The authorities will have decided that it's more important to be PC and try to downplay religious hatred than to give Americans a decent description of suspects so they can be caught before they kill more.
Or to put it another way, the authorities will have weighed the lives and safety of average Americans (ie, those unable to afford bodyguards and live in gated communities) against offending the sensibilities of both PCers and "ethnic enclavers" , and decided that our lives are not as important as not offending sensibilities.
It would be as if they came right out and said,"Yeah, so a few nobodies get shot, maybe killed or paralyzed or permanently disfigured. What difference do they make, compared to the important things in life, like showing how tolerant and understanding and nonjudgmental we are?"
G-d help us if it is Islamic terrorists. There could well be an explosion of rage-by no means directed exclusively against Muslim immigrants-if that turns out to be the case. The betrayal of Americans by a government which refuses to police our borders-and then lies to us if h*ll breaks loose as a result...It could get very, VERY nasty.
Let us all HOPE these killers are basic homegrown "grudge against society" losers, killing at random innocents so they can feel powerful and godlike.
Maybe, maybe not if one considers OKC, some of the outside TWA800 possibilities, WTC-93, etc.
Seems to me that the locus of the problem centers around the FBI itself, which I would break down into two components: leadership, and the troops (e.g. special agents, profilers, etc.). The latter (troops) I have seen in and observed in action a few times, and I hope no one is offended if I say (as a just a civilian observer) that the output leaves something to be desired. To a certain extent, that is excuseable because at least they are trying to the best of their ability and training. The leadership (starting with Freeh, etc. and continuing up through at least the end of the Clinton era) however seems to me a different story.
In this particular case it has me wondering if there is something in the FBI procedures book that goes like follow Occam's Razor. The most handy folks to hang a given random terrorist act on in the U.S. has been the typical militia type, since (I guess) at least Ruby Ridge (circa 1992; note: pre-Clinton). Whether through sheer laziness, lack of training material upgrade or some valid reason, that still seems to be the case today. There probably are more militia types with the appropriate firepower than anyone else out there, so the numbers alone, all other factors being equal, would seem to favor the militia nut or militia cell scenario. I don't buy it but this is just the numbers.
A possible contributing factor: if one steps through the various online applications for various low level fed. gov. positions, including FBI, one eventually comes to a form which IIRC requires inputting one's race and gender as a prerequisite to submitting the app. What is this info used for if not to screen for (or alternatively, somehow, "against") "racial and gender diversity"? The implication (to me) is that race, gender, and potentially other irrelevant factors such as sexual orientation seem very much used as part of the federal hiring screening and selection process. This if correct would leave open the possibility that the goal of "diversity" is rampant throughout the organization, including downplaying racial profiling of potential suspects. In turn, that if true could lead to omitting or de-emphasizing certain race-oriented clues via institutional bias...
Again, GIGO and/or Peter Principle in action.