//I'm not going to give radical Islam a free pass//

That's nice, dear. We neither expect or desire you to give radical Islam a free pass. Those guys are dicks.

//If you want to support ISIS ideology that's your business//

We don't.

//it wasn't just the cries of "Allah Ackbar" on it's own; it was the frenzied stabbing / cold blooded murder of two innocent people (as well as a dog I believe) during the cries of "Allah Ackbar"//

And as I've pointed out, shouting an empty phrase about a god you don't believe in doesn't make you a radical religious terrorist. Even if you stab somebody while you do it. Radical religious terrorists have radical religious views; they don't just go around shouting meaningless slogans.

//Can anyone here present a logical reason why someone might start murdering numerous people in a psychotic frenzied stabbing attack screaming "God is Great"??//

Psychosis.

//Can ANYONE here give me a reason why I should consider this behavior normal?//

You shouldn't. Psychosis is abnormal by definition.

//Does ANYONE AT ALL HERE want to stand up and openly give this behavior a free pass?//

I doubt it. There's not a lot of people out there who are in favour of murder, and I don't think any of them hang out around here.

//I'm still not going give this behavior a free pass, or allow others to normalise it.
Not now, and not ever.//

I don't understand why you have to claim it is something it is manifestly not in order to condemn it. Surely there is nothing to prevent you condemning it without attaching fictions to it?

Ayad had been drinking which is not majority Muslim practice. But if he could yell' Allahu Akbar' and the Marseillaise without spluttering he can't have been too drunk. The ice is the rum may have been the problem.

Toni,
Why should I accept 'psychosis' as a factor in the Home Hill massacre but not be willing to accept 'Radical Islam' as a factor also?

If I were an experienced investigator why would I not start with my feet on the ground and consider that both the effects of 'Radical Islam' and 'psychosis' played a part in the outcome?

Dear Armchair Critic,

But you aren't a police investigator and god help the country if you were.

This is from Mia's mum;

'The possibility of Mia and Tom’s deaths being consequent to an Islamic terror attack was discounted in the early stages of the police investigation through international collaboration on the parts of Queensland police department and the French ant-terrorist force. I have spoken to friends of Mia’s and other backpackers who worked for long days in the fields with Ayad, and none of them ever saw him put down a prayer mat. Salat or prayer is the second of five pillars of Islam, and calls for 5 daily rituals of ablution, prayer and prostration. An Islamic fundamentalist by definition must respect the five pillars of Islam. It would be very hard to imagine someone managing to perform this ritual five times a day in the close confines of Home Hill Hostel without witnesses.
One of the reasons I took to blogging in The Independent Newspaper was to discount this myth of a connection between my daughter’s death and Islamic fundamentalism. Any fool can shout Allahu Akbar as they commit a crime. I have lived and worked in the Islamic world for a number of years, and wrote ‘the Rough Guide to Turkey’. Some of the research was carried out with Mia as a baby. Mia travelled In Turkey and Morocco too, albeit too briefly. We encountered nothing but respect and hospitality from people who are committed to courtesy and honouring their fellow human beings. This vilification of whole nation states and their people based on religion is a terrifying reminder of the horror that can ensue when we allow ourselves to be led by ignorant people into darkness and hatred.'

You talk about your right to voice your own views but when this grieving mum did the same you ordered her to “shut the hell up”.

I'm not going to tell you to put a sock in it because it would add to your misguided sense of railing against tyranny, but you should really think about it.

//Why should I accept 'psychosis' as a factor in the Home Hill massacre but not be willing to accept 'Radical Islam' as a factor also?//

Because the investigators ruled it out.

//If I were an experienced investigator//

You're not. They are. Why do you presume that you know how do do their job better than them?

//why would I not start with my feet on the ground and consider that both the effects of 'Radical Islam' and 'psychosis' played a part in the outcome?//

They probably did, then ruled it out when they discovered the murderer wasn't actually religious. Despite the fact that it's been pointed out to you that he wasn't religious, you steadfastly cling to your pet theory that he was a radical Muslim. This is why you would make a shite criminal investigator, doctor or scientist: you try to make the evidence fit your theory, rather than make your theory fit the evidence. It's textbook dogmatism.

The French national anthem says "to arms, citizens" which sounds a bit like Koran. Napoleon was a terrorist and Beethoven wanted him out of the country. Frenchmen need to be carefully assessed after Brexit.