It's a bit like cockfighting.

The two combatants are trying to tear lumps out of each other, because they don't know any better (see "Den" 11 Dec99 - well said).

The people who stage-manage the whole thing are the politicians and the political activists, of all persuasions.

The close observers, passionately interested, discussing which side should win and why - the academics who have read widely on the subject, met many of the main players so of course their own view carries so much more weight.

Sorry to disappoint, but in real terms there are not that many of you.

We the silent majority, that is to say any right-minded thinking person throughout the world, simply want it to stop. We abhor cockfighting. We know it won't stop because the combatants know no other way, but we hate the support it gets.

But what we regret most of all are the lofty academics and armchair activists - the pontificators who can show you conclusively why their side should win. These are the ones who give credence to the shabby little affair.

(We forgive the musicians who are in thrall to the romantic notions of the rebel songs we all love to sing with wistful expressions - if only the reality was, or had ever been, like that).

Nobody wins as long as people are prepared to support terrorism. Taking a side in this issue is just another way of supporting terrorism.

And I do believe that you need to have been physically affected by a terrorist's bomb before you can really know why - difficult from a cosy environment many miles away.