Khan Nawaz makes some conciliatory points (EA April 16) with which we could all agree.

Unfortunately he mixes them up with the same tired old cliches which show that he and his community are in a state of denial, which is the underlying reason why it is so difficult to tackle Muslim terrorism.

The reason the IRA, UDA and, presumably, Eta are not termed Christian extremists is because they're not. I have never heard their leaders ever utter the term Christian. And if they were Christian extremists, it seems a bit misguided to target other Christians. Catholic extremists might be closer to the mark except that there was no support for Mr Adams from other Catholic communities indeed, his main external support was from Colonel Ghaddafi.

The reason they are classified as Muslim fundamentalists/ terrorists/extremists etc, is that this is how they classify themselves. I have heard and read a great many views from the Muslim viewpoint and, with one honourable exception, have never heard them define themselves as British, but as British Muslims, or even Muslims in Britain. (Mr Khan himself says 'We are British Muslims'). I have, on the other hand never heard the term British Hindu/Buddhist or even Christian.

Mr Khan says that not all Muslims are terrorists but nobody ever says that they are. What we do say is that (almost) all terrorists are Muslim and the 'small minority' who support terrorism are more than enough to cause a fundamental change in the British way of life, a way of life that has given sanctuary and economic hope to many people, including many from the Islamic world. I put the words in inverted commas because, in my dealings with Muslims, I have never heard a word of criticism for Osama bin Laden; indeed, I would guess that if Islamic countries were to allow free elections, he would sweep the board in most of them.

Mr Khan should understand that in the West we live in nation states we understand nationalism and the desire for independence and can deal with it, however clumsily or bloodily. We find it more difficult to understand a primary allegiance to God, which foments terrorism and killing in any community perceived to be inimical to Islam.

And the Americans might well have killed the most people with weapons of mass destruction. The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is something we will have to live with and justify to the Japanese people. By and large the reasons for using the atomic bomb have been accepted by Japan. What did the people of Hama or Halabja do to justify the wrath of Saddam Hussein and Hafez Assad?

David Kavanagh

Alnwick