EDITORIAL - Unless you've been hiding under your bed over the weekend, you must know today that there were at least three terrorist attacks in the United Kingdom over the weekend. Two on Friday, one on Saturday.

Wait! I misspoke. I almost fell into the politically correct verbiage of our media. There were three Islamic terrorist attacks over the weekend. Two car bombs in London on Friday, and one car bomb attempt in Glasgow, Scotland on Saturday. Amazingly, the bombs didn't explode. There are reports, however, that all three of the bombs were made by the same bomb maker. Evidently not one of Al Qaeda's best.

Now obviously I couldn't watch all of the coverage on all of the networks and read all of the newspaper stories about these attempted attack. I can say this, though. In the coverage I did watch, there was one word missing. One word that I believe is very important to our understanding of the threat we are facing. That word was "Islamic."

Here's a link to the AP coverage of the third Islamic terrorist attack, this one at the Glasgow airport. I took the trouble of counting the words in this article, and gave up at over 1,100. Not ONE of those words was either "Islamic" or "Muslim." The cops said they are treating it as a "terrorist incident." Just on an Islamic terrorist incident.

The enemy – that would be radical Islam – doesn't have any trouble identifying the people they want to kill. That would be us, the infidels and unbelievers of the evil West. Now if the killers don't have any problem identifying their prey, why are we so reluctant to correctly identify the people who want us dead? Why do the people who want to destroy our culture; the people who will shoot children in the back to further their goals; the people who lob rockets into hospitals and detonate suicide bombs in marketplaces full of women and children; why do we quake at the thought of even mentioning their name?

During World War II, arguably the law war we actually won, our media had no trouble at all mentioning German Panzer divisions or Japanese suicide pilots. In fact, my reading of history seems to indicate that we used names like "Krauts" and "Japs" in referring to the enemy. I'm sure it got worse than that.

I don't know about you, but when someone vows my extermination I somehow lose the desire to go out of my to avoid saying something that, God forbid, they may find a little offensive. Yes, I know. All Muslims are not terrorists. But for all practical purposes in the world as it is today, all terrorists are Muslims. Know your enemy. It's as simple as that.

Meanwhile, London's mayor decided that appeasement is the best strategy. Typical for a European politician. The Mayor told BBC radio; "In this city, Muslims are more likely to be law-abiding than non-Muslims and less likely to support the use of violence to achieve political ends than non-Muslims." Yeah ... right. And just who was it that carried out those subway bombings about a year ago? Baptists? And correct me if I'm wrong, don't we have some pretty good proof that Mr. Mayor profited mightily from Saddam's generosity with his Oil for Food money?

As for the Muslims out there, and they may even be a majority of their faith, who truly want to live in peaceful harmony with other peoples and other religions, perhaps its time for you to show some resolve and determination in joining us in our condemnation of extreme Islamists who are dragging your religion into the gutter.

Just a thought.