The Harvard “Revolutionary” Socialists gathered last week, just three days after the Boston Marathon bombings, for a forum entitled “Don’t Let Them Turn Tragedy into Racism” on the Harvard University campus.
The two speakers, including “one of Britain’s leading young radical intellectuals,” put forth talking points that not only express the “Revolutionary” socialists’ opinion of the Boston terrorism, but also appear to almost exactly echo those put forth by the mainstream media in the U.S.
From the New Yorker to the Chicago Tribune, MSNBC, and even Tom Brokaw, the media marched in lockstep with the finger-pointing talking points presented in close proximity to the site of the terror at Harvard’s Socialist forum—finger-pointing at anyone and anything but Islamic Jihadis.
Many Americans have expressed disgust at the extreme pains some of the more elite members of the media went to avoid “prematurely judging” or presuming that whoever was responsible for the attack might be Islamic Jihadis. This, coupled with failing to extend such courtesy to those Americans among us opposed to high taxes and big government, was particularly revealing of the focus of the mainstream media.
Chris Matthews of MSNBC was quick off the mark to point out the attacks occurred on “Patriot Day” in Boston, according to his logic, increasing the likelihood that the responsible party would have been driven by similar reasons for of the Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh. Matthews was one of many to hint at the same judgment, in so doing incorrectly reporting that the Oklahoma attack occurred on the same holiday.
The Harvard Socialists’ forum speakers mimicked this narrative, beginning their discussion by declaring how “unsurprising” it was that the suspects “were white.” Their smugness over this fact was at best incomplete; their comments came about one hour after the photos of the Tsarnaev brothers were released, but prior to the public learning that they were in fact, Islamic Jihadis.
Compare the dramatic accusation in the New Yorker’s “The Saudi Marathon Man,” that the suspicion of initial person of interest Abdul Rahman Alharbi, a Saudi national, was racially motivated with the remarkably similar points made by Sofia Arias of the International Socialists at the Harvard forum. From the New Yorker:
…according to a CBS News report, a bystander saw the young man running, badly hurt, rushed to him, and then “tackled him,” bringing him down. People thought he looked suspicious.
What made them suspect him? He was running—so was everyone. The police reportedly thought he smelled like explosives; his wounds might have suggested why. He said something about thinking there would be a second bomb—as there was, and often is, to target responders. If that was the reason he gave for running, it was a sensible one. He asked if anyone was dead—a question people were screaming. And he was from Saudi Arabia, which is around where the logic stops. Was it just the way he looked, or did he, in the chaos, maybe call for God with a name that someone found strange?
And then from Arias at the Harvard “Revolutionary” Socialists forum:
For a city which is, you know has a very deep racist history… the marathon isn’t just international, it’s it’s [sic] a profoundly internationalist uh, uh, uh, uh, I think celebration and uh of of [sic] humanities capabilities. And, I think to see that, uh, uh, uhm, you know, the attack was was [sic] horrific, but at the same time for Muslims and for Arabs, the fear is two fold, because you know this is just the beginning and you have to hold your breath, and you dreading the onslaught of racism that’s coming down the pipeline. Because you know you don’t have enough time to fully process and mourn and grieve, because you know that the blame is going to be leveled on you.
Following both Arias’s and the New Yorker’s emotional retelling of the bystanders’ prejudice toward the Saudi man, The Blaze this week reported that Abdul Rahman Alharbi was in fact “set to be deported under section 212, 3B — ‘Security and related grounds’ — ‘Terrorist activities’ after the bombing on April 15,” and was previously on the No-Fly List.
Tom Brokaw chimed in with his own presumptions as to what was behind the attack, speculating, “I think we also have to examine the use of drones that the United States is involved in and – and there are a lot of civilians who are innocently killed in a drone attack in Pakistan, in Afghanistan, and in Iraq.”
The U.S. runs this drone program over Pakistan where on a daily basis they’re assassinating uh, uh, uh, innocent people. People, is that not terrorism? That’s a rhetorical question. We all know that’s terrorism.
The Chicago Tribune joined in, articulating the ISO’s overarching theme, “don’t let them turn tragedy into racism,” in their post “Muslims Guard against Backlash”:
The Council on American Islamic Relations again offered sympathy to victims of the Boston Marathon bombing on Friday, but added a plea for Americans not to generalize and conclude that Muslim teachings influenced the suspect in any way.
“Our focus is primarily on the victims,” said Ahmed Rehab, executive director of the Chicago chapter at a press conference Friday afternoon. “We don’t want to be drawn into defending ourselves.”
Citing acts of violence in Boston and New York, Rehab blamed Islamophobic forces for inciting hate crimes. He said that phenomenon poses a bigger threat than “innocently ignorant individuals.”
We have example after example of a mindset that places blinders on to the facts of Boston and seeks to malign the victims and bystanders. Just as the media’s narrative seems more and more predictable, the adoption of their talking points by our representatives in Washington comes as no surprise.
Maybe it’s time someone apologize to Americans, on behalf of the media for the ideological company they keep…