I would like to add a further dimension to this question.
You are against UK foreign policy and you have derived a degree of grim satisfaction from the Woolwich atrocity since it vindicated your view about the inadvisability of getting involved in Iraq etc.
Your son is also Lee Rigby who is now dead.
Would you condemn atrocity because the victim was your son but would not otherwise have done so?
Or do you refrain from condemning the atrocity even if your son were the victim of terrorists objecting to UK foreign policy because the murder of your son by terrorists was clearly yet another reason why Britain should not have become involved in the invasion and bombing of Muslim lands?
It should be borne in mind that condemning the atrocity would not bring him back nor help in making Muslims less unpopular.
If you cannot say something with sincerity, then why say it at all? It would only mean that you are being mendacious, hypocritical, cowardly or have been intimidated.
If you are saying that committing that atrocity was in some way disproportionate, then what would have been proportionate?
Can you ever call an action "disproportionate" (eg publicly saying you will vote BNP even if you are Muslim, in order to make a point that you hate UK foreign policy more than you hate the BNP whom you already know hate you) when it will have no effect at all?
What would have been proportionate action to take as regards objecting to UK foreign policy?
Is it enough to say that those who objected to it should just shut up and forget about it?
Is it logical as well as moral not to condemn the atrocity if you remain opposed to the UK foreign policy of invading and bombing Muslim countries?
Was Anjem Choudary logical and moral not to condemn the Woolwich atrocity?