The Ron Paul Institute has come under heavy criticism after it posted an article Wednesday that suggested both the Charlie Hebdo terrorist attack in Paris and the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack in New York City were both "false flag operations."
Masked gunman fire their weapons outside the French satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo's office, in Paris, Wednesday, Jan. 7, 2015. Paris residents captured chilling video images of two masked gunmen shooting a police officer after an attack at a French satirical newspaper. (AP Photo)
The piece, written by Paul Roberts, argues that each of the attacks has traits that are counter to to the goals of Islamic terrorists.
The Roberts' piece reads, in part:
The Charlie Hebdo affair has many of the characteristics of a false flag operation. The attack on the cartoonists’ office was a disciplined professional attack of the kind associated with highly trained special forces; yet the suspects who were later corralled and killed seemed bumbling and unprofessional. It is like two different sets of people.
Roberts questioned whether the three alleged terrorists were in fact Muslim terrorists because of their attempts to escape authorities rather than die for their "cause":
Usually Muslim terrorists are prepared to die in the attack; yet the two professionals who hit Charlie Hebdo were determined to escape and succeeded, an amazing feat. Their identity was allegedly established by the claim that they conveniently left for the authorities their ID in the getaway car. Such a mistake is inconsistent with the professionalism of the attack and reminds me of the undamaged passport found miraculously among the ruins of the two WTC towers that served to establish the identity of the alleged 9/11 hijackers.It is a plausible inference that the ID left behind in the getaway car was the ID of the two Kouachi brothers, convenient patsies, later killed by police, and from whom we will never hear anything, and not the ID of the professionals who attacked Charlie Hebdo. An important fact that supports this inference is the report that the third suspect in the attack, Hamyd Mourad, the alleged driver of the getaway car, when seeing his name circulating on social media as a suspect realized the danger he was in and quickly turned himself into the police for protection against being murdered by security forces as a terrorist.
Roberts also accused the so-called "mainstream media" for their role, claiming the coverage of the Charlie Hebdo attack didn't tell the entire story. He claimed one example was their lack of reporting on a French police official, Helric Fredou, who committed suicide during the course of the investigation, while also noting that Fredou had an "important role" in the investigation.
Roberts continued:
Some who think that they are experts will say that a false flag attack in France would be impossible without the cooperation of French intelligence. To this I say that it is practically a certainty that the CIA has more control over French intelligence than does the President of France...Americans are a pitifully misinformed people. All of history is a history of false flag operations. Yet Americans dismiss such proven operations as “conspiracy theories,” which merely proves that government has successfully brainwashed insouciant Americans and deprived them of the ability to recognize the truth.
The Ron Paul Institute, named for the father of Sen. Rand Paul, who is seen among some as a likely contender for the 2016 GOP nomination for president, did not immediately respond to questions from TheBlaze on Thursday. On the group's website, Paul is listed as the organization's "chairman and founder."
A war of words broke out on Twitter Wednesday between RPI executive director Daniel McAdams and Reason.com editor-in-chief Matt Welch that could offer further insight into whether Roberts' view is also supported by RPI.
@JustinRaimondo @MattWelch And you, Justin? Really? I should only run pieces that agree with the NYT and Hollande version of the event?
— Daniel McAdams (@DanielLMcAdams) January 15, 2015Antiwar.com edit director Justin Ralmondo responded:
@DanielLMcAdams @MattWelch No, but run credible stuff. This discredits Ron.
— Justin Raimondo (@JustinRaimondo) January 15, 2015McAdams again defended the decision to run the piece:
@JustinRaimondo @MattWelch You sound like a neocon.
— Daniel McAdams (@DanielLMcAdams) January 15, 2015Ralmondo responded again:
@DanielLMcAdams @MattWelch No I don't. I sound like someone who believes in giving evidence 4 conclusions.
— Justin Raimondo (@JustinRaimondo) January 15, 2015McAdams shot back:
@JustinRaimondo @MattWelch Like Israel was behind 9/11?
— Daniel McAdams (@DanielLMcAdams) January 15, 2015The social media frenzy continued throughout several more tweets, which you can read here.
Despite some, such as Roberts, claiming the attack on the Charlie Hebdo offices was nothing more than a conspiracy, the Daily Beast reported Wednesday that even Alex Jones of the ultra-conservative website Infowars.com who has been known to often support so-called "conspiracy theories," doesn't believe the January 7 attack was an inside job.
Roberts has written for a number of publications, according to his website, including Commentary, National Review, Independent Review, the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Fortune, London Times, Financial Times, Business Week and the Spectator. Roberts also served as assistant secretary of the treasury for economic policy under President Ronald Reagan.
–
Follow Jon Street (@JonStreet) on Twitter
