Last Saturday Malik Faisal Akram, a Muslim extremist, entered Jewish synagogue in Colleyville, Texas. He took four hostages, including Rabbi Charlie Cytron-Walker, and demanded the immediate release of convicted terrorist Aafia Siddiqui.
Aafia Siddiqui, a terrorist with a long history of antisemitism, was convicted in 2010 of plotting to kill American service members in Afghanistan in 2008. She is currently serving an 86-year prison sentence in a Texas penitentiary. During her trial, she reportedly demanded jurors in her case be DNA tested and removed “if they have a Zionist or Israeli background.”
The crisis came to an end at around 9pm when the hostage taker was killed, and the hostages were rescued unharmed.
FBI Special Agent in Charge Matt DeSarno held a press conference after the incident. He told the press the incident “was not specifically related to the Jewish community” and they were “continuing to work to find motive”.
The FBI was then subjected to immediate condemnation on social media for their outrageous assertion. How could Jewish hostages held in a synagogue by a man demanding the immediate release of a convicted terrorist (with a well known history of antisemitism) not be related to the Jewish community?
The next day, the FBI released a new statement which seemed to contradict their original one. In it, they claimed “This is a terrorism-related matter, in which the Jewish community was targeted, and is being investigated by the Joint Terrorism Task Force”.
Seriously. Jewish hostages held in a synagogue are threatened with death unless a known antisemitic terrorist is released from prison. The FBI then claims it had nothing to do with the Jewish community. The next day the FBI releases another statement claiming the Jewish community actually was targeted.
I wonder what new evidence came to light that made them change their mind? Or was it just the pressure of public opinion? One would hope a criminal investigation would be conducted based on the law, and not on opinions on social media. But it would seem that in this case, neither the initial findings or the follow-up were based on facts.
It would seem Justice no longer blind, and is based on politics and social media.