On May 23rd in south London a Soldier was killed by two terrorists as he was walking near his Barrack. The two murders did not leave the scene and asked nearby people to take photos
and videos of them. This murder has been called terrorist attack as the murders claimed it was revenge for killing Muslims.

(I am surprised that no one has wrote about it)

Please provide a legit source.

Legit sources:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22631274
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/may/22/woolwich-attack-horror-soldier

Yeah, the Philip DeFranco Show covered this and it was all over twitter. Apparently the two were labeled "Muslim Terrorists" and it pissed a lot of people off. Personally, I didn't think the incident itself was that big a deal, and certainly shouldn't have been labeled a terror attack.

Because i couldnt find the comment i made on the video covering it, im kind of doubting it was actually some form of muslim terror attack, but instead just a couple of people wanting attention, and through their messed up way of thinking, decided killing a solider would be the easiest way to do it. If i remember correctly they were trying to get pictures n such taken of them, and if that doesnt cry attention seeking whore, i dont know what does

Yeah this has been plastered all over the news. They ran him over then slashed him apart. The news was reporting that they almost cut his head off too.

As for terrorism or not. No one can really tell, there is a chance they aren't connected with any terrorist groups but with all the stuff they said I'd say further investigation is important. I mean they screamed about how "We will never stop fighting" or something like that, sounds pretty terroristic to me.

The world really has gotten crazy huh?

I have to agree with MK and Sleep, all their actions indicated more sociopathic attention seeking actions rather than terrorist connections.

Terrorist connections would be a lot more juicy for the media however, so I guess that was the first thing they jumped for.

>>7>>6>>5 Like all of y'all said, it's very possible it was just a random act of violence.
But just consider this, what if terrorist (I am not using the term as a classification that discern a certain group of people sharing ideals, ethnicity, or political goals) try to attack in a different form. To still carry out an attack ,but allow Islam as a whole to come out of public opinion unscathed, they could use the fact that is was more sociopathic than an attack in the name of their goals. Similar to how some gangs and crime rings use mentally handicapped people to carry out assassinations and various other crimes to still complete a task but not link the entire group (Taliban, Mujaheddin, Bloods or who ever the head group is) to the crime committed.
But I usually hate to pin things like this on terrorism, just brought it up as an interesting theory.

>>8 Thats not terrorism though...

Terrorism is attacking or scaring people to get your goals, to do it so very indirectly would no longer be considered terrorism. (unless they claimed responsiblity on a later date of course)

"Since the murder, there have been a number of attacks on mosques. A 43-year-old man has been charged with two counts of possession of offensive weapons and affray over an attack on an Islamic centre in Braintree in Essex. The incident took place on Wednesday evening, after the Woolwich attack." - I expect this will be going on for most of the weekend :-/
Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-22651294

>>10 Well, doing such a thing would stir up fear, confusion, and a feeling of faithlessness in your government if it were committed on a mass scale. Certainly such a circumstance could be used as a form of terrorism.

>>11 I figured as much would happen. Saddening really that any of it happened to begin with, let alone citizens beating on a ethnicity for it.