My Other Blog & Comments

News and Information Feed

Sunday, September 11, 2011

How did neocon Daniel Pipes know Muslims were behind attacks soon enough to produce detailed call for war on Islam by 4:26 p.m., Sept. 11, 2001?

(By Chris Moore, -- Jordan Michael Smith recently wrote a 9/11 anniversary article for the Washington Post titled Who got 9/11 right, and who got it wrong? A pundit score card.

One of the quotes he dug up was by neocon Daniel Pipes, which I followed back to the original source at National Review Online, where it was time-stamped "September 11, 2001 4:26 P.M." -- just a few short hours after the attacks.

Here is some of what Pipes wrote:
First, there was nothing cowardly about the attacks, which were deeds of incredible — albeit perverted — bravery. Second, to “hunt down and punish” the perpetrators is deeply to misunderstand the problem. It implies that we view the plane crashes as criminal deeds rather than what they truly are — acts of war. They are part of a campaign of terrorism that began in a sustained way with the bombing of the U.S. embassy in Beirut in 1983, a campaign that has never since relented. Occurring with almost predictable regularity a few times a year, assaults on Americans have included explosions on airliners, at commercial buildings, and at a variety of U.S. governmental installations. Before last week,[bold mine] the total death toll was about 600 American lives. To me, this sustained record of violence looks awfully much like war, but Washington in its wisdom has insisted otherwise.
"Before last week"? According to the National Review online website, the article was published "September 11, 2001 4:26 P.M." Doesn't Pipes mean "Before today..."?

Pipes continues:
[A war on terrorism] means dispensing with the unrealistically high expectations of proof so that when reasonable evidence points to a regime’s or an organization’s having harmed Americans, U.S. military force can be deployed. It means that, as in conventional war, Washington need not know the names and specific actions of enemy soldiers before fighting them.

It means retaliating every single time terrorism harms an American. There is no need to know the precise identity of a perpetrator; in war, there are times when one strikes first and asks questions later. When an attack takes place, it could be reason to target any of those known to harbor terrorists. If the perpetrator is not precisely known, then punish those who are known to harbor terrorists. Go after the governments and organizations that support terrorism.

It means using force so that the punishment is disproportionately greater than the attack. The U.S. has a military force far more powerful than any other in the world: Why spend hundreds of billions of dollars a year on it and not deploy it to defend Americans?
For emphasis that the terrorists MUST have been Islamic, Pipes adds:
Throwing a few bombs (as was done against the Libyan regime in 1986, and against sites in Afghanistan and Sudan in 1998) does not amount to a serious policy.
In the same column, Pipes makes some detailed recommendations about how the U.S. should execute this war on supposedly monolithic Islamic terrorism in line with his “no need to know the precise identity of the perpetrator” recommendation.

How could Pipes possibly have known to a certainty that Islamic terrorism was behind the attacks to put such a detailed column together and publish it online by 4:26 p.m. on the afternoon of Sept. 11, and why was he already calling for what amounts to a war on Islam that very day?

Additionally, why did Pipes write "Before last week, the total death toll was about 60 American lives" in relationship to that very day's terrorist attacks?

It’s almost as if he knew the attacks were coming and had the article ready to go, but instead of waiting until the following week to publish the piece, he couldn't contain himself and elected to publish it the very day of the attacks in order to call for a war on Islam while the iron was hot and emotions were running high, but neglected to change "Before last week" to "Before today"...and no one has yet caught it.

But now it's too late.

Of course, if one believes former U.S. Army War College Director of Studies Dr. Alan Sabrosky, who says that Israel was behind the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and that the New York buildings fell as a consequence of controlled demolition, it's highly likely that an active, well-connected, dedicated Israel first, Jewish Zionist neocon like Pipes did know about the attacks in advance and pre-wrote his article accordingly in order to help propagate the "fact" that Islam was behind the attacks, and establish that America should rush into a consequential war against Islam because of this "fact" -- which of course wasn't an established fact yet at all...and still isn't.

No comments: