What was the name of the arrested man? Abdullah? Mohamad?
Edit: Since some members dont know what sarcasm is let me add this: /s
Sarcasm is a simple concept, the reality of the situation is a bit more complicated.
To understand why it is a reasonable inference to assume that the perpetrator is a follower of Mohamed you need to understand a bit about a form of statistical inference called Bayes’ theorem.
This is likely beyond your level of thought to grasp but allow me to explain anyway.
The probability of a terrorist being a Muslim given a terrorist attack in a place like Sweden is the probability of a Muslim being responsible (in Sweden) multiplied by, assuming it’s a local attack for simplicity, the probability of being Muslim in Sweden (divided by the probability of a terrorist attack having occurred but this will be unity in the after-event).
Now this conditional probability in itself will be unremarkable, and this fact is often touted by Muslim apologists, their ilk and their leftist allies. But if we were to test the real argument, we would have to calculate the ratio of the foregoing conditional probability to that of the conditional probability of a non-Muslim being responsible given a terrorist attack in Sweden.
That ratio will be significantly greater than 1, which means that Muslims are more likely to perpetrate terror than a non-Muslim in Sweden.
This is the mathematical basis to the common-sense surmise most infidels make about these events, namely that they are likely caused by an adherent of the religion of peace.
