That's because it wasn't an apology. I mean, how do you "apologise" for something for which you weren't responsible? If some Christian nutbag blew up a mosque, would you expect other Christians to apologise for that?
What the guy was doing was expressing sympathy for the event, not apologizing. Oddly, you calling it a lame apology almost validates his reasoning. He said the only hesitation he had was that someone would consider any expression of sympathy an "apology", as if these other moslems are responsible for what this particular moslem did. He eventually decided that expressing sympathy should outweigh the risk of it getting labelled an "apology". But having it labelled an "apology" is exactly what happened.
I'm not defending moslems in general, or even this particular moslem. I'm just saying that blaming this particular guy for something some other moslem did is wrong, unless there is something showing that he incited the attack or something. Then, I'd agree that an apology should be the minimum that should be demanded.
I'm betting this isn't going to be a very popular response in this thread, though.
Thanks, I stand corrected. I should have said, that is one of the weakest and lamest expressions of "sympathy" I have ever read.
Shuk-ran habi bib