Sir: The US claims its strike on the pharmaceutical plant in Sudan was justified because it was manufacturing chemical weapons for international terrorists. Even if this was the case, who came to the conclusion that explosives were the most expedient solution to the problem? The bombing of such a target put civilian lives at risk.
The distinction between terrorism and legitimate military action has just become slightly more blurred, yet I wonder if as many governments will condemn the US as they did the Nairobi bombers.
Hemel Hempstead, Hertfordshire