When the TV program was over, I went to Twitter and searched for "San Bernardino Muslim" and similar queries. The reason was obvious: at least in the present atmosphere in the world, Muslims seemed to be by far the most likely perpetrators and someone on Twitter could have offered some early reports about the identification.
Shockingly enough, I didn't find any tweet of this kind. Instead, I saw about 50 different tweets saying that the culprits had to be some white right-wing Christian Republicans or something like that. Disbelieving, I went to sleep.
Needless to say, in the morning, 2 of the 3 killers are already identified. It was a Muslim couple. Syed Rizwan Farook was 28 and his wife (they got married 2 years ago and left a 6-month-old baby) Tashfeen Malik who was 27. They sound like classic Christian Republican names, don't they?
We know much more at least about Farook now. According to co-workers, this food inspector was living the American dream. That must be the reason why someone goes and shoots 14 people, mustn't it? Concerning Farook's co-workers, I can realistically visualize the super-duper politically correct hypocrisy on steroids.
Farook's father gave much more relevant – and obviously expected – information. They were estranged and the son was a devout Muslim. His life would mean to "go to work, come back, go to pray, come back". I suppose that this is what his colleagues call the American Dream!
Sorry but all of this is just breathtaking nonsense. People who were led to submission to Allah live a life that may be described as an Unamerican Nightmare. They can't do anything freely. They can't drink wine or alcohol, they can't have free and creative sex, they can't study science too deeply because science implies that Islam is a widespread superstition, and when they happen to be female, they can't do almost anything. On top of that, they are obliged to repeat that this is the life they are grateful for. No wonder that most of these people are looking forward to the moment when they die because their life dramatically improves at that point.
There may exist thousands of casualties of their terrorist attacks but the most important group of victims are the 1.6 billion world's Muslims themselves.
A difference between Islam and Islamic terrorism
The politically correct people – including some people who are politically incorrect in other contexts (like Czech ex-president Klaus) – are telling us that we shouldn't conflate Muslims with the Muslim terrorists. If we shouldn't conflate them, we must distinguish them and I would really love to know how to do that.
I am looking at a Muslim as at a potential mass killer. That's clearly a way I would have looked at Farook, too. Is he a bad guy while the other Muslims are good and safe? How can it be true? This guy was clearly the ultimate role model for all Muslims. He worked and he prayed. Even after his most well-known act, he was said to live in the American Dream. A vast majority of Muslims' lives surely look more troubled and worrisome.
You know, a Muslim terrorist may be defined as a physically fit, young enough devout Muslim who really believes this religious stuff and who has already taken it seriously. Farook would have been innocent if he had never met Allah but Allah has turned him into a mass killer. The actual culprits are not folks like Farook; the actual culprits in all these attacks are Prophet Mohammed and his virtual appendix named Allah.
In an insightful essay about the character and history of Islam, Klaus' aide Jiří Weigl says that there are some similarities between Christianity and Islam – for example, the holy texts may be interpreted in almost any way if you cherry-pick and play with the words a little bit.
But there's also a big difference: Islam simply isn't just a private spiritual philosophy reserved for the most private rooms of your home. Islam demands to control the believers' whole lives. The Sharia law is therefore inseparable from the religion because, along with the religious and ethical rules, Sharia represents the actual beef of Islam!
Among other things, Weigl points out that this non-secular character of Islam goes back to the very birth of the religion because Mohammed wasn't just a self-appointed prophet and a church official. He was also a civilian leader and a successful military commander. When Jesus was slapped in his face, he turned the other cheek. You know, these are different personalities and different attitudes to life in the society.
Weigl also discusses some silver linings. In the Middle Ages, Islamic empires could have been more tolerant towards Christians and others and the reason was that they weren't actually trying to convert non-Arabs. They only considered Arabs to be good enough for Islam – it was their religion. Ironically, the Arabs' ethnic racism is what has made them more tolerant at some point.
At any rate, if you want a version of Islam that isn't killing, then what you need is to weaken Islam. You have to make sure that the Muslims don't take it too seriously. They don't spend as much time by praying as by work. The idea that the full-capacity Islam is compatible with the peaceful co-existence with other beliefs and disbeliefs is preposterous. I wonder how many more people will have to die before majorities of nations like America will be able to learn this simple insight.
Their learning curve seems rather flat at this point. Now, when we know almost everything about the killer's life and when all pro-ISIS accounts on the social networks celebrate the three "lions" with the "America burning" hashtag, Wikipedia says:
Motive: Unknown at this timeWow. Surely the motive has nothing to do with Allah (and the shooters' dissatisfaction with the Americans' sins against Islam), does it? The people who are willing to write this description of the motive at this moment live in a complete denial of reality and that's dangerous – basically as dangerous as the devout Muslims similar to Farook themselves.
Update: Even in the afternoon on Thursday, The New York Times were among the outlets that claimed that "investigators were just seeking for clues to motive". Oh my God. This must be so terribly hard to find the motive. And the man's recent visit to Saudi Arabia surely doesn't help them to solve the difficult puzzle, either. And those half-dozen Middle Eastern men who recently visited Farook's house can't mean anything, either.
Obama has probably no clue about the motive, either. Maybe the people were murdered by global warming, the greatest problem in the world as he sees it.
Swedish king wants to ban bathtubs
Her Excellency Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden has urged his country to ban bathtubs which are "not wise". They also encourage everyone to fart into the water because it's fun. But this farting is dangerous because it produces the greenhouse gases, the aristocrat pointed out. He has personally eliminated bathtubs from his life and to reduce his farting even further, Her Excellency has reduced the consumption of meat, too.
If several other kings joined his campaign to reduce farting off the excellency holes, the world would be saved! ;-)
The Nobel prize (for sciences) remains prestigious due to the selection process but to get the award from this Gentleman must be a bit insulting, indeed. Well, among the kings and princes (greetings to Charles, too), everyone may feel like a genius.
Needless to say, lots of details are clear by now. The female attacker has declared herself an ISIS warrior during the attack (on Facebook). Later, her husband was shown to have contacts with al-Nusra, the Syrian al-Qaeda subsidiary. Everyone who has doubted that it would be an act of radical Islam is just fooling himself or herself, detaching from reality. It's terrible how many delays some people are able to pump into the public discourse before people are allowed to admit the obvious.