The UK has been left shell-shocked after the vicious and brutal murder of two soldiers by two extremists.

Two suspects were shot by armed police while ten more have been arrested. The suspects were British muslims and the BBC’s political editor Nick Robinson claimed they were seen shouting ‘Allahu Akbar’, which means ‘God is great’ in Arabic, and tried to film the attack.

One of the suspects has been named as 22 year old Michael Adebowale.

Another suspect was 28 year old Michael Adebolajo, who was described as a ‘normal guy’ with plenty of white, christian friends before apparently becoming radicalised by Islam and falling under the influence of Islamist preacher Choudary.

Choudary, who has in the past been described in the mainstream press as a hate preacher told the APP that Adebolajo regularly attended sermons by banned Islamist preacher Omar Bakri, the Al-Muhajiroun founder.

Choudary said: “He used to attend some of our activities over the years. Very peaceful chap actually, not violent at all.”

In a manner which was reminiscent of scenes in the Manchurian Candidate, the two brainwashed murderers set out to take their revenge on soldiers due to their perceptions about the treatment of muslims in countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan.

And like the Boston Bombings which took place earlier this month, the suspects were known to the police and security services, in this case MI5 – according to news reports.

If this were the case, it gives rise to several questions, namely, just how much did MI5 know about these suspects and why were they not watched more closely?

How many more extremists are ticking time bombs waiting to explode who are also known to the ‘security’ services?

But perhaps out of this, another disturbing question arises: do the security services know more than they are letting on? Why, despite all of their restrictions on liberty and anti-terror legislation, does this not appear to have made the country any safer? Indeed, is that the aim?

The murder has sparked off a wave of protests by racist groups such as the English Defence League (EDL) and the British National Party (BNP) who have seized the opportunity to stoke up racial tensions and continue with their white nationalist agenda in the wake of the attack.

Their protests sparked counter-demonstrations by anti-fascist groups and a wave of arrests on both sides as EDL members threw bottles at the police and chanted “who the f*** is Allah?”

EDL members wore balaclavas and charged at police who were desperately trying to quell the skirmishes that erupted from the protests.

Further racial tensions erupted as several mosques were attacked by thugs. However, many have attempted to justify these acts by pointing to previous acts of terrorism by Jihadists – who by the way are *not* ordinary muslims. Many have also pointed to this latest incident where two soldiers were murdered.

But just how justified is this renewed surge of Islamophobia? And why were similar protests not sparked after the equally brutal and vicious murder by Anders Behring Breivik, who in Norway admitted killing 77 people in 2011 after bombing central Oslo and opening fire on young children at an island youth camp?

Breivik was convicted of terrorism and premeditated murder, and given the maximum sentence of 21 years’ imprisonment.

This terrorist killed far more people – including young children and committed mass murder and yet there was no backlash against the far-right, of which Breivik was a member of.

Breivik was also a supporter of zionism and Islamophobia, and in his manifesto entitled ‘2083: A European Declaration of Independence’ he argued for the violent annihilation of “Eurabia” and multiculturalism.

However, unlike in this present case which involved the beheading of two soldiers, there was no backlash against far-right politics or zionism and no anti-semitic sentiment based upon the actions of this extremist who caused far more damage and killed more people.

And rightly so. For just as we would not judge white, jewish or Christian people based upon the actions of an extremist few, it is equally as ludicrous to expect every muslim to atone for the senseless murders carried out by a minority of those who claim to represent them.

But we must still attempt to address the causes of these acts of terror and ponder: what led these two disturbed nutters to carry out this attack?

In this particularly gruesome incident, the murderers targeted soldiers and shortly after the attack was filmed saying: “We swear by the almighty Allah that we will never stop fighting you, until you leave us alone. We must fight them as they fight us. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. I apologise that women had to witness this today but in our land, our women have to see the same. You people will never be safe. Remove your governments, they don’t care about you.”

Although he was an extremist who does not represent the majority of muslims, the motivation behind the attack and the cited reason for targeting soldiers was because of the government’s attacks on muslims in countries such as Iraq and the middle-east.

Of course, this can in no way justify or condone murder of any kind, but the uncomfortable fact remains: when an ongoing war of terror is waged against hundreds of innocent civilians living abroad, this helps to fuel extremism and provides a steady stream of recruits from all over the world who are more likely to be drawn into fundamentalism when they see the equally mindless destruction waged against muslims abroad. When they see gangs of soldiers violating their women, pointing guns at their children and cutting off body parts and using them as trophies, during the invasion of their countries – which were not even implicated in the 9/11 attacks – then young, misguided people are more likely to become radicalised by shady characters wishing to exploit them and recruit them into terrorist groups.

But it’s not just muslims abroad who are targeted. When innocent muslims who are not members of any hate groups or radical organisations, are repeatedly placed under surveillance and subject to random arrests and raids by the police, this also helps to fuel domestic terrorism.

In fact, given the constant wars abroad particularly in Iraq – where the government has admitted that no weapons of mass destruction existed afterall – it is nothing short of a miracle that more terrorist attacks have not occurred.

On the other hand, there are those who argue that muslims effectively “started it” with the bombing of the twin towers, which was attributed to Jihadists.

The truth is, muslims did not bomb those towers. Extremists did, and they don’t represent mainstream muslims any more than they represent christians.

The fact that hundreds of muslims died alongside others in the bombing of the twin towers is often conveniently ignored.

But did terrorism really start with 9/11? In the US for example, the Oklahoma city bombing in 1995 sent shockwaves across America, and was cited as the most destructive act of terrorism on American soil until 9/11. Timothy McVeigh, a former US army soldier and gulf war veteran and Terry Nichols were convicted of the attacks. They are believed to have carried out the attacks because of what they saw as a tyrannical government.

In the UK on the other hand, just a year later in 1996, the IRA carried out a bomb attack in the city of Manchester.

The bomb, placed in a van in the city centre, targeted the city’s infrastructure and economy and caused widespread damage, estimated by insurers at £700 million (£1 billion as of 2013). Two hundred and twelve people were injured in the blast.

The IRA in fact had been carrying out terrorist attacks which targeted civilians in London and other major English cities since the 1930s, on a far greater scale than Jihadists have ever done.

So while any terrorist attacks should be thoroughly condemned by all communities, we must now allow this incident nor – God forbid – any future incidents to spark hatred against ordinary, law-abiding muslims. The vast majority of muslims are equally disgusted by this latest incident and the audacity of the jihadists who falsely claim to represent them.

These extremists are the same people who harrass and bully ordinary muslim men and women in countries governed by Sharia law. Are we really to believe that they represent a group that are almost as diverse in their sects and belief systems as christians are?

Does the National Front or IRA represent all white, christian people? Most certainly not. And by the same token, jihadists do not represent all Muslims.