Lexi said;
People who enjoy the rights of free speech have a duty to
respect other people's rights.

That is fine Lexi, but it has to be reciprocal as I am sure you will agree.
Islam does not believe that kafirs have the same rights as moslems.
That is the crux of the matter.

The issue as I see it is not just free speech as the man had his say. No one would deny him that right. The issue is one of murder of a person unknown to him for a religious reason. This is terrorism! If the army drummer was in the field of conflict then his death would be the result of war and the murderer would also be in the line of fire of the military.

Josephus,

Here's a recent one which got next to no press - for whatever reason.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/may/02/birmingham-murder-racially-motivated-police

To paraphrase a portion of your post - The issue is one of murder of a person unknown to him or "whatever" (racial?) reason.

Humans are sometimes murderous bastards......

Dear Bazz,

That was precisely the point that was being made.
So glad that you understood it. ;-)

Dear Belly,

Please never feel the need to apologise to me for disagreeing with almost everything I post. It is actually a source of pride for me so I should in fact be thanking you.

Dear Shockadelic,

You wrote that you considered this a terrorist act;

“Because the killers made their *political* motivations clear, demanding passersby film them to make an impact on the wider community.”

So when the American government releases their 'War Porn' showing drone missiles destroying houses and vehicles why can we consider their actions as terrorism?

You added;

“This was not a combat situation.”

Neither are the vast majority of the drone strikes in Afghanistan.

And;

“If they want to fight the soldiers, do a David Hicks and go join the other side.”

Yet the drone pilots sit in air-conditioned comfort in the US.

Now if you wanted to run the line that the perpetrators in London were traitors, which no one seems to have taken up, then that is a separate discussion, but to call what they did terrorism means the label must justly include drone strikes.

Here is a piece from the Guardian;

“The ongoing US drone attacks unquestionably have the effect, and one could reasonably argue the intent, of terrorizing the local populations so that they cease harboring or supporting those the west deems to be enemies. The brutal sanctions regime imposed by the west on Iraq and Iran, which kills large numbers of people, clearly has the intent of terrorizing the population into changing its governments' policies and even the government itself. How can one create a definition of "terrorism" that includes Wednesday's London attack on this British soldier without including many acts of violence undertaken by the US, the UK and its allies and partners? Can that be done?”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/23/woolwich-attack-terrorism-blowback

Dear Bazz,

I re-read my pevious comment to you and thought
that I'd better clarify what I meant by my earlier
post.

I stated that people who enjoy the rights of free
speech have a duty to respect other peopl's rights.
A person's freedom of speech is limited by the rights of
others.

I did not single out any particular group. This applies
to us all. We all have to be responsible not to incite
hatred or violence, and so on.

As for what Islam is or isn't I can't really comment.
I do not know enough about the religion to be able to do so.
I do know that Muslims in this country make up over a
hundred different linguistic and cultural groups and can't
all be classified together. Therefore making assumptions
about what they practice/or don't - would not be correct
and certainly tarring them all with the brush of
fundamentalism is not right either.