Strange, I thought you argued that Breivik wasn't a religously motivated terrorist.
How is it strange logic to say Breivik wasn't a religious terrorist because he wasn't a religious man by his own admission?
of course it is a religiously motivated attack when a Muslim targets a US embassy
The attack fits the same pattern of countless terrorist attacks and plots carried out by Muslims in the name of religion for over the past decade and a half.
The article mentions he was a religious extremist. We'll see if religious extremism had anything to do with the attack or if he was a religious extremist who also happened to be a terrorist.
but not a terrorist attack when a 'Christian Crusader' kills teenagers (in your eyes).
Where have I claimed Breivik did not carry out a terrorist attack?
But, I'm intrigued - what's this delusion about all these religiously motivated terrorist attacks in the EU.
You can start with Europe's first suicide bombing against a German (?) police station in the nineties and move on to the attacks against France during the same period by terrorist groups operating in the name of Islam.
Europe has seen an unceasing drip in attacks and plots by radical Muslims who are willing to kill in the name of their religion for the past two decades. Islamic terrorism is not limited to time, geography or "conflict".