Yep. “The only reason we have killed this man today is because Muslims are dying daily by British soldiers. And this British soldier is one. It is an eye for eye and a tooth for a tooth. By Allah, we swear by the almighty Allah, we will never stop fighting until you leave us alone.”
Would a devout Muslim say that? They share much religious stuff with Jews, and we sure as heck can’t swear by G-d. 
Islam at its finest.
So what is the difference between religious and racial or homophobic motives that make one a terrorist and the others hate crimes?
I don’t know, theses guys certainly had panache, but they certainly weren’t able to generate the kind of terror these Catholics did.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guildford_pub_bombings
I think, in this comparison the Catholics come out ahead, they’re lack of flair notwithstanding.
As for the lack if flair that’s probably related to sexual repression.
Should the Guilford bombings be viewed as part of a “religious war”?
Should the bombing of the King David Hotel by a future Israeli PM have been seen as part of “a religious war”?
The wannabe Jihadis in this case, killed the poor soldier for the same reason the boyos murdered some off-duty British soldiers and Begin’s followers killed British soldiers in Palestine.
They were fighting against the perceived occupation of their nations as well as the slaughter of their citizens(particularly women and children), though the latter was not as true in Palestine and Northern Ireland.
I think calling the hotel three times to get them to evacuate may be a bit different.
:)\
Whether or not adequate warning was given is heavily disputed.
Beyond that, It’s irrelevant to the question of whether or not it was part of a “religious war”.
Based on Mac’s reasoning it was clearly a shot in a religious war, but I suspect those who insist the British commander said “we don’t take orders from Jews” felt it wasn’t.
Update: Pair denies grisly broad daylight murder of British soldier on busy London street
This sounds like a Monty Python sketch.
Judge: How do you plea?
Defendants: Not guilty!
Judge: Are you sure?
Defendant(s): Oh, yes, My Lord; we’re completely innocent!
Judge: Ahem… I believe the prosecution is in possession of video evidence showing the attack, and your… enthusiastic… confession.
Defendant(s): No, they’re not!
Prosecutor: M’Lord, we are in possession of such evidence. It clearly shows the defendants committing the act.
Defendant(s): No, it doesn’t!
Prosecutor: It does!
Defendant(s): It does not! We will show that the the phones that recorded the video had all been drinking!
And so on.
Hm, unless they are sitting around in a response vehicle, and have a magic wand to dissipate traffic, 14 minutes is quite good.