4 Comments
User's avatar
Michael Segal's avatar

The FBI is now reassessing the long wolf conclusion that was issued so early and so confidently:

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/05/us/new-orleans-attack-travel.html

Investigators found that the attacker, Shamsud-Din Jabbar, had made trips to Egypt and Canada in 2023. But they said on Sunday that they had yet to determine what role, if any, those travels might have played in his evolving beliefs or his planning for the New Orleans attack.

“Our agents are getting answers as to where he went, who he met with and how those trips may or may not tie into his actions here in our city,” Lyonel Myrthil, the special agent in charge for the F.B.I. in New Orleans, said at a news conference.

Expand full comment
Harry Binswanger's avatar

Thank you for naming the unnameable. More is needed than better defense. We have to crush Iran. Islamic fundamentalism cannot survive vigorous American military action.

We should have acted decisively long ago, say when the Tehran embassy hostages were taken. Had we crushed the Ayatollah then, there'd have been no further attacks against/within America.

Expand full comment
David Weinkrantz's avatar

When did we become morally degenerate? Or is it that the Koran tells Muslims to wipe out non-believers in Allah?

Expand full comment
Michael Segal's avatar

Ira Stoll has raised an important general point in this article. But there may be an additional reason for not rushing to announce that the New Orleans terrorist had acted alone.

Officials are investigating whether the New Orleans terrorist attack and the Las Vegas terrorist attack are connected. In both cases, the perpetrator had served at the same US Army base and had used the same Turo car-sharing app to rent a vehicle. If there was a connection between these 2 terrorist attacks, would the FBI still claim that each terrorist had acted alone?

Does the FBI already know enough to say there is no connection? Or is the FBI claiming there is proof of absence of coordination when all they know is that there is absence of proof? It is an important difference.

Expand full comment