MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Ron Paul Institute Publishes a Charlie Hebdo ‘False Flag’ Piece

Defending the decision, RPI director levels various baseless accusations

Paul Craig Roberts. |||Yesterday, the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity made the affirmative decision to republish a piece by Paul Craig Roberts that RPI affixed with the headline: "Charlie Hebdo Shootings: False Flag?" Here's how it begins:

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.

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.

What would be the false-flaggers' motivation?

Just recently France had voted in the UN with Palestine against the US-Israeli position. This assertion of an independent French foreign policy was reinforced by the recent statement by the President of France that the economic sanctions against Russia should be terminated.

Clearly, France was showing too much foreign policy independence. The attack on Charlie Hebdo serves to cow France and place France back under Washington’s thumb.

Later in the column, Roberts sneers at the official 9/11 story, asserts that "the CIA has more control over French intelligence than does the President of France," and ends with this flourish:

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.

Americans are the foremost among the captive nations.

Who will liberate them?

Roberts' history of false-flag assertions is certainly well known to Ron Paul himself. Did you know Kmele got into libertarianism because of Ron Paul? True story. |||In April of last year, RPI reprinted a Roberts piece concluding that "elements of the US government blew up three New York skyscrapers in order to destroy Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Somalia, Syria, Iran, and Hezbollah and to launch the US on the neoconservatives agenda of US world hegemony." Afterward, Paul appeared on The Independents, and upon being questioned about it by Kmele Foster said:

Well, it's just that people should have a right to express their viewpoints. If you read 99 percent of the article it was a fantastic article. But that doesn't mean that […] I endorse what he says, obviously! So I think that's a little bit overkill with political correctness. People know my position, I've stated [it] on national television enough times. But Paul Craig Roberts has some very good views on war and civil liberties, and he shouldn't be excluded because he takes this particular position. But that wasn't the thrust of the article. So I think that, to me, the people who overly criticize something like that probably are the ones who have the problem.

As I pointed out in this blog post at the time, a more accurate percentage-count of 9/11 trutherism in Roberts' piece was 30, not one. And I disagree, publicly now as privately then, with the notion that "the people who overly criticize something like that probably are the ones who have the problem." The people who have the problem are the ones who work for the Ron Paul Institute and are genuinely interested in persuading a wider audience about their anti-interventionist message. Roberts' piece will intrigue that narrow readership fond of fact-lite, rancidly-posited dot-connecting exercises, and repel just about everyone else.

On Twitter last night, RPI Executive Director Daniel McAdams went on a protracted rant against critics of the piece, writing "I should only run pieces that agree with the NYT and Hollande version of the event?," telling Antiwar.com's Justin Raimondo that he sounds "like a neocon," stating (falsely) "Matt Welch whose only foreign policy statement ever on Fox has been to disagree with RP and non-intervention," and then referencing my non-existent (to my knowledge!) "CIA buddies in Budapest," where McAdams and I both once lived. It's both a telling and deeply unflattering tic to defend publishing an implausibly conspiratorial rant by leveling ludicrous accusations against people who call attention to it.

I have tremendous respect for Ron Paul, who has been named a "Hero of Freedom" by both the magazine I edit and the television show I co-host; you can read a Q&A I conducted with him on foreign policy as recently as October. And I have the opposite of respect for some of the people who have written and published some seriously bizarre commentary over the years in organizations that carry his name. Bad arguments–including/especially any from me or the staff of this magazine–do not deserve a free pass merely by dint of being ideologically simpatico. 

UPDATE: I neglected to mention that Paul Craig Roberts used to write for Reason; you can see two of his archived pieces, from 1991, here. We have also written about him plenty since then; start here.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Rod Flash||

    First of the second.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    OK Ron, you can shut the hell up now. As nice as it is that you served as a proof-of-concept that some form of libertarian politics has electoral potential, you have outstayed your welcome and are potentially killing it for your son.

  • Andrew S.||

    Yeah, that was my thought. This isn't helping anything, especially Rand's future Presidential aspirations.

  • OldMexican||

    This isn't helping anything, especially Rand's future Presidential aspirations.


    Which is what this brouhaha over NOTHING is all about.

  • Cytotoxic||

    No it isn't. It's about Ron Paul and his fellow travellers being absolute loony toons.

  • RBS||

    something something Reason hates Rand Paul, not real libertarians, COSMOS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Beltwaytarians!!!

    /LRC

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    And yet Raimondo and Welch seem to be on the same side in this.

    Clearly a sign of the end times.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    I WANT to like Rand, but I've been burned too many times. I don't know how yet, but if I let myself believe he's the real deal, I know he'll turn out to be just another fraud.

  • Cytotoxic||

    FFS look at his voting record!

  • ajweberman||

    you mean Hitler's son named after the SA currency?

  • ||

    At this point I think it's time to admit that the Pauls are destined to be messengers.

  • sarcasmic||

    Say it again!

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    Please no

  • albo||

    Take that "false flag" and shove it up your ass, Roberts.

  • Outlaw||

    Fucking conspiracy theorists.

    Look, conspiracy dudes, something is wrong with your brain. It's likely due to an evolutionary threat detector that was useful in a world full of threats going haywire in our modern comfortable one.

  • Almanian!||

    someone should write a book about this (lookin' at you, Jesse Walker)

  • Drake||

    Whenever I read "False Flag" I hear it in Alex Jones' crazy voice.

  • Drake||

    Or Anthony's impression...

    Around 6.45

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmKzsSk0Ujs

  • Contrarian P||

    I respectfully disagree. Although I have no problem accepting that men walked on the moon, Oswald shot Kennedy, and so forth, in my opinion those that force re-examination and defense of the official narrative serve a valuable function. There certainly have been "conspiracy theories" that have been at least partially true: CIA mind control experiments, the U.S. government engaging in the drug trade, Thomas Jefferson had a slave mistress, and that the government had an extensive network devoted to spying on its own citizens. All of those at one point were considered tinfoil hat material, and every one turned out to be true.

    One doesn't have to agree with everything a person says to realize that they make some valid points. Only publishing articles that pass some sort of truth test leads to a bland, vacuous media (kind of like what the mainstream has become). Having to deal with those holding contrary beliefs in order to validate your own forces you to confront potential weaknesses in your own narrative and, just maybe, to engage in a degree of self examination.

    Personally I don't give a damn if the whole thing is a false flag or not, but there certainly hasn't been enough time to know all the facts of the case to easily dismiss someone claiming that it might be.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    If a reasonable case can be constructed, then sure.

    The above does not come even close to being such a thing, and is published under an organization holding itself out as a "think tank". Given that it is a libertarian think tank, such can only be harmful to the reputation of libertarians, for no gain whatsoever.

  • LynchPin1477||

    Seriously endorsing conspiracy theories when there is no evidence to support them is always silly. The fact that sometimes, the conspiracy nuts get parts right, doesn't change that. If he thinks it is actually a false flag, present evidence for it.

    The bigger issue is not that their are nutters out there. It's that supposedly respectable institutions and individuals that are under a lot of scrutiny and help carry the libertarian torch seem so comfortable giving the nutters a platform. At best it shows poor judgement.

  • Irish||

    "The bigger issue is not that their are nutters out there. It's that supposedly respectable institutions and individuals that are under a lot of scrutiny and help carry the libertarian torch seem so comfortable giving the nutters a platform. At best it shows poor judgement."

    Yeah, no one has ever declared that the Ron Paul Institute is a 'respectable institution.'

    The fact that they casually dropped the assertion that 9/11 was also a false flag operation into the middle of this jumbled mess is really just the cherry on top.

  • Roger the Shrubber||

    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.


    Is this a true assertion? I have never heard of this.

  • Zeb||

    And the fact that conspiracy nuts occasionally get something right doesn't really help uncover the truth about things. If 90% of what you say is batshit insane, then people are going to be less likely to believe the true things that you say.

  • Irish||

    Thomas Jefferson having a slave mistress is not a conspiracy theory.

    "Personally I don't give a damn if the whole thing is a false flag or not, but there certainly hasn't been enough time to know all the facts of the case to easily dismiss someone claiming that it might be."

    Except that the reasoning behind this supposed false flag is absurd. We sent specially trained hit teams into France to kill cartoonists because France voted against us in a UN resolution?

    Furthermore, what about the two people who took hostages in the Kosher shop in an attempt to get the original killers released? We know who they are, we know they were armed, we know they killed Jews, and we know they had terrorist ties. Apparently that's all just a coincidence and is a side show to an otherwise perfectly planned false flag operation.

  • ||

    Crap. Didn't read down. Thanks for pointing that out.

  • ||

    Thomas Jefferson had a slave mistress...

    Which is totally different from all those other things. Sure, there was an effort to cover that up for most of the past two hundred years, but that doesn't raise it to the level of conspiracy theory.

  • sarcasmic||

    Shorter Roberts: JOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOS!

  • hamilton||

    Oh, lordy.

    Protip: "False Flag" is kinda like "sedition" or "goosestepping" or "privilege". It's a nifty clue that the contents of your article are likely to be high-concentration derp.

  • Drake||

    How was it "amazing" that a team of shooters with real AK's were able to escape the scene after shooting unarmed people and lightly armed street cops?

    It would have been impressive if they had escaped the country.

  • albo||

    Seriously. A common element of conspiracy theories is that they don't believe that an average dude can pull off the training and finances necessary to commit a sophisticated crime like this without outside help from a powerful ally. Which is silly.

  • R C Dean||

    No kidding. They didn't even really make it out of town, for crying out loud.

  • GILMORE||

    Conspiracy-minded twits base a great deal of their reasoning on the assumption that Government is Omnipotent and All Knowing =

    Therefore any 'laxity' or 'failure' on their part of Government to prevent or respond to a crime is more likely to be reflective of *conscious intent* to ignore or permit whatever happened to happen.

    Apparently they still haven't caught on that people in power are generally just as monumentally incompetent as everyone else.

  • Almanian!||

    OT: Read the comments. Detroit NEEDZ MOAR EMINENT DOMAIN! Cause most people forced out of their properties were HAPPY! So we needz MOAR!

    I started typing responses about 5 times, and then gave up. The derp - I am not strong enough to overcome it.

    http://www.detroitnews.com/sto...../21710915/

  • ||

    It's Detroitown, Alma.

  • Warren||

    FALSE FLAG POST!

  • Jackand Ace||

    Conspiracy theories are all the rage among Libertarians these days. Add to Hebdo the belief that government is coming to take all of your guns away, as well as all climate scientists are being bought off and climate change is just a worldwide hoax. Well, at least the Libertarians who frequent the comment section here.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Obviously. In fact, let's just agree beforehand that any viewpoint which disagrees with your sanitized view of government and public institutions is a conspiracy theory which can be dismissed as such without further thought. Better: let's characterize all of these opposing views in lights that actually are conspiratorial, regardless of whether this is an accurate presentation of said arguments. Wouldn't want to strain a muscle or anything.

  • Jackand Ace||

    So you tell me, are the majority of climate scientists claiming that AGW is a problem coming to those conclusions in order to get funding?

  • wareagle||

    the majority of those scientists are funded by govt, much like a good many skeptics are funded by energy companies. If you don't see a correlation, then I don't know what to tell you. As it is, the AGW cultists have been shown to have falsified data numerous times; there whole premise rests on models, not reality, and they insist on claiming causation where none is proved.

  • Jackand Ace||

    No correlation at all. Tell me what the incentive is for government to buy off climate scientists toward warning us about AGW? And how did that incentive you believe in ever arrive in the first place?

    And if such a conspiracy exists, as you believe, tell us why all of these same scientists were saying the same thing back in the early 2000's when the GOP controlled both Houses and the Oval Office. If it was funding they were interested in, they would have been saying the opposite.

  • Cytotoxic||

    No correlation at all.

    Yes there is dipshit. Deny it all you want it's there.

    Tell me what the incentive is for government to buy off climate scientists toward warning us about AGW?

    Government is multifaceted. The people who tend to get in tend to believe in things like 'WE HAVE TO SPEND MONEY ON SCIENCE'. They do. This attracts the kind of scientist who can't make it without free dough.
    It's not a conspiracy, it's organization evolution.

    To answer your question: the GOP didn't change anything.

  • Jackand Ace||

    Its amusing how all of the conspiracy theorists are checking in.

  • Cytotoxic||

    It's amusing how you resort to being a smug douche as soon as you run out arguments, which happens pretty fast.

  • Zeb||

    tell us why all of these same scientists were saying the same thing back in the early 2000's when the GOP controlled both Houses and the Oval Office

    Well, that might have something to do with the fact that the president and a lot of the mainstream Republicans did in fact buy the standard global warming story.

    Anyway, no conspiracy is necessary to explain why climate science is in such a pitiful state.

  • Jackand Ace||

    Its only pitiful to you because you believe in a conspiracy.

    But if that conspiracy were true, that government is dictating scientific findings when it comes to carbon fueled warming (and that would be fossil fuels in particular, like oil), then all of these scientists would have been saying the opposite when Bush and Cheney and others were running the show.

  • Roger the Shrubber||

    You're question begging that D's and R's inherently have diametrically opposing views of AGW.

  • ||

    He also seems to think the words "no conspiracy is necessary" shows someone is a conspiracy theorist. Jackland Ace, Retard Supreme.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    the majority of climate scientists claiming that AGW is a problem coming to those conclusions


    "AGW is a problem" is nothing close to being a scientific conclusion. It is too general and unfalsifiable, where "problem" is defined in a way that is vague. Bjorn Lomborg argues that it will be a net positive, for example. Many economists who take AGW models as a given nonetheless do not agree with the policy prescriptions suggested by Al Gore and his ilk, and most climate scientists do not sign on to statements of policy (the UN declarations on the matter are certainly not that).

    And you are a damn fool if you don't see that the incentives in the matter of grant-writing are in favor of any data which can be used to show support for government action.

  • Jackand Ace||

    Thanks. Perfect.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Witness how the cultist's mind works:

    I offer a statement in which no conspiracy is suggested, and where I do not even deny the existence of AGW. I do offer several arguments which can be falsified, if the cultist wishes to do so.

    The cultist takes this statement as evidence that libertarians believe that 1) "climate change is just a worldwide hoax" (direct quote), and 2) "all climate scientists are being bought off", as well as 3) "the majority of climate scientists claiming that AGW is a problem coming to those conclusions in order to get funding". None of these claims is substantiated by my prior statement (not that I am libertarian or representative of such, but never mind that).

    The mind of a cultist, everyone.

  • Jackand Ace||

    And the cult is what exactly, the cult of believing what science says?

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    "Science" is not the outfit promoting cap-and-trade or worse.

    Progressivism is, and were it not a cult you would have responded to, say, my reference to Bjorn Lomborg instead of pretending it doesn't exist.

    Your attempts to delegitimize alternatives to progressivism by wrapping it in the mantle of "science" is duly noted, cultist.

  • Jackand Ace||

    I never said there aren't scientists who disagree, and I can name the prominent ones. But here is the sad fact for you...they are by far in the minority. The majority (as evidenced by every single major science organization the world) disagrees with them. Its hardly a cult...its the preponderance of what science is telling you.

    However, it is a conspiracy if you think all of those scientist have been bought off because they come to a different conclusion than the minority. If you want to believe in what the minority says, go ahead. Its quite a different thing to have to justify that belief by suggesting that all of these other scientists then must have been bought off.

  • Cytotoxic||

    they are by far in the minority. The majority (as evidenced by every single major science organization the world) disagrees with them. Its hardly a cult...its the preponderance of what science is telling you.

    This has never been demonstrated and even if it were I still would not care. The Majority of academia is shit.

    BTW you should stop raping this 'conspiracy' straw man. Not that it isn't totally implausible-the neonics pesticide scare was revealed to be a conspiracy.

  • Jackand Ace||

    Tell you what, there is a great summary on wiki on all of the statements from science organizations on what they have said about climate. I'll put that here since Reason will not let me put every single website individually. Read and weep, or at least change your conclusion:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S.....ate_change

    Do note the number listed under dissenting. There are none.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    "The majority" does not agree or disagree with a specific policy proposal, like cap and trade. The documents you reference do not state specific policy to be undertaken. You would know that had you actually read any of the totemic items you tried waving in my face.

    Moreover, "the majority" or consensus statements are not indicative of good science or even of the claim that AGW is "a problem" -- by and large, they claim existence of AGW and disagree about effects.

    You are substituting evidence for one specific claim (and weak evidence, at that), "AGW exists", as equivalent to evidence of your own progressive cult claim, "AGW is a problem which requires extensive government intervention". This is sheer stupidity, and your attempt to tar others with the brush of conspiracy for noting this and other inconvenient facts is not working.

  • Jackand Ace||

    Do post any comment I ever posted here that suggested extensive government intervention to solve the problem. You won't find one.

    I believe there are many solutions, including the marketplace and technology. But good try anyway.

    And the comment about your belief in a conspiracy has nothing to do with policy proposals, but everything to do with your only explanation for all of these scientists warning us about AGW would have to be because they were bought off.

    And you do that because you have no other explanation, so there would have to be a conspiracy.

    And you are way off if you think most of those organizations did not say AGW was a problem and required action.

    Read again.

  • Zeb||

    You are completely missing the point which is that "AGW is a problem" is not a scientific statement. And which policies, if any, are an appropriate response are even less a scientific statement. Saying that proposed policies are worse than the problem they are trying to solve does not deny any scientific evidence and does not suggest that a conspiracy exists.

  • Jackand Ace||

    Read it all again, zeb. I said many commenters believe in a conspiracy on AGW, nothing about policies. All about conclusions on the science.

    When scientists say AGW is a problem, it is indeed a scientific statement. It is saying human induced carbon to the atmosphere is warming the planet, and might warm it to problematic levels, maybe even catastrophic levels. And those conclusions are based purely on what the science is telling them.

    To believe that they all have ignored science and instead are doing it for the dollar is a conspiracy theory.

    But I'll let you try...provide the proof yourself, or post a source that studied the matter in detail and provided the proof that all of these scientists are doing it for grant money.

  • Jackand Ace||

    Tell you what, trouser. Just down below we have sarcasmic say this:

    "...then loudly deride anyone who suggests that climate priests can't be trusted because they are funded by politicians who only care about expanding their power."

    There it is in action.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Ludicrous. Sarcasmic is suggesting that the evidence coming out of Exxon-funded outfits and so forth is a priori at the same level as that funded by government -- which is exactly true, given that exactly the same incentives are in play. The situations as described are precisely symmetrical.

    If one has reasons to believe the one over the other or that one organization has institutional safeguards which mitigate this conflict of interest, one should offer this evidence rather than being outraged that the government-funded outfits are not being given special favor as a result of their government status.

    This is of course not the same thing as denying AGW or asserting conspiracy, and your tendency to call such is a demerit to your claim RE conspiracy and damages your credibility, badly.

  • Jackand Ace||

    What he is suggesting EXACTLY is that science is reaching conclusions about AGW, and warning us, simply because of money. Money is at the heart of it.

    So why don't you tell us all exactly who is funding this conspiracy? How much is it costing? Why on earth would nearly every government the world over be doing exactly the same thing, since scientists the world over are saying the same thing?

    And they are doing this why? Go ahead tell us...because science and government are in cahoots to enslave you? Go ahead, tell us.

  • Cytotoxic||

    It's not a conspiracy theory you dipshit.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Jackand Ace,

    Conspiracy theories are all the rage among Libertarians these days.


    Paul Craig Roberts is not a libertarian. He's a conservative who happens to be also a non-interventionist.

  • Jackand Ace||

    But Ron Paul is and he put the piece out.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Jackand Ace,

    But Ron Paul is and he put the piece out.


    And?

  • Jackand Ace||

    Well, do you think he put it out because he disagrees with it?

  • wareagle||

    it's one thing to debate opposing points of view. It's another to give free rein to an idea with so many holes in it that it's not really an idea. Maybe Paul believes this sort of thing; that does not make him look better.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

  • KDN||

    all climate scientists are being bought off

    Nobody has said that, like ever, and that you parsed that from reading skeptical arguments shows that you have rather undeveloped reasoning and reading comprehension skills.

    It's also a massive bit of projection since the opposite is what's usually pushed by CAGW advocates in the form of dissenting scientists being accused of paid shillery on behalf of Exxon, et al.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Jackass Hole's entire schtick is to loudly emote and then adopt a smug posture of moral sanctimoniousness. In this, he is like the cosmic avatar of the Millennial generation made manifest into flesh.

  • sarcasmic||

    You SF'd the link.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

  • RBS||

    +1 Battletoad.

  • Contrarian P||

    I think you're giving him too much credit to believe he has undeveloped reasoning and comprehension skills. I think he's just willing to lie about the position of his opponents in order to look like he's won an argument. I usually go with the stupid, rather than the evil, explanation, but in this case I'm favoring the rare exception.

  • Jackand Ace||

    Clearly KDN you haven't read the comments here through the past couple of years on any article about climate change. Tell you what, check in the next time Bailey puts one out.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Clearly you did not comprehend those comments and instead inserted your own straw men into them.

  • Irish||

    Except everyone in this comment section agrees that this was not a false flag and that this guy is an idiot.

    You should also consider various left-wing conspiracy theories in which the Jews, er, sorry, Koch Brothers secretly control everything.

    Those are crazed and demented conspiracy theories as well, even though they don't involve the government.

  • R C Dean||

    the belief that government is coming to take all of your guns away,

    Bzzt. Wrong. We believe that, if allowed to, the government would be seizing guns. Because many governments have, and we even have a few examples in this country of agents of the state seizing people's guns.

    all climate scientists are being bought off

    I think its tautological that the ones who pursue and implement grants whose goal is not to do science, but to reinforce the AGW panic, have been bought off. And, unfortunately, that's too many of them, and they get too much visibility.

    climate change is just a worldwide hoax

    Climate change is a fact of life. We happen to believe that catastrophic anthropogenic climate change is pretty much of a hoax. On account of well-documented malfeasance by some of those high-profile climate "scientists", and the pesky refusal of the global ecosystem to collapse.

  • Jackand Ace||

    Thanks. Perfect.

  • wareagle||

    please explain how you are not the very thing you claim to despise?

  • Jackand Ace||

    All I am doing is letting commenters here prove my point that they believe in conspiracy theories.

  • wareagle||

    They believe in the evidence before them: virtually every proponent of AGW is funded by the same entity, not coincidentally the entity that stands to benefit from people's acceptance of AGW as fact.

    Unlike the usual CT, like this notion of professionals carrying out the Paris murders, the claims of AGW proponents can be studied in the merits, on the data being proferred. That is the opposite of a conspiracy theory; if anything, the skeptics are far more inclined to use science than the scientists.

  • Jackand Ace||

    So you believe that National Academy of Sciences, American Geophysical Union, American Meteorological Society, American Physical Society, Royal Society, and more all put out statements warning us all about AGW because they wanted money? Or did they do it because it was based on science?

  • Cytotoxic||

    Proggies are very good at taking over organizations. Static ones like these 'societies' tend to get taken over and then everyone kind of falls in line. It's not a conspiracy you moron.

  • Timon 19||

    I seem to recall that the AMS as an organization is quite out of step with its rank-and-file members (including broadcasting meteorologists not employed by the New Weather Channel) on this very issue.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    First Carter, now Roberts? What's with being an elderly dude from Georgia and being bat-shit insane concerning JOOZ? Did it have something to do with Coca-Cola's original formula?

  • Almanian!||

    Did it have something to do with Coca-Cola's original formula?

    KOCHSPIRACY THEORY!!!11!!

  • Almanian!||

    Paul Craig Roberts: You're a false flag!

    Towelie: YOU'RE a false flag!

    Paul Craig Roberts: You're a false flag

    Towelie: YOU'RE a false flag!

    Paul Craig Roberts: You're a....towel!

    Towelie: You wanna get high?

  • albo||

    +1

  • sarcasmic||

    as well as all climate scientists are being bought off and climate change is just a worldwide hoax

    You know, I always find it amusing when AGW cultists proclaim that all studies that contradict their church's teachings can't be trusted because they are funded by evil corporations who only care about expanding their profits, then loudly deride anyone who suggests that climate priests can't be trusted because they are funded by politicians who only care about expanding their power.

  • KDN||

    climate priests can't be trusted because they are funded by politicians who only care about expanding their power.

    This is a totally different thing than being "bought off," IMO.

  • Jackand Ace||

    Didn't even have to wait for the next Bailey article, did you, KDN? Ha.

  • Azathoth!!||

    So when you say that 'denier' scientists have been bought off by big oil it's a simple fact, but when someone else points out that pretty much every single CAGW 'scientist' is operating off grant money from one government or another it's crazy?

    Okay then.....

  • sarcasmic||

    It's all about motives. You see, evil corporations would rape and kill you for your last dollar if they could get away with it. They're evil and care only for profits. So they can't be trusted.

    Government is different. You see, people in government actually will rape and kill you, but they do it for the greater good. They have no interest in profits, so that means they can be trusted. Once they join government, they no longer think of their own self interest. Only the interest of others. They don't use lies to expand their power, because that would mean they are motivated by self interest. They're not. They're government. They care.

    See?

  • Jackand Ace||

    Thanks for just proving my point. Well done.

  • R C Dean||

    I think you're confused about what a conspiracy theory actually is, for starters.

    But stick around. Mid-tier trolls get old quickly, but you're still fresh enough to be amusing.

  • Jackand Ace||

    Nah, you just proved my point above about a conspiracy theory. So I will stick around. I love to amuse.

  • sarcasmic||

    It's not a conspiracy. Conspiracies are hidden. This isn't hidden. It's right there for anyone with a brain to see.

    Climate 'science' is not science. Science involves open inquiry with repeatable experiments. Dissent is welcome, because it only takes one experiment to prove an theory to be incorrect. Scientists like to be proven wrong, because that's how you learn.

    That does not describe climate 'science'. It's closed, the experiments are not repeatable, the data is hidden, and dissent is not only unwelcome but met with hostility. They are not interested in learning what is happening, they are only interested in proving their pre-determined conclusion.

    That's not science. That's politics.

  • Jackand Ace||

    Tell you what, RC, let us all know if National Academy of Sciences, American Geophysical Union, American Meteorological Society, American Physical Society, Royal Society, World Meteorological Organization...in fact every single major SCIENCE organization in the world...if they all have been bought off. Let us know that, since they all say essentially the same thing.

    Hmmm?

  • sarcasmic||

    You're the only one saying that they were "bought off."

    Are scientists who contradict your church's teachings "bought off?"

    Or are they coming up with the results that their employers want?

    If they're not "bought off," but merely giving their bosses what they want, then isn't is logical that scientists funded by political money are giving the results that their political bosses want?

  • Jackand Ace||

    No. You would have to believe in a vast worldwide conspiracy to believe that, since every science organization the world over disagrees with you. Tell us, who is funding that conspiracy?

  • sarcasmic||

    I think they believe what they are saying. They're not lying. They are true believers. But that's a precondition for joining the church. You've got to be a believer. Deniers are not welcome in the AGW church anymore than atheists are welcome in a Christian church. So of course they're going to agree. It's a prerequisite for the job.

  • Jackand Ace||

    Yikes. Deniers are always welcome. Just like American Physical Society invited Judith Curry to be part of their revised statement on climate. No one is being hid. Curry's paper on what her findings were about climate sensitivity made the rounds.

    So you think all of these scientists now believe in a religion rather than science? Really?

  • Cytotoxic||

    If you think Curry is a 'denier' then you are an even bigger diphsit than we imagined. Also, inviting one person to do a revised statement is a very small thing. Minute really.

  • Jackand Ace||

    There aren't many in APS, but they are giving voice to the ones that dissent.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Good for them. This makes them better than most.

  • sarcasmic||

    AGW resembles religion more than it resembles science.

    You've got original sin in the form of carbon, you've got the coming apocalypse if we don't repent our carbon sinning ways, and the only way to avert the crisis is by submitting to God, er, I mean Government.

    That's got all the trappings of religion if you ask me.

  • sarcasmic||

    All I did was use the same logical statement while changing the players.

    So if you can't trust scientists funded by corporations because corporations care only for expanding their profits, then logically you cannot trust scientists funded by governments because governments care only for expanding their power.

    Logic is cool. You should try it sometime.

  • Paul.||

    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.

    It's a far different thing to storm a building full of unarmed, unsuspecting people and dispatch them than it is to defend oneself against 40 trained, heavily armed officers with body armor, flash bangs, tear gas and armored vehicles. Jesus this is stupid.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Ugh.

  • John||

    This is disgraceful. It is very sad that issues like the problems with the federal reserve, the idiocy of Keynesian economics, and the out of control nature of the federal government ended up with a standard bearer as flawed and pathetic as Ron Paul has turned out to be.

    What can you say about this? It doesn't mean he is wrong about a lot of the other things he says. He is most certainly right about a lot of things. The problem is that his position on other things has made him a utter embarrassment to the general cause of limited government.

    And it is more than being mistaken. I have come to the conclusion Ron Paul is just a mean lousy person. This is the guy who said publicly after the murder of Chris Kyle (the guy whose life American Sniper is based upon) "you reap what you so". Really? The guy is dead leaving a widow and kids and you say something like that? You couldn't just shut the fuck up and say nothing?

    Then after the Hebdo thing he goes off on some rant about how it is all the fault of US foreign policy, because apparently pissing on the graves of dead Americans is not good enough. Ron must shoot off his mouth and piss on the graves of dead foreigners too. He needs to retire and just stop it.

  • KDN||

    I vaguely remember when Mike Wallace was off saying something stupid, somebody asked his son Chris about it and he basically said "I love my dad, but we don't really take what he says seriously anymore." That's what's happening here: there's an age in most every man's life where he becomes too old or too cranky to be taken seriously.

  • John||

    The problem is that there is a great living to be made and lots of attention to be had being a living example of "the conservative crazy". When someone on the left goes off the rails, the media just throws them down the memory hole and forgets they exist. That won't happen with Paul. He is now going to get more media attention than he ever got as a politician. He has now become a tool the media can use to discredit its enemies.

  • OldMexican||

    I have come to the conclusion Ron Paul is just a mean lousy person.


    ... because of what Roberts wrote.

    Talk about "rancidly-posited dot-connecting exercises" (!)

  • John||

    Yes. It is his institute. Everything that goes out has his name on it. This is not like the newsletters. Ron Paul's entire job these days is running his institute. Moreover, its mission is dedicated to furthering Ron Paul's ideology and views. So unless Paul disavows this article and fires or disciplines Roberts for writing it, I am going to assume that he agrees with it. His organization published it.

    And I have concluded Paul is a lousy person for the things Paul himself has said that I list, not just based on this article. This article just confirms what I had already concluded.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: John,

    Yes. It is his institute.


    Ah, so letting ONE view through makes HIM a bad person.

    About the Chris Kyle thing: YOU DO REAP WHAT YOU SOW. I am not a sniper, I am not a murderer, I don't hang out with PTSD crazies, and thus expect to live a long life.

  • John||

    Ah, so letting ONE view through makes HIM a bad person

    Yes. If he didn't endorse that view, what the hell is it doing on his institute's website?

    Again, it is a think thank Paul set up to further his ideology. It is not a content or value neutral website for the airing of various views. It is the Ron Paul Institute. It is set up to further Ron Paul's views. Someone whose views don't mesh with Paul's views doesn't get hired or published there.

    And as far as Kyle goes, it doesn't matter if Paul was right or wrong. It was an utterly insensitive, pointless and dick move on his part. Kyle was dead. What the hell was the point of telling his family and friends he got what he deserved? There wasn't. Paul did it because he is an asshole who will use any opportunity available to push his views on the world no matter how inappropriate they are.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: John,

    And as far as Kyle goes, it doesn't matter if Paul was right or wrong. It was an utterly insensitive, pointless and dick move on his part.


    Oh, cry me a river! He was commenting on the insanity of treating PTSD at a firing range:

    Chris Kyle's death seems to confirm that "he who lives by the sword dies by the sword." Treating PTSD at a firing range doesn't make sense


    That didn't make sense to me, either. Saying that Chris got shot for being stupid is simply pointing out the obvious.

  • John||

    First, he wasn't stupid. He had as far as I know no reason to believe the guy was going to go berserk. People with PTSD, even horrible cases of it do not as a rule go berserk and start shooting. Paul apparently believes that they do at such a rate that Kyle was asking for death. So Paul manages to also slander veterans as well.

    Beyond that, even if it were true, saying it after Kyle's death accomplishes nothing other than to prove that Paul is an asshole. Even if it were true, that doesn't mean Paul needed to say it.

    The Kyle thing was a real character moment. There was nothing to be gained by saying that other than to inflict greater misery on the guy's friends and family. Yet, Paul said it anyway. Why? Because Paul is an asshole who thinks scoring cheap political points is the most important thing in life. At heart, Paul felt Kyle dying vindicated his views and was happy to gloat over Kyle's body and intentionally cause pain and misery on people Paul has never even met. That says all you need to know about Paul's character as a human being.

  • Cytotoxic||

    I'm surprised OM can detach himself from Ron Paul's dick long enough to post here.

  • Irish||

    "Ah, so letting ONE view through makes HIM a bad person."

    When the 'one view' you let out from your institution is that both the Charlie Hebdo attack and 9/11 were false flags, then yes.

  • Choadintheroad||

    "About the Chris Kyle thing: YOU DO REAP WHAT YOU SOW."

    John didn't say that...he said 'you reap what you so'
    Totally different.

  • R C Dean||

    Hey. He's the boss. He's responsible.

    Its really no more complicated than that.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    "Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity"

    This is not exactly the first time it's happened, either. Either Paul is fine with this shit or he's not -- and if he's not, it's really not that hard to give this guy walking papers.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: The Immaculate Trouser,

    Either Paul is fine with this shit or he's not -- and if he's not, it's really not that hard to give this guy walking papers.


    In the end, that may end up happening, either Roberts steps out or is politely asked to step out.

  • Cytotoxic||

    And also because of the batshit insane things Ron Paul said.

  • Overt||

    I'm actually curious to know to what extent Ron Paul was involved in this decision. I have an inkling that these day to day editorial decisions are being made by managers and directors in the RPI.

    And by the way, that's even worse. It means that not only do we have Ron Paul out there shooting his mouth off, but he has assembled a Legion of Likeminded to peddle this unhelpful blather 24x7. The RPI is sick as an entity. It needs some more moderate voices in it to temper the crazy, but I suspect that it has become the lowest resting place for self styled intellectuals who never seem to get their calls returned from the likes of the Cato Institute.

  • John||

    Yeah. You don't do your cause any good by embracing the crazy. Sometimes things are what they are. Not everything is the result of some grand conspiracy or indicative of some greater force at work. In fact, very rarely is an event indicative of anything other than what happened.

    What makes things like this so crazy is that it ignores the obvious answer to believe the totally not obvious one. Why would anyone find the idea that a group of crazy Muslims decided to murder the publishers of Charlie Hebdo? Is it possible it was a false flag? Sure, anything is possible. But to believe that it was requires a tremendous amount of evidence demonstrating why the obvious and by far most likely explanation isn't true.

    Either Roberts is a complete retard who doesn't understand that or he is so detached from reality he actually thinks that the CIA is the most likely and obvious party responsible anytime there is an Islamic terrorist attack.

  • Irish||

    That's exactly right. What makes this particular conspiracy theory so absurd is that in no way does the attack that happened require any sort of large scale resources.

    A total loser like Eliot Rodgers killed six people. The Newtown shooting killed like 20 people and was carried out by a shut in with no friends.

    So two guys walked into a room with 20 unarmed people and killed 10 of them. They then killed two unarmed cops on the street. That does not require any degree of skill.

  • John||

    Yes. And a magazine that had been poking radical Muslims in the eye for years, had been the subject of threats and a previous attacks was attacked by radical Muslims. Apparently Roberts finds that possibility totally unbelievable. So unbelievable that it is more likely the work of the CIA.

  • Cliché Bandit||

    While I don't condone the insensitive comments regarding a person's murder I must say this Kyle guy is hardly some angel. He made up stories about Jesse Venture allegedly to sell copies of a book he wrote about killing more people than anyone else. Glorifying warriors is never a good idea in my book. It has more relevance in a world with a draft and in a war that is much more easily defended as just (or an ACTUAL war if you want to get nitpicky).

  • John||

    I don't have any idea what kind of a guy Kyle was. I never met him and never read his book. The point is, even if he was a total asshole, why did Ron Paul feel the need to point that out after his death? Kyle wasn't even in the military anymore. His death was nothing but a senseless tragedy. Moreover, even if he was a bad guy, that didn't mean he deserved to get murdered.

    I don't expect Paul to like Kyle. Clearly he didn't and maybe he was right not to. The point is, even if you don't like Kyle, that doesn't make shitting on the guy the day after his murder any less of lousy thing to do. What did saying what Paul said accomplish other than inflict harm on Kyle's friends and family? Why couldn't Paul have just not said anything?

  • Cliché Bandit||

    I would agree not saying anything would have been best. Like grandma always used to say...

  • lap83||

    "This is the guy who said publicly after the murder of Chris Kyle, 'you reap what you sow'"

    Yeah I remember that. Unbelievably judgmental and inappropriate. Imagine if a SoCon said that.

  • OldMexican||

    The people who have the problem are the ones who work for the Ron Paul Institute


    Like representative Dennis Kucinich and judge Andrew Napolitano, for instance?

    Who is the one making sweeping generalizations?

  • Cytotoxic||

    LOL. Innocence by association. Pathetic.

  • Brian D||

    From the nutbag's article:

    The attack on the cartoonists' office was a disciplined professional attack of the kind associated with highly trained special forces

    Bullshit. It was a few guys playing soldier with real guns against unarmed people.

    In the day after the Charlie Hebdo attacks, Fox News was fearmongering about how well-trained the shooters were, and how scary that was, and OMG WE NEED TO STEP UP SEKURITY!!! Then they had a former Navy Seal on and asked him to agree about how well trained the shooters were.

    The Seal's response was along the lines of, "Uh, no, I wouldn't call them well trained, just better armed than the people they were killing." As an example, he pointed out how, in the clip where one of them kills the cop on the ground, both the shooter and the guy who was supposedly covering the shooter were moving at the same time. That's not what 'disciplined,' 'highly trained special forces' do.

    The FNC hosts were clearly upset that the Seal didn't go with the script they had been working on.

  • OldMexican||

    Roberts' piece will intrigue that narrow readership fond of fact-lite, rancidly-posited dot-connecting exercises, and repel just about everyone else.


    Maybe Roberts should be shut up...

  • John||

    Didn't Paul Craig Roberts used to write for the Washington Times? Wasn't he a respectable guy at one point?

    Here is the thing about these sorts of theories. If you think they are actually true, shut up and collect real proof before you go public. If you speak without proof, you are just discrediting yourself and making it harder to get people to believe the truth if proof is ever obtained.

    I am not saying I believe this shit. I don't. I am saying that if I did, the last thing I would do is start writing half assed articles like this before I had any proof of what was going on. Since Roberts didn't do that, I can only conclude he is an idiot or he doesn't give a shit if it is true and just wants to tell lies to further his political views or his own career.

  • Overt||

    This is especially true given that this guy hasn't pointed to any sources or evidence other than what all of us have seen on TV. We can only infer that he doesn't have any other people or evidence to suggest this. He has no evidence that this was a "Professional-style" hit crew. All he knows is that a bunch of guys killed some unarmed civilians. His KEY evidence is completely made up by himself.

  • CatoTheElder||

    He used to be Assistant Secretary of the Treasury.

  • Paul.||

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Paul Craig Roberts is crazy as a shithouse rat.

  • OldMexican||

    This is the list of contributors (authors) listed on the Ron Paul Institute website:

    Ron Paul
    Daniel McAdams
    Col. W. Patrick Lang
    Claes G. Ryn
    Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett
    Philip Giraldi
    Lawrence Wilkerson
    Akbar Ahmed
    Michael Scheuer
    Daniel McAdams
    Jeremy R. Hammond
    Finian Cunningham
    RPI Staff
    Eric Margolis
    Andrey Areshev
    Thierry Meyssan
    Adam Dick
    Melkulangara Bhadrakumar
    Dr. Clifford A. Kiracofe
    Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya
    John Laughland
    John W. Whitehead
    Kelley B. Vlahos
    Peter Van Buren
    Paul Craig Roberts
    Mike Marion
    David E. Gumpert
    Todd E. Pierce
    Diana Johnstone
    Pepe Escobar
    Louis Fisher
    Patrick Cockburn
    Anton Veselov
    Martin Sieff
    Jean Bricmont
    Dmitry Minin
    Douglas Macgregor
    Moon of Alabama
    Tony Cartalucci
    David Cronin
    Nikolai Malishevski
    Nick Turse
    Daniel McAdams
    F. William Engdahl
    Andrei Akulov
    Daniel McAdams
    Jacob G. Hornberger
    Andranik Migranyan
    David Gumpert
    Vijay Prashad
    Jonathan Turley
    Justin Raimondo
    Phil Greaves
    William Norman Grigg
    Matthew Hoh
    Butler Shaffer

  • OldMexican||

    Sharmine Narwani
    Ellen Finnigan
    Mark Almond
    Chris Rossini
    Michael Thomas
    Dennis J. Kucinich
    Dr. Can Erimtan
    Alexander Savchenko
    Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.
    Heather Linebaugh
    Robert Wenzel
    Bretigne Shaffer
    Joseph Salerno
    Pete Seeger (RIP)
    Sheldon Richman
    Franklin C. Spinney
    William S. Lind
    Hillary Mann Leverett
    Robert Higgs
    Nebojsa Malic
    Peter Lavelle
    Bernie Quigley
    Richard Sale
    Harper
    Robert Parry
    Patrick Armstrong
    Anne Williamson
    Steve Weissman
    Ryan McMaken
    Michael S. Rozeff
    Karen Kwiatkowski
    Neil Clark
    Eva Golinger
    Pyotr Iskenderov
    David Stockman
    Peter Hitchens
    Vladimir Golstein
    Glen Ford
    William R. Polk
    Centre for the Study of Interventionism
    Fr. Dave Smith
    Dan Sanchez
    Christine Stone
    Paul-Martin Foss
    James Bovard
    Adam Dick
    William Pfaff
    Eric Kraus
    Souad Mekhennet
    Jessica Pavoni
    Robert Bridge
    Dmitry Orlov
    David Swanson
    Justin Pavoni
    Nomi Prins
    Trevor Timm
    Ivan Eland
    John Pilger
    Bryan MacDonald
    Maidhc Ó Cathail
    Maram Susli
    Bill Van Auken
    Vladislav Gulevich
    Elizabeth Kucinich and Dennis Kucinich
    Lawrence Wittner
    William Blum
    Gareth Porter
    Ruth Sherlock
    Ulson Gunnar
    Connor Boyack
    Tyler Durden
    Rupert Stone
    Raúl Ilargi Meijer
    Patrick Henningsen
    Kenric Ward
    Malcolm Fraser

  • OldMexican||

    But Welch is going bananas over ONE article written by ONE author, out of the many listed above.

    I don't read some columns I find on the newspaper, Matt. I don't care for those authors. Are you asking for purity tests for all authors at the RPI, however?

  • RBS||

    "Bananas", really? I wouldn't call questioning how the publishing of false flag nonsense by an entity that is allegedly about furthering libertarian ideas will actually accomplish that goal "going bananas".

  • Irish||

    Yeah, it was only one time that Ron Paul let racist newsletters go out under his name.

    And it was only one time that he said Chris Kyle deserved it right after he was shot.

    And it was only one time that he released a home schooling curriculum partially written by a no-shit Christian theocrat.

    And it was only one time that a guy on his website published an article declaring 9/11 and Charlie Hebdo to be false flag operations.

    And it was only one time...

  • Choadintheroad||

    Old Mexican,
    Surely your point is invalidated by the fact that every single person you listed is a fucking idiot. Dennis Kucinich? SMH.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    I wouldn't quite say bananas.

    More likely voicing frustration. This is the sort of thing that gets picked up on. And it's exactly the sort of crap that people who want to dismiss libertarians try to paint libertarianism as about. Roberts has pretty much handed them crate of ammunition with this one article.

    Honestly, I'd say if there is a false flag in this entire story, it's Roberts. He's pretty much done what any anti-libertarian plant would dream of.

  • Cytotoxic||

    "Wah! Stop criticizing MY HERO!" /OM

  • John||

    So fucking what? Is Ron Paul not responsible for what goes out on his website? Moreover, this is not a news website. It is the website of the Ron Paul Institute. It is a think tank Mexican that Ron Paul set up to further his own ideology. So how in the hell can you not impute Roberts' views onto Paul?

    It is not like Roberts said this in some other context. He published this on Ron Paul's website.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: John,

    So fucking what? Is Ron Paul not responsible for what goes out on his website?


    Of course he is. Is what Roberts saying something you don't agree with? Sure. I don't agree with his assessment, either. But he's not talking about murdering Jews or black people, he's simply suggesting that the CIA has something to do with the event.

    Call me crazy, but being skeptical of the CIA is not the same as talking about drowning puppies. You're exaggerating to a level that would make one concerned about your sanity.

  • John||

    Roberts is saying utterly crazy shit without any proof. If he has proof, show it. Otherwise shut the fuck up.

    And it is not that I don't' agree with it. It is that it is completely counter to every single fact known in evidence. This article is pathetic. And anyone who would publish it is unworthy of engaging in discourse with.

  • LynchPin1477||

    No one's drowning puppies, but this goes beyond being skeptical of the CIA. Being skeptical means not accepting claims without proof, or at least a well-founded history of trust with the source. Roberts is...making claims without proof.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: LynchPin1477,

    Roberts is...making claims without proof.


    Without evidence to show for, I do agree that PCR is making shit up. Does this mean that Ron Paul is a "bad person" like John is suggesting? Please.

  • John||

    He is totally making shit up. He is claiming the CIA is behind this. That is totally counter to the known evidence. There is nothing I have seen that would cause me to conclude that. And Roberts presents no evidence why I should. He is just making it up.

  • Overt||

    Does this mean that Ron Paul is a "bad person" like John is suggesting?

    As I note above, it means one of two things:

    1) Ron Paul was familiar with this completely baseless excuse for journalism and still chose to publish it.

    2) Ron Paul has staffed this office with Editors who looked at this screed and didn't say, "Whoah there, where are your sources"; People who looked at this connect-the-dots tour through crazy town and thought it had value.

    This was just a terrible article. Other than the lack of typos and bad grammar, it is the type of fact-less irrational blather you see on conspiracy forums posted by someone with a handle like "M00nTruther". So whether it was #1 or #2, it should reflect very poorly on Ron Paul. If it is #2 we should be very concerned because it means RP has created a fucking rat's next of these loonies that will only get crazier and crazier. Rand Paul cannot afford that.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    "Being skeptical of the CIA" is entirely too generalized a claim. I don't particularly like the CIA, but if the ghost of Lenin told me it was responsible for every single failure of the Soviet Union I would tell him to fuck off.

    The specific claim is far more important than the generalization you are suggesting that John must sympathize with.

  • Cytotoxic||

    he's simply suggesting that the CIA has something to do with the event.

    Without a shred of evidence, which is completely fucking insane.

  • LynchPin1477||

    *Sigh*

    I've been thinking of getting more involved in Campaign for Liberty. They need a local organizer. But shit like this makes me so wary of associating with anything Ron Paul does. At best, he shows terrible control over what he puts his name on. But I suspect he is actually sympathetic to this kind of thing, if not actively supportive of it.

  • RBS||

    Don't let OM hear you say that...

  • Choadintheroad||

    OM is a fucking idiot, ignore him like all of us on here do.

  • ||

    You're new, obviously.

    Pro-tip: It's highly presumptuous to claim to speak for the entire group here.

  • Choadintheroad||

    Maybe everyone else feels differently...

  • The Late P Brooks||

    "elements of the US government blew up three New York skyscrapers in order to destroy Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Somalia, Syria, Iran, and Hezbollah and to launch the US on the neoconservatives agenda of US world hegemony."

    Considering the miserable failure to achieve any of those objectives, it could have been a government plot.

  • Nodnarb likes to 69||

    How the fuck did a crank like McAdams get cozy with Ron Paul in the first place?

    Oh. Oh I see.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Like likes like.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Only Imperial stormtroopers are so precise?

  • John||

    It is not hard to walk in a room and shoot a bunch of unarmed people. The little bastards at Columbine and the little freak at Newtown had no problem doing this. Roberts is absolutely retarded if he thinks only someone with specialized military training can walk into a room and shoot people.

  • Pro Libertate||

    I was kidding and agree.

  • John||

    I know you were.

  • Sean Higgins||

    Roberts was once an assistant treasury secretary under Reagan and later a highly regarded economic writer on the right. The National Review had him on its masthead as a contributing writer for a long, long time.

    At some point he just lost his mind. It's not just on foreign policy either. He has repudiated free trade as well, raising the question of any conservative or libertarian institution would publish him at.

    Check out this NYT column he co-bylined with that fearless defender of free minds and free markets, New York Senator Chuck Schumer: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01.....trade.html

  • Sean Higgins||

    Err... "raising the question of any conservative or libertarian institution would publish him at all."

  • DEATFBIRSECIA||

    Let's really fix it this time:

    "raising the question of why any conservative or libertarian institution would publish him at all."

  • Ken Shultz||

    "I should only run pieces that agree with the NYT and Hollande version of the event?," telling Antiwar.com's Justin Raimondo that he sounds "like a neocon," stating (falsely) "Matt Welch whose only foreign policy statement ever on Fox has been to disagree with RP and non-intervention," and then referencing my non-existent (to my knowledge!) "CIA buddies in Budapest," where McAdams and I both once lived."

    So, if Justin Raimondo is a neocon, and Welch is a provocateur for the CIA, where does that leave Gillespie and what about his hepcat jacket?

    As crazy as it is, I might buy that Welch is a hit man for the CIA before I bought that Raimondo was a neocon.

  • John||

    This is another example of why, absent strong evidence to the contrary, you should ignore anyone who uses the word "NEOCON" as some kind of pejorative. The word has long since lost all meaning.

    Like all words, the meaning of NEOCON is in the eye of the person using. Whatever you think it means, if they are calling Matt Welch one, it no longer means anything significant.

  • B.P.||

    I see lefties use the term neocon as a pejorative aimed at people who are holding forth with no foreign policy ideas whatsoever, only domestic ones.

  • Cytotoxic||

    I see posters here use neocon to describe anyone who doesn't hold to The Noninterventionist Faith in much the same way leftists describe anyone who isn't a socialist as a neoliberal.

  • DJF||

    So Ron Paul should censor a regular writer to his website because Reason Mag thinks the story is untrue?

    NYT thinks every story at Reason magazine is untrue. Lets pull all the stories at Reason.

    What happened to freedom of speech? If you don't like this story then don't like it, don't demand that it not be published

  • Irish||

    AHAHHAHAHA. That's a hell of a false equivalence.

    'Since the New York Times disagrees with Reason about economic doctrine, clearly there's nothing wrong with claiming the CIA carried out a false flag terrorist operation against French cartoonists when you have no evidence.'

    ****"What happened to freedom of speech? If you don't like this story then don't like it, don't demand that it not be published"****

    Free speech is violated when you force someone not to talk or threaten them in some way if they don't shut up.

    Free speech is not violated when you say 'Hey, this guy's an idiot, you should probably not publish him.'

  • DJF||

    But why not publish him?

    If he is wrong or crazy then people will decide that on their own.

    I don't think they had to publish but why not let people decide if he is an idiot and the worth of the story. Maybe this will change your opinion of the author concerning other stories.

    As to the NYT I am betting that they think lots of Reason mag stories shouldn't be published.

  • Irish||

    You shouldn't publish him because he reflects badly on your institute and damages your alleged goal of forwarding libertarian arguments.

    Do you really not see how filling your publication with shrieking conspiracy theorists damages your credibility?

  • John||

    But why not publish him?

    Because you don't want your think tank associated with crazy views. This is not a newspaper. It is a think tank and a political web site. Its purpose is to further the organizations politics.

    Do you think Paul should start publishing articles by Paul Krugman or Paul Wolfawitz? If he ever did, would you as a reader of the website not wonder why the hell he was publishing it and if the place had gone soft? Damn right you would. He doesn't publish those guys because their views are counter to the purpose of the entire operation. So why did he publish this crap unless he agrees with it?

  • DJF||

    """"Do you think Paul should start publishing articles by Paul Krugman or Paul Wolfawitz? ""'

    Yes, the crazy will show through.

    Or should they only publish thing written by their priesthood and following their holy bible?

    If they had not published this I would not know all the authors beliefs which effects how I read all this works. Not just the ones approved of by Reason Mag

  • John||

    So every ideological based website has an obligation to publish views that are totally counter to their ideology? That is nuts. And beyond that, they don't publish those two guys or anyone like that. They publish people who agree with the ideology. And that is fine. But that also means that they agree with this or they wouldn't have published it.

    And if they don't, then they need to disavow it. Until they do that, however, readers can rightfully conclude that both the Institute and Paul agree with the claims.

  • Irish||

    I think it's funny that you take the phrase 'don't publish unsourced conspiracy theories for which you have no evidence' and turn it into 'don't publish anyone outside the priesthood.'

    You run an organization, you have the choice of what you publish. If you publish something and it reflects badly on you, that's your fault and I owe you no sympathy.

  • DJF||

    But the website regulary publishes the same author, shouldn't the readership know all the author's opinions?

  • LynchPin1477||

    But the website regulary publishes the same author

    Maybe that is part of the problem right there. I'm not saying everyone who publishes on RPI (or Reason, or any place else for that matter) needs to pass some sort of ideological purity test with 100% flying colors. But they should be respectable. Hiring and/or publishing unrespectable people makes RPI look unrespectable. And if it is viewed as one of the leading libertarian think tanks, that is a problem for libertarians as a whole.

  • R C Dean||

    But why not publish him?

    If he is wrong or crazy then people will decide that on their own.

    Perhaps for the same reason that, err, Reason doesn't publish Amanda Marcotte or host Jezebel?

  • DJF||

    But they do publish other articles by the same author. Shouldn't the readership know all of the authors opinions?

    Or do you expect for every author to only have opnions that you approve of?

    As to Amanda Marcotte or host Jezebel a few articles from them are eye opening.

  • Cytotoxic||

    I expect every author to not be crazy.

  • Overt||

    No, Ron Paul should decline to post baseless accusations. Usually, before you go off and accuse a government agency of murdering people, you at least find some sources. This guy didn't do that. He used his own, non-expert knowledge to deduce that these assholes acted "professionally" and then used that as the primary evidence that this was a false flag, with a few other unrelated facts thrown in to explain motive.

    I think it is entirely appropriate for Reason to call out such terrible editorial standards for what they are when the publisher purports to speak for the same values as Reason.

  • John||

    So Ron Paul should censor a regular writer to his website because Reason Mag thinks the story is untrue?\

    Yes, It is not a news site. It is the Ron Paul Institute Site. Everything that goes on there goes there because it furthers Paul's political views.

    Ask yourself, does Paul employ a staff Keynsian or a staff interventionist on the website? To my knowledge he doesn't. Why? Because it is his website and his think tank and the only thing that goes on there are positions he agrees with.

    So, yeah, Paul owns the things on that website. This article is retarded to t he point of being crazy. So Paul either needs to disavow it or understand that everyone can rightfully conclude he agrees with it.

    Stop defending this. You are not helping the cause. You are hurting it.

  • wareagle||

    So Ron Paul should censor a regular writer to his website because Reason Mag thinks the story is untrue?

    any more straw men? Ron Paul should demand that pieces on his website are sourced and documented, not based on claims that are easily falsified. And this has nothing to do with freedom of speech. It has everything to do with judgment, particularly Paul's.

  • Don Mynack||

    While I don't really see the point of the Hebdo attack as a "false flag" (why would the attackers volunteer to die?), false flag operations, particularly in Europe, are not unheard of. See: Operation Gladio

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gladio

  • ||

    +1 Gimp suit

  • Ayn Random Variation||

    While I don't really see the point of the Hebdo attack as a "false flag" (why would the attackers volunteer to die?)

    Because they weren't the real attackers, they were patsies. (According to the writer's conspiracy)

  • Ayn Random Variation||

    I was reading the linked article and was getting intrigued until I read this part:

    " Imagine what would happen to a European magazine that dared to satirize Jews in the way Charlie Hebdo satirized Muslims. Indeed, in Europe people are imprisoned for investigating the holocaust without entirely confirming every aspect of it."

    The JOOOOOOZZ!

  • Irish||

    Especially obtuse since Charlie Hebdo did satirize the Jews.

  • John||

    I am not sure what would happen. But I can tell with absolute certainty what wouldn't happen, a bunch of Jews would not show up at the door with automatic rifles and murder the staff.

    And yeah, that part is especially appalling. A group of Muslims murdered some atheist Frenchman and Roberts thinks the Jews are somehow relevant to the story. That is Roberts further self identifying himself as a nut.

  • Choadintheroad||

    "That is Roberts further self identifying himself as a nut."

    You fucking stupid cunt. Stay out of the fucking debate if you can't speak English. 'Self identifying himself'? REALLY?

    Regardless of John's utter stupidity, he is in fact on the right side of this argument (the fact that he's right about the argument is why his stupidity is so embarrassingly ass-cringingly awful.)

  • John||

    Go fuck yourself. And do me a favor and stop sullying my side with your idiotic and vulgar presence. Go tempt some other website into responding to trolls.

  • Choadintheroad||

    Calm down, sweet cheeks, I'm not the inarticulate one. You're obviously embarrassed at your lack of literacy, and you should be. Rather than lashing out at me you should set about improving your English skills.

  • Ayn Random Variation||

    I never heard of this guy so I went in with an open mind.

    The following points, I found, were interesting:
    - the shooters being identified because they left their IDs in the car
    - the third guy turning himself in and having an alibi
    - one of the cops investigating the case killed himself

    But then he went all JOOOZ and I stopped reading

  • John||

    Leaving their IDs in the car, while stupid is hardly unbelievable. Things like that sometimes do happen. The third guy turning himself in is not surprising. He was the getaway driver. Hell, he might not have known they were really going to kill those people. And since he wasn't the actual trigger puller, it is likely he wasn't quite the fanatic the others were. Given that, it is hardly surprising he would turn himself in and try to claim an alibi. The article ignores the other possibility that the guy who turned himself in is innocent and someone else was the getaway driver. Just because the cops have the wrong guy doesn't mean the CIA is behind it. It might mean they just have the wrong guy.

    The cop who killed himself was aware of the people who did this attack. He seems to have killed himself out of guilt for not being able to stop it. There is no evidence that he knew anything such that someone wanted him dead or that his suicide was faked.

  • John||

    So if Reason published an article claiming that the Ron Paul Institute was a front for an underground movement of sheep fornicators, the Ron Paul defenders on here would in no way hold Gillespie or the Reason Institute responsible for publishing it or in any way impute the views expressed in it onto Gillespie or the Reason Institute as a whole. Right?

  • Sam Grove||

    For your consideration:

    A false flag operation needn't be carried out by "our side". The best false flag operation is to provoke or tick the other side into making an ill considered move.

    9/11: Information was available to the US intelligence agencies that could have been used to thwart the hijackers, at least several of the hijackers were on US terrorist watch lists, yet were able to enter the US legally, among other intelligence. This may just be incompetence, or it could be intentional incompetence.

    How could we ever know?

  • John||

    9/11: Information was available to the US intelligence agencies that could have been used to thwart the hijackers, at least several of the hijackers were on US terrorist watch lists,

    Sure it was. And which is the more likely explanation for what happened, that the US government fucked up and didn't act on the information they had or that the US government was engaged in a massive conspiracy to murder thousands of Americans, the full political results of which would be both explosive and completely unpredictable?

    Whatever the truth is, the former possibility is by any reasonable standard the more likely explanation. So, if you want to claim it was the latter, you better have some pretty compelling proof showing why the most likely explanation is not the truth. You have of course none of that. You only have the question begging assumption that "the US had the information, how could they not have acted?" They could have not acted because they fucked up. That is the whole point.

    The NSA knew the hijackers were in the country, knew they were dangerous, but they never told the INS to go and deport them. Why? Because the NSA didn't want to share classified information, because they didn't want to let Al Quada know we were onto them, because they thought it was illegal to share the information with law enforcement anyway.

    Its really that simple.

  • wareagle||

    information was available about the Tsarnaev brothers prior to the Boston bombings. For some reason, however, we tend to not arrest people for things someone thinks they might do. Let's say the 9/11 hijackers had been detained prior to their act. How many here would be howling about how awful that was? 20/20 hindsight is a wonderful thing; too bad you can't actually use it.

  • Ayn Random Variation||

    wareagle nails it

  • sarcasmic||

    Do you really want our government to start going after people based upon what they might do?

  • Cytotoxic||

    The libertarian movement must cast out and denounce Ron Paul and Klown Kollege of an institute and his sick demented fellow travellers. Ron Paul is a demented man with a monomaniacal hatred of USG 'meddling' that is somehow the source of all the world's troubles.

    Further, if you have ever used the word 'neocon' to describe anyone who doesn't hold to the noninterventionist dogma, you're being just as retarded as Ron Paul.

  • ajweberman||

    neocon means Jews

  • nancyrgill||

    my classmate's aunt makes $66 /hr on the internet . She has been without a job for seven months but last month her payment was $18218 just working on the internet for a few hours. check it out.....
    ➜➜➜➜➜ www.netpay20.com

  • GILMORE||

    I'd complain, but I stopped taking Ron Paul seriously a long time ago.

    oh, and if 9/11 truthers suddenly feel compelled to announce themselves here? Fuck off in advance

  • ReeceExaminer||

  • IceTrey||

    It WAS strange that there were no cars or people on the road.

  • DRauschberg||

    Not a big fan of Ron Paul, but he's right in this case.

  • ajweberman||

    http://tinyurl.com/px9pyhp

    What do you expect from Nazi scum? The idea here is to blame it on the Jews.

  • Alan@.4||

    Talk of dreams gone wild. This one strikes me as being high on a list of claims or assertions that might "take the cake"

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online