If that's true, and i very much doubt so, then there is no big difference between "Muslims" and Islamic state muslims. if a man can't tolerate a caricature that actually mocks an organization that is destroying his religion's reputation just because it portraits his prophet in a funny way, then he is just as an extremist.
I think there is a difference between being offended on a religious basis and killing someone due to them offending you on a religious basis. You understand of course that I find it all very ridiculous too (with regard to any religion I feel this way), but Muslims have a particular issue with the visual representation of certain people. There are no images or portraits of people or animals in mosques for this reason - I can't remember exactly what the reason is but there's something about any depiction of a person being sinful in a house of God.
These are trained, experienced, cold blooded killers. most probably Islamic State terrorists coming home after a tour in Iraq/Syria.
I wonder if we will see something like this after all in the UK.
Its far easier to just strap a poor kid and send him to blow himself up than send trained operatives that know how to shoot and kill effectively. now that they basically have freedom of movement into europe thanks to Turkey, they are not short on terrorists trained in real battlefields.
Are you sure these guys are coming through Turkey? But yes, I can see the point but with fairly rudimentary training one person with a gun can cause terrible havoc. We've seen that in many shootings in the UK pre and post gun-ban and in the US it's not like every one of these spree killers has undergone military training. Our last spree killer, Derrick Bird, killed 12 people in Cumbria in 2010 with a double barreled shotgun he used for hunting. He was just a taxi driver.