That title is the Telegraph’s own — it seems the irony is lost on them.
Admiral Sir Alan West, the man appointed to the Lords by Gordon Brown to oversee security in Britain, has made a comprehensive assessment of the terrorist threat currently facing us.
Like Gordon Brown, Sir Alan detests the phrase “war on terror”, and has vowed not to use it. He thinks it is important to describe the terrorists as criminals, rather than to identify them by their religious affiliation.
If a change of nomenclature can recruit more British Muslims to the cause of defeating terrorism, we are in favour of it. As free and equal citizens of Britain, British Muslims are as much at risk from terrorist bombs as everyone else.
The Government’s research suggests that British Muslims feel alienated from official attempts to combat terrorism when terrorists are identified as exclusively “Muslim.”
That, as Gordon Brown and Sir Alan have recognised, could be a reason for Government officials not to refer to “Islamic terrorists” or “Muslim terrorism”.
OK — but what if terrorism is, well, Muslim? Too bad the Irish question is quiescent. Anybody have Gerry Adams’s or Martin McGuinesses’s phone number?
It is important, however, for no one in authority to be fooled by the change in language: the reality is that the threat comes from a perverted version of Islam. It is not Hindus or Buddhists or Polish immigrants to Britain who are trying to plant bombs here: it is men who claim to be Muslims.
But ARE they Muslims — as in faithful adherents of Islam? Isn’t that the question we need to ask? Anyone? Is this thing on?