While this link is quite angry, and thinks much as I and most western world folk do, it highlights too those we protect in the name of free speech.
Csteele, sorry I disagree, with
almost every thought, in any thread.
And that may be my fault, I can NEVER clear my mind of the words in defense of our own home grown, and in one case Convert, who in my view carried out things beyond defense, including lie about police brutality and the thuggish clowns who stood out side the court.
Terrorism? what then is the murder of a soldier in the name of a God,

Room exists, surely, to ask why are thugs and fools , not true followers of this religion being bought to it.
And why do we let them shelter under the umbrella of free speech in their ranting hatred of the very system they wish to destroy.
http://www.smh.com.au/comment/twisting-islam-to-justify-cruelty-20130526-2n535.html

I must again practice what I preach.
That is stop reacting to one post and skipping the rest.
Only to come back and read the lot.
It makes mine, and any post, disjointed to not know the thoughts of every one.
JOM in a long thread some named you as a member of an extremist group, as is your right.
Others may have come to join you here, but I have great trouble in being what I hope is the new me.
I have pledged to try once more, to be more civil.
But do you truly think holding the view,
it is my view you and Philip S said by inference this man deserved to be MURDERED*
Would you both care to comment, or explain what you meant?
Everyday in our country some one is murdered, not in them name of a God that never existed,some times only in anger, but are all killed by lessor people.
I feel a great faith in our youth, including many from this community, Muslim, but fear the PC/dreamed up reasons folk try to transfer the blame to the victim.

First it is not racist, it is religious and political.
Islam is a religious/political movement quite similar to Nazism.
It has a policy of eliminating the Jews and supports slavery and all
moslem states have refused to sign up to the UN Human Rights agreement.
They have instead have made an agreement amongst themselves that sets
in place Theocracy.

Islam has a declared objective to impose Islamic control over all the world.
The Fourth Reich?

Islam, by its own definition is incompatible with democracy.
You have been warned.

Some very interesting posts here. A couple are predictable.
Bazz said; "Islam is a religious/political movement quite similar to Nazism." Like the spread of Nazism, the west gives the extremest fertile ground to plant their message of hate and find converts. Wherever there are extremes, the extremest will proliferate.
J of M said; "I want Muslims to live peacefully in their own societies and I want us to live in ours." Unfortunately according, to the US who in god they trust, somewhat similar to the belief of their enemies, US strategic, economic and political interest will not allow that.
It is a fact that The Taliban, Arabs, Muslims, turban wearing people, anyone who's not "us", are intent on monopolising our oil reserves and exploiting our western resources, at the absolute best possible term for themselves. Whilst on the other hand "we" are quite happy for the Arabs and etc's to do as they please with their oil and resources. As far as "we" are concerned they can keep their crap in the ground, if they so desire. "We" are forced to spend billions on militarism just to protect ourselves from those who would take the little "we" have. LOL.

We in the Western world believe in freedom of speech and the free practise of religion. However in radical Islam is the belief that the practise of Islam means isolation from the infidel and it justifies killing him in the name of Allah. Islam cannot coexist in a democratic society, because the practice of his religion offends Western values and laws. It is terrorism to innocent civillians, and the man was dressed in civillian clothes and off duty at the time. He was an army musician not involved infantry.

Dear Belly,

What a dreadful state of affairs.
Questions need to be asked as to why a young man, born
in London of a Christian family after converting to
Islam, and according to his family and friends - a
young man who was gentle, softly spoken, studious,
suddenly decides to bludgeon a young army musician to death
with a machete in a London street.

Obviously something influenced that action.

As far as I can tell from the news reports it would appear
that the young man came under the influence of a "radical"
preacher.

Authorities apparently were keeping an eye on this and
other young men. Apparently authorities did not find them to be
a serious threat. It would appear that the authorities
had made a serious mistake.

People who enjoy the rights of free speech have a duty to
respect other people's rights. A person's freedom of speech
is limited by the rights of others . All societies, including
democratic ones, put various limitations on way people may
say. They prohibit certain types of speech that they believe
might harm the government or the people. Libel, slander,
hate and violence - are all prohibited.

After an incident such as this, authorities need to pay closer
attention to "radical" preachers and their influences. These
preachers need to take responsibility for their actions
by inciting this kind of hatred and should be held accountable.

It is time that action was taken - and that this is not swept
under the rug - simply as a "terrorist" act. Somebody influenced
this young man to take this action. And that somebody needs to
be brought to account.