Just when I think you've scraped the bottom off the barrel, you manage to start on the floorboards beneath.

Never mind (for example) the hundreds of thousands of Muslim civilians that have been killed by Western forces with no justification other than Dubbya wanted it ... no, let's ignore that and talk about oil being "ours" and how Johnny Furriner should be bloody well grateful.
Amazing.

With all your superiority in terms of race, sexuality, religion and morality, it must be really difficult for you not to look down on the rest of the human race.

The fact you mention bomb is interesting because I don't think the Boston Marathon bombers should be labeled terrorists either. It's pretty obvious they acted alone or maybe with the collusion of another person but I don't see these acts as much different to the killing of the policewomen in Manchester or the shootings in Cumbria from a while back.

They are outrageous acts by people with a grievance and the fact the Boston and Woolwich incidents the grievances are as stated by the attackers to be what they are registers with me as "So what?" and the reason for this is I firmly believe we will never be free from random nutters doing such things for whatever hair brained reason they think justifies it.

What concerns me more is the orchestrated terror we had when the IRA were attacking (I was living in London when they were bombing there) and I think we should reserve our classification for something as terrorism to that kind of activity.

If we don't I am sure the likes of Lord Reid will get their way and I don't think we should be considering what he wants off the back of Woolwich because the perpetrators are deemed terrorists.

I also think labelling as such puts them on a pedestal when they should be treated as criminals not some kind of political prisoners.

Isn't it? And yet, if a single brown person wishes to claim fifty-odd quid a week in benefits from our welfare state, Dally's up in arms.

I see what you're saying, although I'd be tempted to say you're flirting with the slippery slope fallacy somewhat. Even though I'm sure time will prove you right, in that the ramifications you're worried about will play out. But for me this was terrorism, as was Boston, as was Oslo, and so on.

This is not aimed at you, and perhaps at a tangent but I find it ironic that Muslim Fundamentalists are happy to trot out the above line as justification for any atrocity they commit whilst forgetting the hundreds of thousands of civilians they have killed in the middle east, and the hundreds of thousands of minorities (including Christians) they persecute, sometimes with extreme violence, throughout the "muslim" world.

Why, though?

"When oppression is systematized through coercion, threats of violence, or violence by government agencies or non-government paramilitiaries with a political motive, it is often called political repression. More subtle forms of political oppression/repression can be produced by blacklisting or individualized investigations such as happened during McCarthyism in the United States.

Transnational systems of oppression include colonialism, imperialism, and totalitarianism, and can generate a resistance movement to challenge the oppressive status quo."

That narrative, as you put it, doesn't cause terrorism. Terrorists cause terrorism. Any normal person, whether they agreed or disagreed with the assertion, would acknowledge that. Do you also think that anti-immigration sentiment is the cause of terrorism? We've seen some wing-nuts on the right commit similar and worse acts who had similar beliefs to your own, have we not.



That's just absurd. Are you on a wind up?

Already tried to answer, read on.

Well I did, but the way I read it, you were advancing an argument against this being described as terrorism, hence the question.

As a murder this was a horrific one.

As an act of terrorism it was pathetic.