via "heroic" deeds. Enjoyment of these events, and complicity in them, by both sides is hardly the issue.

Nick, London, UK