Thursday, April 18, 2013
Australian radio jock suggests 'left-wing radical students' may be linked to Boston bombing
The fact that American college students are right now reading textbooks written by Weather Underground bomber Bill Ayers must not be mentioned, of course
Broadcaster Alan Jones is facing an online backlash after suggesting on national television that "left-wing radical students" were behind the Boston Marathon bombings and that Australia should reconsider its intake of foreign university students in response.
In a segment on Channel Seven's Sunrise on Wednesday morning, the controversial 2GB host said Boston was a student city home to prestigious institutions such as Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), and suggested that students could be the culprits.
"I wouldn't be surprised if this was a conspiracy amongst students, left-wing radical students in Boston, and I think we have to think also very seriously here about our own student numbers," Jones said on Sunrise.
"We're very keen to have foreign students pay the way of universities in this country without a lot of discernment about who comes in. But I think the fact that we've been spared this kind of thing, touch wood, for so long highlights, as I said, the relentless work done by ASIO and all our police organisations."
Source
He's entitled to speculate.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
Oh, sure! Our own broadcasters (Chris Matthews, Nida Khan and Peter Bergen) can speculate with no proof that the right-wing or anti-government groups in America could be responsible, but perish forbid that someone speculate that a left-leaning group might be the culprits.
There's no bias here. Move along.
In fact, it's a very good point he's making. Of course, the Left will jump all over him for saying such a thing, but those same leftists say nothing when their fellow radicals are now trying to link Boston with Newton, CT.
You see, it's not about the dead, injured, and maimed. It's only about furthering the Leftist agenda.
I think people are getting the hint about the pass lefty are getting and fighting back. Jay Mohr ("comdian" and tv host) tried to blame 2nd Amend and was soundly rebuked on twitter. Tried to walk it as "non-political" but didn't work. Need to confront these limo lefties, call them out and shout them down!
Salon Magazine "hopes" the bomber is white, because there's a "double standard" about how white and non-white terrorists are portrayed. The whites, apparently, are always "lone wolves," while the non-whites are portrayed as members of a vast network or organizations.
Their prime examples? Osama bin-Laden, who ran the Al-qaeda network for decades and was dedicated to driving the infidels from the sacred lands of Islam, and Timothy McVeigh, who ran the....oh wait, who was a member of.....uhm...who was loosely associated with - yeah, that might work - paranoid militia groups.
"He's entitled to speculate."
And we are entitled to give him a ration of shit for his unsubstantiated comments.
You see, it's not about the dead, injured, and maimed. It's only about furthering the Leftist agenda.
A Democrat legislator said after Newton, "This has to be exploited for all the political gain possible."
Next we'll see the Boston injured and relatives of the dead being showcased to advance the Left's agenda.
McStinky,
Have you set any of those rations to Matthews, Maddow, Salon and the rest of the lefty slime media? Right, didn't think so.
If you haven't heard the so-called main stream talking heads doing the same thing, you must be hiding under your Mommy's bed. Or you've been pigging out on your own rations. Probably both.
"under your Mommy's bed."
She's dead, numb nuts. Try again.
Speculation by someone in authority in the absence of any information one way or the other is just another name for slander. Yes, it could have been leftist students. It could have been an extreme right-wing anti-government nut. It could have been a lone nutcase off his meds. It could have been an Islamic terrorist. It could have been an IRA terrorist. It even could have been Kim Jong Un testing one of his nukes.
The simple fact is that We Don't Know Yet. And most of the "speculation" is nothing more than bald-faced slander, made obvious by a complete lack of "speculation" about all the reasonable possibilities.
I have yet to see a rational argument for why slander should reasonably be considered reasonable free speech.
Wow. Finally something that Luke says that actually make sense.
2:12 - I think psychologists call it "compartmentalism" where people can be quite rational in most areas, but irrational in some others, especially where they've become emotionally dependent on religious superstitions.
Luke is an irrational "Creationist"!
Post a Comment