charlie sheen --rips 9-11 wtc lies ...guess it takes a spine to stand up...

finally a hollywood type with some stones ... charlie sheen took a stand and publicly questioned the pack of lies that is the official 9-11 explanation.

sheen went on tv and attacked the government lies that a bunch of guys who were ALL-- according to the ny times and washington post described as "lousy" pilots by their own flight school instructors--pulled off the 9-11 world trade center attacks .


charlie , like many of the cognizant questioned how a group of amateurs could pull off the crime of the new century --defeating cia , fbi ,dia , nsa , faa , norad and the entire Us air defenses in place since the beginning of the 10 trillion dollar cold war--and defeat a super power's defenses with a couple of home depot boxcutters--and a few flying lessons.

two of the "hijackers" were such piss poor pilots that their instructors recommended they not even be allowed to drive cars let alone passenger airliners .

but we are to believe they successfully piloted airliners at 500 mph at low altitudes in a city full of skyscrapers and smacked into the right targets .

we are to believe the city firefighters were unskilled and misinformed enough to go into the towers to battle the blazes and perform rescues and just somehow found themselves trapped victims when the heat from the burning jet fuel caused the extensive network of support beams to melt and the towers to collapse . even peter jennings and dan rather commented that the tower collapses and the fall of wtc building 7 looked like controlled demolitions --what caused building 7 to collapse when other buildings much closer to the towers did not ? the extreme temperatures that weren't hot enough to melt the steel ? structural failure ? or controlled demolitions --nyc firemen on the scene said they heard explosions and all 3 the buildings fell as as if "pulled" by explosions . these three were the first and only steel structured skyscrapers EVER to collapse from fire --none had done so before and none have done so since...

charlie sheen also mentioned the recorded comments of the wtc center owner larry silverstein concerning his decision to "pull" building 7 . so far , 40,000 people responded to charlie' remarks in a CNN poll -- 84 % agree with him that the government covered up the real events of 9-11 ...

"Sheen reiterated his main focus as being on what caused Building 7, which wasn't hit by a plane, to become only the third steel building in history to collapse from fire damage (the other two being the twin towers). Photographs taken prior to the building's collapse show minor fires before it falls in a textbook demolition fashion.

'If there's a problem with Building 7 then there's a problem with the whole damn thing and guess what? There's a serious problem with Building 7,' said Sheen.

Sheen demanded that Larry Silverstein, the owner of the WTC complex, explain what he meant when he told a September 2002 PBS documentary 'America Rebuilds' that the decision was made to "pull" the building, which is a demolition term for deliberate implosion.

'When someone makes a statement like that I think it warrants a follow up response,' said Sheen.

"In fact you know what I'll come right out and say that I'm personally requesting a direct answer from Mr. Silverstein about what he meant....give him my number tell him to call me I'm just curious. Tell him to call CNN tell him to call somebody because you cannot make a statement like that and not follow it up, and not back it up and not explain it."

"Anyone that cannot view this as a controlled demolition, I would have to say that their chair was not facing the television. Anyone that can look at this and say 'yes, that is a random event caused by fire' really needs psychiatric evaluation," said Sheen.

Sheen challenged the mainstream media to run a poll on Building 7 asking if viewers believe from video evidence that the building was brought down by means of controlled implosion.

Sheen again underscored his challenge to his detractors to debate him on the evidence and not idle gossip about his private life and his family.

'I ask that they look at the evidence and they debate myself, yourself, people that support us on those specific issues. Not about me personally, not about what they think about me personally not about what they think they know about me personally, just about the facts. I issue that challenge.'

Sheen expressed his excitement at the response that his stance received and hinted that this was only the beginning of the journey.

'It feels like you and I have started the revolution and God bless America,' said Sheen in closing."

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2006/240306challengeme.htm

'forced feedings' @npr ?

prisoner at guantanamo






http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5285718

Military Grows More Defensive About Guantanamo Prison

Listen to this story... by Jackie Northam (*click the above link to listen to the npr story --the portion--no pun intended --concerning forced feedings is about 5 minutes in )

Morning Edition, March 17, 2006 · In the four years since the United States prison in Guantanamo first opened, operations at the remote military detention center have continually evolved. And the clamor over treatment of the Guantanamo prisoners continues to grow stronger, pushing military officials into a defensive crouch.

*ok , so as mentioned a few times before , we are regular listeners to national public radio , aka , NPR .

recently , we heard this npr story aired one morning while getting dressed for work . this section below , about forced feedings of inmates at guantanamo , in particular caused questions to pop up in our mind because it directly conflicted with articles we had been reading on the net --one of them posted here for comparison...

you judge for yourself...also note that the bush administration --already deeply lost in a moral abyss --is expanding the facility , as if in expectation of throwing more captives into the illegal dungeon-hole down there.

"the officer in charge of the detainee hospital , who did not want his name used for security reasons says , first the medical staff numbs the detainee's nose , 'and then we will take a small tube , it's flexible as you can see , we will gently place that through the nostril down into the stomach . we will insure it 's in the stomach and then we will feed them over about a 20 minute period ...our position is that as medical providers our job is ...i have told the detainees multiple times ... is to preserve their health and their lives ' ".

US Force-Feeding Prisoners in Torture Camp
By Marjorie Cohn
t r u t h o u t | Perspective

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/022006J.shtml

Monday 19 February 2006

Last week, the United Nations Human Rights Commission reported that the violent force-feeding of detainees by the US military at its Guantanamo prison camp amounts to torture.

More than a third of the prisoners held there have refused food to protest being held incommunicado for years with no hope of release. They have concluded that death could not be worse than the living hell they are enduring. Attorney Julia Tarver's client Abdul-Rahman told her "of his determination to die and said that, 'now, after four years in captivity, life and death are the same,'" Tarver wrote in a sworn declaration filed in federal district court.

Yousef Al Shehri, another of Tarver's clients, was taken prisoner by the US military while he was still a juvenile. Both clients described being force-fed by the guards. Tarver wrote in her declaration: "Yousef was the second detainee to have an NG [nasal gastric] tube inserted into his nose and pushed all the way down his throat and into his stomach, a procedure which caused him great pain. Yousef was given no anesthesia or sedative for the procedure; instead, two soldiers restrained him - one holding his chin while the other held him back by his hair, and a medical staff member forcefully inserted the tube in his nose and down his throat. Much blood came out of his nose. Yousef said he could not speak for two days after the procedure; he said he felt like a piece of metal was inside of him. He said he could not sleep because of the severe pain."

When Yousef and others "vomited up blood, the soldiers mocked and cursed at them, and taunted them with statements like 'look what your religion has brought you,'" Tarver wrote.

After two weeks of this treatment, the forced feeding stopped for five days. Then, guards began to insert larger, thicker tubes into the detainees' noses. "These large tubes," Tarver wrote, "the thickness of a finger, [Yousef] estimated - were viewed by the detainees as objects of torture. They were forcibly shoved up the detainees' noses and down into their stomachs. Again, no anesthesia or sedative was provided to alleviate the obvious trauma of the procedure. When the tube was removed, it was even more painful, and blood came gushing out of him. He fainted, and several of the other detainees also lost consciousness . They were told that this tube would be inserted and removed twice a day every day until the hunger strike ended. Yousef described the pain as 'unbearable.'"

Both of Tarver's clients independently identified physicians as participants in this procedure. "The guards took NG tubes from one detainee, and with no sanitization whatsoever, re-inserted it into the nose of a different detainee. When these tubes were re-inserted, the detainees could see the blood and stomach bile from other detainees remaining on the tubes," Tarver wrote in her declaration.

The UN commission confirmed that "doctors and other health professionals are participating in force-feeding detainees." It cites the Declarations of Tokyo and Malta, the World Medical Association, and the American Medical Association, which prohibit doctors from participating in force-feeding a detainee, provided the detainee is capable of understanding the consequences of refusing food.

International Committee of the Red Cross guidelines state: "Doctors should never be party to actual coercive feeding. Such actions can be considered a form of torture and under no circumstances should doctors participate in them on the pretext of saving the hunger striker's life."

The Bush administration is force-feeding the hunger strikers for political reasons. If any of the Guantanamo prisoners dies as a result of the hunger strike, it would be embarrassing to the Bush administration, which claims it treats the detainees "humanely."

The Human Rights Commission called on the US government to ensure that the authorities at Guantanamo Bay do not force-feed any detainee who is capable of forming a rational judgement and is aware of the consequences of refusing food. "The United States Government should invite independent health professionals to monitor hunger strikers, in a manner consistent with international ethical standards, throughout the hunger strike," the commission recommended.

In its report, the commission also recommended that the US government "close the Guantanamo Bay detention facilities without further delay. Until the closure, and possible transfer of detainees to pre-trial detention facilities on United States territory, the Government should refrain from any practice amounting to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment ."

The commission further said that "the United States Government should ensure that all allegations of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment are thoroughly investigated by an independent authority, and that all persons found to have perpetrated, ordered, tolerated or condoned such practices, up to the highest level of military and political command, are brought to justice."

Not surprisingly, the Bush administration rejected the commission's report, saying that the rapporteurs who prepared it did not interview people at the prison camp. The commission relied on interviews with former detainees, public documents, media repots, lawyers and questions answered by the US government. The Bush administration invited the rapporteurs to visit the Guantanamo camp, but refused to allow them to speak with the prisoners.

The overwhelming majority of the prisoners our government is holding at Guantanamo are not terrorists or jihadists. Many were picked up in Afghanistan and other countries and sold to the US military by bounty hunters. Of the roughly 500 men there, only 9 have been designated for trial on criminal charges.

The US government's treatment of prisoners at Guantánamo is an international travesty and a national disgrace.

Marjorie Cohn is a professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, President-elect of the National Lawyers Guild, and the US representative to the executive committee of the American Association of Jurists. She writes a weekly column for t r u t h o u t.

----

---

sooooo....what's up ?

IAEA says no evidence of Iranian Nuclear Weapons plan

By Atul Aneja

March 2, 2006
The Hindu



Report likely to influence agency's Vienna meet

DUBAI: As the countdown for a crucial meeting on Iran on March 6 gets under way, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has revealed that it has not found any evidence that Teheran had diverted material towards making atomic weapons.

In its report which has been circulated to its 35 board members, the IAEA said that its three years of investigations had not shown "any diversion of nuclear material to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices", the Associated Press reported.

Cooperation sought

However, it called upon Iran to substantially increase its cooperation with the IAEA inspectors as the agency has not been able "to conclude that there are no undeclared nuclear materials or activities in Iran."

Without heightened cooperation, the agency would be unable to establish whether some of Iran's past nuclear activities under wraps were not linked to the manufacture of nuclear weapons. Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki who has been visiting Japan said, "They (IAEA) could not find evidence which shows that Iran has diverted from its peaceful purposes of nuclear activities in Iran." The report is likely to strongly influence the March 6 meeting in Vienna where the IAEA board is expected to discuss the future course of action on Iran.

On February 4, the board had decided to report Iran's case to the U.N. Security Council, which can take action against Iran, including the imposition of economic sanctions.

Buoyed by the report, Iran is rushing the head of its Supreme National Security Council (SNSC) Ali Larijani to Russia for another round of talks.

A Russian delegation led by Sergei Kiriyenko held talks with Iran over the weekend.

These discussions had revolved around the establishment of a joint venture facility in Russia, which would produce enriched uranium for generating electricity.

That meeting produced an "agreement in principle" on this subject.

However, later, differences appear to have surfaced on another issue — on whether Iran would be allowed to operate a small-scale enrichment plant for research purposes.

The IAEA report said that Iran had begun enrichment using 10 centrifuges — a move which can result in the production of only minute quantities of enriched uranium.

© Copyright 2000 - 2006 The Hindu



*so if this is the case after two years in iran of the most extensive IAEA checks , surprise spot checks , monitoring , and the most extensive searches conducted by the international atomic energy agency in the history of the non-proliferation treaty and they have admittedly found nothing that iran has done in violation of the n-p-t --then why all this noise from the bushites?

The 48 Hour Media-blitz for War with Iran
Mike Whitney


March 10, 2006

In the last 48 hours all the major players in the Bush administration have issued statements warning of the impending danger of Iran.

Cheney blasted the Islamic regime saying there would be "meaningful consequences" if it refuses to comply with international demands to stop its nuclear program.

Condoleezza Rice said, "We face no greater challenge from a single country than Iran… This is a country that seems determined, it seems, to develop a nuclear weapon in defiance of the international community that is determined that they should not get one."

Donald Rumsfeld warned at a press conference on Wednesday, "I will say this about Iran. They are currently putting people into Iraq to do things that are harmful to the future of Iraq. We know it, and it is something that they, I think, will look back on as having been an error in judgment."

Bush chimed in too, "Iran must not have a nuclear weapon. The most destabilizing thing that can happen in this region and in the world is for Iran to have a nuclear weapon."

And then there was Bolton, the most vehement of all, saying that the Security Council should issue a "vigorous response" to Iran’s nuclear ambitions or the United States might have to consider other steps.

Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns said, "It’s going to be incumbent on our allies around the world to show that they are willing to act."

Congress also added their support led by Rep. Tom Lantos (D-CA) "Iran’s quest for nuclear arms requires us to do two things: squeeze Iran’s economy as much as possible and do so without delay." Lantos claims that more than 300 lawmakers will support sanctions.

Israel’s Defense Minister joined the chorus as well," If the UN Security Council is incapable of taking action to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, Israel will have no choice but to defend itself."

Bush, Cheney, Bolton, Rice, Rumsfeld, Burns, Congress, and Israel.

Whoa! That’s quite a line-up.

All in the last 48 hours!

Was it spontaneous or a calculated public-relations campaign?

Beyond the political speechmaking are literally hundreds of articles, full of the same predictable fictions and demagoguery which have mischaracterized Iran’s nuclear program from the get-go; fueling the hysteria for another preemptive war.

Did Iran become nuclear superpower overnight?

Apparently, so. But, just for the sake of argument, let’s remember that according to the IAEA there is "no evidence of a nuclear weapons program or any diversion of nuclear material."

That is the judgment of the Nobel Prize-wining chief of the UN nuclear watchdog agency, Mohammad ElBaradei. ElBaradei warned that there were no nuclear weapons programs in Iraq and he has drawn the very same conclusion in Iran.

"No evidence" still means "no evidence" except in Washington, DC, where it is a mere stumbling block for a massive media-blitz to manipulate public perceptions and whip the masses into war-fever.

It’s hard not to be impressed by the sudden ratcheting-up of inflammatory statements and spurious claims that blast from every media-soapbox across the country. Who could have imagined 4 years ago how utterly corrupted our media really is?

Try this: do a Google search through the 2,400 articles on Iran right now on and see what you find.

You’ll find that all 2,400 articles reiterate the same bland deceptions and wearisome lies as all the others. You’ll see that the forth estate provides neither facts, nor context, nor analysis, just the endless, repetitive fear-mongering of administration officials.

That’s it; just manipulation through state-sponsored demagoguery 24-7.

You won’t find anything about the IAEA inspection team that rummaged through Iran’s nuclear sites for the passed two years in the most thorough examination of any country in the history of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) You won’t hear anything about the "go anywhere, see anything" inspections that allowed officials from the IAEA to investigate any location or facility they felt was suspicious. You won’t hear that the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) predicted that it would take 10 years for Iran to build a nuclear weapon. (If, in fact, that is even their intention) You won’t hear that Iran temporarily sacrificed its legal right to enrich uranium and accepted "additional protocols" because it trusted the EU-3 (Germany, France and England) who, it turns out, were simply acting as Washington’s agents. You won’t find one single article that clarifies the most fundamental issue of the entire confrontation; that Iran has an "inalienable right" to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes unless it can factually established that it has not complied with the terms of its agreement. "

* and today during speeches attempting to firm up failing Us resolve to remake through war the middle east in america's own image , dubya accused iran of making the new and deadly version of ied's that did something like this:





























no it's not the iraqis themselves , filled with hatred of the occupying forces for having brutalized the iraqis and tortured people --occupying forces who have already killed 100,000 innocent civilians in this war to liberate iraq from its oil --it's not the iraqis fighting the Us military--it's those pesky iranians and syrians and foreign fighters who are the cause of all the trouble--


the trouble to Us forces is not coming from iraqis like this one in black--reported to be a captain in the republican guard and leading iraqis as they ambush american vehicles --it's iranians , syrians , and foreign al qaeda fighters--yeah sure it is...










"you see , as yore president , i believe it's not the iraqis fightin against us ...
it's them nuke-making iranians behind it all...yup ...them iranians that aims to take over the world--them mullers in tehran who is hatin' us cuz we got freedom and disneyland.

see , we got beer , football--the real football--not that sissy kickball stuff-- and we got "american idol" , an paris hilton , "that 70's show" and "girls gone wild" over here in america an they don't got none of that good stuff--so they hate us--and dadd-gumit they mean to take all them good things we got away from us--if we don't nuke 'em first and of course ,take away all that-there oil they got . "

propaganda or disinformation or hard reality ?

A Message From The "Iraq Resistance"

Islamic Jihad Army - A message in English

"We are simple people who chose principles over fear."

Propaganda or disinformation? You decide.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7468.htm


Communiqué Number 6



The media platoon of the Islamic Jihad Army. On the 27th of Shawal 1425h. 10 December 2004



People of the world! These words come to you from those who up to the day of the invasion were struggling to survive under the sanctions imposed by the criminal regimes of the U.S. and Britain .



We are simple people who chose principles over fear.



We have suffered crimes and sanctions, which we consider the true weapons of mass destruction.



Years and years of agony and despair, while the condemned UN traded with our oil revenues in the name of world stability and peace.



Over two million innocents died waiting for a light at the end of a tunnel that only ended with the occupation of our country and the theft of our resources.



After the crimes of the administrations of the U.S and Britain in Iraq , we have chosen our future. The future of every resistance struggle ever in the history of man.



It is our duty, as well as our right, to fight back the occupying forces, which their nations will be held morally and economically responsible; for what their elected governments have destroyed and stolen from our land.



We have not crossed the oceans and seas to occupy Britain or the U.S. nor are we responsible for 9/11. These are only a few of the lies that these criminals present to cover their true plans for the control of the energy resources of the world, in face of a growing China and a strong unified Europe . It is Ironic that the Iraqi's are to bear the full face of this large and growing conflict on behalf of the rest of this sleeping world.



We thank all those, including those of Britain and the U.S. , who took to the streets in protest against this war and against Globalism. We also thank France , Germany and other states for their position, which least to say are considered wise and balanced, til now.



Today, we call on you again.



We do not require arms or fighters, for we have plenty.



We ask you to form a world wide front against war and sanctions. A front that is governed by the wise and knowing. A front that will bring reform and order. New institutions that would replace the now corrupt.



Stop using the U.S. dollar, use the Euro or a basket of currencies. Reduce or halt your consumption of British and U.S. products. Put an end to Zionism before it ends the world. Educate those in doubt of the true nature of this conflict and do not believe their media for their casualties are far higher than they admit.



We only wish we had more cameras to show the world their true defeat.



The enemy is on the run. They are in fear of a resistance movement they can not see nor predict.



We, now choose when, where, and how to strike. And as our ancestors drew the first sparks of civilization, we will redefine the word “conquest.“



Today we write a new chapter in the arts of urban warfare.



Know that by helping the Iraqi people you are helping yourselves, for tomorrow may bring the same destruction to you.



In helping the Iraqi people does not mean dealing for the Americans for a few contracts here and there. You must continue to isolate their strategy.



This conflict is no longer considered a localized war. Nor can the world remain hostage to the never-ending and regenerated fear that the American people suffer from in general.



We will pin them here in Iraq to drain their resources, manpower, and their will to fight. We will make them spend as much as they steal, if not more.



We will disrupt, then halt the flow of our stolen oil, thus, rendering their plans useless.



And the earlier a movement is born, the earlier their fall will be.



And to the American soldiers we say, you can also choose to fight tyranny with us. Lay down your weapons, and seek refuge in our mosques, churches and homes. We will protect you. And we will get you out of Iraq , as we have done with a few others before you.



Go back to your homes, families, and loved ones. This is not your war. Nor are you fighting for a true cause in Iraq .



And to George W. Bush, we say, “You have asked us to ‘Bring it on’, and so have we. Like never expected. Have you another challenge?”