No if you aim a bomb at a block of flats you are murdering the people inside it is premeditated as you targeted it. A reasonable view of anyone would be that there may be people living in it you knew what the outcome could be and are responsible for your actions.

Should be shot as an example but in reality will be protected and given counselling.

See your point

In this case, I think it may well be true. The bloke has a history of violence, and violent desires, long predating his conversion, including two prison sentences for violent crime involving a knife. There isn't much in the way of planning or strategy to his attack, or direct involvement with terrorist groups.

At least one friend, according to The Sun, related he was fixated with the idea of violence and bloodshed to a point that sounded almost fetishist or delusional.

Throughout his life he seems to have been drawn to fringe cultures and violence (bizarrely according to The Sun, rave culture, the national front and football hooliganism), with a history of poor impulse control violent tendencies and self delusions of importance.

Radical convert in prison, around the time that Islamic Terrorism became 'the big thing', and then the embrace of a violent agenda, in keeping with the rest of his life.

I'd probably put him in the category as Brevik / Muir someone who's mental health issues make them a danger to others, who is violent and aligns themselves to violent outlets in order to provide an outlet, and rationality - As times change, they latch onto new excuses for violence, but in terms of politics and the complexity of agendas, they're not really capable of understanding or fitting in (in fact groups tend to reject them, even terrorist groups, because they're a liability).

The plan, was delusional at best. To drive over some people, and storm the houses of parliament, armed with a couple of knives. That's more like something a child would imagine as possible, rather than an adult and I suspect he'd never really planned out what he was going to do or really rationally had any true objective in mind other than to commit violence in the name of 'Islam'.

Quite agree with this fundermentalism is a major threat to the west inc western Muslims. The key phrase is fundermentalist Islam. I think well also see a rising threat from fundermentalist Christians as well like Britain First in 'response' to Fundermentalist Islam.

Would you have had the pilots in RAF Bomber Command during WW2 prosecuted, too?

Yes, I see, they are going to hold some pretty vicious bring and buy sales, bake cakes, and hold fates up and down the country, I bet IS are s***ting them selves.

I joke Jamie, because to even suggest that ANY UK based far right Party is anything other than a bunch of knuckle dragging idiots is a joke. They don't have the infrastructure, weapons, money, brains, or organisational hierarchy as IS, Al-Qaeda etc etc and for you to suggest they pose "a rising threat" is utterly laughable as well you know you cheeky monkey.

Fundamentalist Christians have a much bigger threat, because they won't really require the use of violence in order to create change or influence 'our way of life', they'll have the capacity to do so 'through legitimate means'.

In the US, the Christian Right have a disturbingly strong influence on dictating how others should live, act and what they can even know. At its basic core, this undermines the concept of a free democratic nation, if we accept 'the tyranny of democratic power'.

Muslims represent about 4% of the nation, Christians represent about half the population. You don't need to resort to extreme acts of terror, if you can martial enough political influence through fear and prejudice to utilise democratic processes against the rest of the population.

It should be a concern for us, when we look at the US, to see just how much of a threat groups like the Christian Right present to the notion of a free democratic country.