Staff Reports
The FBI’s initial refusal to categorize Shamsud-din Jabbar as a terrorist following his brutal attack in New Orleans raises some eyebrows and a few too many questions. In an era when the Biden administration has shown a penchant for politicizing everything from climate change to breakfast choices, could the reluctance to label Jabbar a terrorist be another attempt to sweep inconvenient truths under the rug?
Jabbar, a name that has recently made headlines for all the wrong reasons, carried out an attack that rattled the Big Easy. While one might expect the FBI to take a clear and decisive stance, it instead chose to tiptoe around the issue, creating an impression that it was more concerned with political optics than with public safety. The bureaucratic hesitance suggests a pattern of avoiding labels that might run counter to the administration’s narrative, which seems to redefine reality based on political convenience.
As details of Jabbar’s motivations continued to trickle in, the Biden administration’s spin machine kicked into high gear. Instead of confronting the realities of domestic threats, which could include Islamist extremism, the focus seemed to remain on downplaying the incident in an effort to promote the administration’s vision of a sanitized, politically correct narrative. It is as if the fear of being labeled “too tough” on crime or “Islamophobic” has led to an unwillingness to confront a dangerous reality.
Shamsud-Din Jabbar’s New Orleans attack was terrorism — why did the FBI lie about it? https://t.co/6noSZPZPnL pic.twitter.com/wNLHMBFVn5
— NY Post Opinion (@NYPostOpinion) January 2, 2025
By attempting to sanitize the situation, the FBI is not only letting Jabbar off the hook but also setting a precarious precedent for how violence is classified. Citizens across the nation may find this troubling, as it raises concerns about the type of protection they can expect from federal agencies meant to keep them safe. The FBI’s decision seems less about justice and more about avoiding any potential backlash or criticism from certain ideological camps.
In the end, Jabbar’s attack presents a glaring example of how far the current administration is willing to go to avoid uncomfortable truths. It’s a stark reminder that political gamesmanship may very well trump accountability in this era, leaving ordinary Americans to wonder who, if anyone, is willing to step up and accurately define threats to society.
