After a man wearing a sweatshirt with what appeared to be pro-Islam rhetoric wreaked havoc at an Austin, Texas, bar, a prominent GOP data consultant criticized others for attempting to determine a motive for the shooting.
On March 1, 53-year-old Ndiaga Diagne pulled up to a bar on Sixth Street near the University of Texas and opened fire on patrons from his car. Diagne then drove down the street, got out of his vehicle and continued to shoot at passersby.
After authorities neutralized him, four people, including Diagne, died from their wounds, and 13 others were injured.
Investigators later revealed that Diagne was wearing a sweatshirt that read “Property of Allah” and an undershirt displaying the flag of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Notably, it has been reported that Diagne was a naturalized U.S. citizen born in Senegal, a country with a predominantly Muslim population. He came to the country in 2000 on a B-2 tourist visa and became a naturalized citizen under the Obama administration in 2013.
Following the shooting, people across the internet began to speculate that the attack may have been connected to a coordinated terrorist effort after recent attacks involving Iranian leaders. Authorities have since said that they do not believe Diagne was directed by others and that he appeared to have acted alone.
As speculation spread, Derek Ryan, a prominent Republican data consultant, criticized what he described as a rush to investigate race, religion, and ideology of the attack to use as political talking points.
“I’m tired of mass shootings,” wrote Ryan. “I’m also tired of the mad dash by people across the political spectrum to find out the shooter’s race, religion, ideology, etc so they can use it as a political talking point to attack whole groups of people.”
State Rep. Mitch Little responded to Ryan’s post by questioning whether the attacker’s ideology should be discussed.
“Derek, the guy was wearing a SWEATSHIRT THAT SAID PROPERTY OF ALLAH. Should we not talk about it?” Little wrote.
Ryan went on to explain that people shouldn’t be making blanket statements about a whole group based on one individual’s actions.
“99.99% of Muslims didn’t shoot up a bar today,” Ryan wrote. “If he had been wearing an NRA shirt, how would you feel about the left lumping all of us gun owners in with the shooter?”
“Crazy is crazy. I’m tired of everyone making blanket statements about a group based on the 0.001% nut jobs,” he continued.
Some analysts have noted that between 1994 and 2025, radical jihadists have “conducted or plotted 140 reported attacks in the United States.” Most targeted random civilians rather than specific officials, aiming to create chaos and fear.
In fact, according to jihadist ideology, non-muslim civilians are seen as valid targets.
Additionally, the Center for Strategic and International Studies reported that “most U.S. jihadist plots involve no direct link with international terrorist organizations,” adding that “only 23 of the 129 (about 18 percent) attacks and plots recorded in the past 20 years involved known contact between plotters and a member of an international terrorist organization.”
While it’s generally considered good practice not to generalize about an entire group, some argue that examining ideological and religious motivations can be relevant to national security discussions.