Charlie Sheen's reply to Guardian

[Justin]

Just seen this on Alex Jones site:

[Justin]

Can I suggest today we all copy and paste this letter from Charlie and throw the gauntlet down at the Guardian. We all know that it has become a nonsense paper of late, but this is a challenge where we can really make them squirm and expose them for what they effectively are, either wittingly or unwittingly - gatekeepers for the chattering, ineffective, moronic intellectuals of this country.

Write to Emily Bell, editor in chief, Guardian Unlimited

editor@guardianunlimited.co.uk

Don't forget to mention Scholars for 911 Truth to add weight to our argument. www.scholarsfor 911truth.org

Let's keep up the pressure!

Justin

[Justin]

Just sent to Guardian Editor:

[andrewwatson]

Good stuff Justin. I have sent her this:

Dear Emily Bell,

As you no doubt know, Charlie Sheen has responded to the gutter-press attack on his credibility you printed on Saturday with the following challenge:

[Sheen statement]


As one of the 84% who voted on a weekend CNN online poll in support of Sheen's views,
I find it astonishing that the Guardian should employ someone who has difficulty in recognising the difference between truth and tittle-tattle.

A sad day for a once great campaigning paper that on the most important story of the last 50 years this is your best shot.

Yours sincerely

Would it not carry most weight if we all sign and send a joint letter - for publication - as suggested by dh?

AW

[ian neal]

Agreed. A joint sign on letter along the lines of 'we, the undersigned, support Charlie Sheen's call for ......' could have a significant impact especially if we circulate and get high profile names signed on. It would is also harder for the Guardian to refuse to publish it.

Anyone volunteering to draft this?

[pap]

Dear Emily,

Charlie Sheen has responded to your humorous piece entitled "He's a right Charlie".

[Sheen's bits]

Charlie Sheen has expressed some very strong views about the defining event of our times. He is accusing the US Government of complicity in the September 11th attacks, and he is not alone.

Mr Sheen joins a chorus of individuals that are on the public record, questioning the official narrative of 9/11 produced by the United States government and the supposedly independent 9/11 Commission.

Individuals like Michael Meacher, author of "This war on terrorism is bogus", an article your paper bravely published in September 2003.

Max Cleland, a former 9/11 Commissioner, has gone on record saying the Bush administration covered the incident up, wilfully blocking requests for resources. The list of signatories on the 9/11 Truth Statement ( http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041026093059633 ) seems to indicate that there are a host of credible individuals who could have ended up alongside Charlie Sheen in that article.

It is depressing then, that with Mr Sheen making serious charges about an event with serious consequences, that the Guardian's response is a concerted and frankly unconvincing attempt to put Mr Sheen in the same context as Michael Jackson, anti-semitism and Sting. Might I respectfully suggest that in future, the Guardian wake up, sniff the * coffee and cultivate the necessary journalistic genitalia to produce some semblance of balanced coverage with respect to 9/11 and everything that followed?

Another piece by Michael Meacher would be a hell of a start. The efforts of a courageous press, helping to preserve democracy through printing the truth, would be a fitting finale.

Yours sincerely,

Paul Taylor

[Graham]

good work people.

although I got told off for "spamming" them

[DrJazzz]

I wrote something similar urging them to print Sheen's riposte.

It's important when writing these letters to keep them concise and in your own words.

As long as we do that they have no business moaning about 'spamming'! Maybe it will prove better for us that they published a pathetic hit piece rather than ignoring it.

[Reflecter]

Hi all, Ive just signed up here. I wasnt aware Charlie had responed to that piece by Mariana Hyde but I sent this to the readeditor as a complaint this morning.

Dear Sir,

Re: He's a right Charlie

Mr Sheen is the latest celebrity to confuse fact and fiction

Marina Hyde
Saturday March 25, 2006
The Guardian

From one of your editors own pieces, upon the how to make a complaint section, I shall choose to use a quote to start my letter regarding Marina Hyde's coverage of Charlie Sheen's recently aired thoughts about 9/11, upon the GCN talk-radio show of Alex Jones of http://www.infowars.com and subsequently covered for a whole week of nightly CNN ShowBiz Tonight shows, featuring multiple guests and expert speakers, aswell as more typical coverage from Fox news. "The reasonable, indeed essential, starting point for the journalist, he argued, was the Jeremy Paxman question: "Why is this lying b****** lying to me?".

Polite introduction over with, I should like to inform Marina Hyde that in one simple comment "Your Insane. Next", in regards to Charlie Sheen's statements "It just didn't look like any commercial jetliner I've flown on any time in my life" and "and then when the buildings came down later on that day, I said to my brother 'call me insane', but did it sorta look like those buildings came down in a controlled demolition?" she has managed to insult over 82% of the American public that voted in CNN's poll over this matter, which can be located here http://edition.cnn.com/SHOWBIZ/, incase she cant research that herself. Thats some 42149 intelligent, researched, informed, awake Amercian's that represent the tip of an ice berg millions strong. With her childish comments of Charlie's charlie using history, his blathering, she has managed to reduce herself to the level of a un-journalistic attack hack, such as the mighty Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly themselves. If she needs some help for researching who they are and why I would say such a thing, she should be advised to track down a copy of Al-Franken's excecllent, properly researched works of investigative journalism entitled "Lies and the Lying Liars who Tell them" and "The Truth : with jokes", she could learn alot from them, or perhaps speak to Greg Palast or Robert Fisk about real journalism.. Perhaps it will stop her being added to a future book of his regarding the sad state of British Journalism and its undoubted corruption, which I hope he will be inspried to pen, after we are done removing all the filth from Washington and other world governments. Then again he did play the man in the gorilla suit in Trading Places, so I guess to Marina, he'll simply be "just banana's".

She should be advised to research the topic of 9/11 at the following website http://www.st911.org before she dares to utter or pen, another uneducated word for your paper. I personally would call for her position to be questioned within your papers staff but then I am not the editor and that is merely my thoughts and thought crime as yet, is still not upon the anti-terrorism legislation.

I refuse to mince words on this topic as the worm is indeed turning as Mr Sheen stated, as shall soon be seen. Spike Lee it appears may also be correct, as preliminary tests upon scorched concrete samples from the Levees, appears to show the presence of multiple types of military grade underwater explosives, whilst the Bush administrations actions and FEMA's deliberate 'Heckuva job' appear to have been an exercise in the publics acceptance of martial law and nothing more.

The power of the internet cannot be understated as falls in newspaper sales in America are beginning to reveal. This may soon happen here too, unless courageous journalists and publications stand up to the controlling owners and actually print the truth about the "attacks" of 9/11. The public is waking up rapidly behind the scenes and when a critical mass is reached, they are no longer going to need puppet personalities to spoon feed us hogwash. I would advise her and any among your staff with an ounce of journalism in thier heart, to look into the 'official evidence' and confront Mr Sheen with your best attempts to discredit his evidence. Sadly any who try will fail. As Bush himself so eloquently said for a talking chimp "Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories, concerning the attacks of September the 11th, vicious lies, designed to shift the blame away from the terrorists, away from the guilty". No truer doublespeak spoken. We wont tolerate them George, we promise. Which is precisely why we have realised that your official 'story', and the Keane commisions "The 9/11 ommission distort" currently being campaigned to be reclassifed deservedly as 'FICTION", are indeed the largest and most outrageous of all conspiracy theories, with no basis in fact, no evidence to support them and requiring a suspension in the laws of nature, to even stand a chance of being true.

I shall finish by saying that obviously I am complaining about Marina Hydes article and I suggest she and any others that feel as she, should remove thier tin-foil hat and stop being 'conspiracy theorists' and join with the conspiracy researchers. People who can see the conspiracies that fill our newspapers daily, the real day to day copy sellers and believe me If you print stories on the real events of 9/11. If you make history, you will sell alot of copy. You may even stop the bloodshed in Afghanistan, stop war in Iraq and avoid the pending war in Iran. Exploding the 9/11 myth can stop the real bombs exploding, it can stop the poisoning of the planet with radioactive DU weaponry. It can halt the 4th Reich in its tracks and stop this insane christio-islamic divide. This is reality folks, Bush's grandad among others via the UAC bank, funded and profiteered from the rise of Hitler, Bush's dad may well have been the organiser of JFK's assasination, as JFK was planning to shut the CIA down and Oswald was Hoovers best agent infiltrator. He was sussed and set up as the patsy. The OKC bombing was not the result of McVeighs truck bomb, that simply defies science, whilst TV footage that morning showed the bomb squads clear multiple devices from inside the building. In 1993 the FBI carried out the first WTC bombing and whats the phrase "A criminal always returns to the scene of his crime". It's time to wake up folks, we have been conned again and again and we must take it back for the sake of the children. A revolution will be televised, real soon. Time to decide which side of the wall you are on, the one thats going to smash it, or the side that will be up against it first for thier complicity.

Your Faithfully
Rufus Middleton
Scholars for Truth (SM)
Some of these views as I stated are my own and do not represent the Scholars for Truth movement. Many are not and do. I leave it to yourselves to research which.

Any good?

Im really glad Charlie hit back so well. What a star!!

[paul wright]

A delightfully comprehensive review, and one I wish I'd written myself
Are they likely to publish any of it?I doubt it and it would only be to take the piss in their duplicitous and supercilious way
Perhaps it is time to coast the conspiracy network and call on all people of whatever angle to post to the Guardians' email addresses and clog up their system if at all possible, perhaps by copying and posting one of the contributions so far
Whatever good articles the Guardian may publish their utter * smugness on the basic issues is appalling
They're prime force movers of the gatekeeper operation for British liberals and they really need to be shut down in some way
perhaps we could go with this group and its Us Equivalences, Icke, Jones, all the 911 websites, the many Yahoo groups, the Muslim groups , the list is endless, and at an appointed time just bombard the Guardian with emails
Why? because they are an Achilles heel in their system, now promoting their causes in the name of advancement
Anybody remember AL Kennedy's piece on 911? Then check that out against her piece on smoking today
They're a real evil bunch

[DrJazzz]

To be really honest I would avoid writing complaints that are lengthy like that. One or two paragraphs at most. The aim is to register your displeasure and the reason, and you have a short attention window in which to do it.

When an editor finds that on his desk he is doubtless going to go 'jeez, I 'm a busy man/woman, I really can't be bothered to read that, and guess what, I don't have to', and it will be thrown in the bin, perhaps along with others on the same subject.

[paul wright]

Youre quite right, Dr Jazzz. Anyway these people have their position, real or imagined - ok- you're insane
So perhaps a repeated message - something small and snappy - in their inbox - sevral hundred times a day, and day after day from all over the world might seriously piss them off
A lot of people change their views emotionally or from hard experience, rather than through hard logic

[Reflecter]

You are indeed correct DrJazzz, I did however send it to the complaint section readeditor where in theory at least a response is required from him to ensure a happy customer. Thats the impression the complaints section gives. I of course expect it to be binned, but it was nice to vent some anger at her hitpiece. I feel much better knowing Charlie did likewise.

[Jayhawk]

Just to point out that if you want a letter printed in the paper you should write to letters@guardian.co.uk and include an address, reference to article and daytime phone number. Bit of a lottery even then, but it would attract more attention. Good work though.

[Spectre]

Charlie Sheen deserves the highest accolade from his own country once the real 9/11 criminals are exposed and brought to trial. I don't know what medal the U.S.A. bestows upon such patriots? Perhaps they need to create a new one for such an obvious selfless and patriotic gesture.

In a similar way I feel we should honour - or rather dishonour those amongst our elites (particularly in the U.K.) who have done the most to prevent the truth emerging for whatever reasons. More often than not it will be because of a desire to preserve their own careers but sometimes it is clearly more than that.

I think we should create a ...

ROLL OF DISHONOUR

and start adding to the list those who should be ashamed of themselves. Those who refused to debate the issues, to highlight them, to bring them to the public's attention. All those who have systematically ignored and stonewalled us, and our reasoned and reasonable requests. Obviously this included senior BBC executives, newspaper proprietors and editors, politicians and so many others.

To create a balance we should also have a ROLL OF HONOUR which at present would clearly be a much shorter list but would definitely have the following names from public life:

Michael Meacher (parliamentarian)

Charlie Sheen (actor)

and I'm sure other posters can think of others ...

Yes I would ask the moderators of this web site to please create two new zones to deal with these matters. We should sing the praises of some and shame those other pathetic self-serving toadies - who spout much about freedom of speech and democratic debate and the need for journalistic truth ... and then stifle it at any opportunity.

[Justin]

Good idea - let's do it!

[Reflecter]

Definately a great idea.

I can only think of adding Galloway to both lists. His senate speech and some of his outspokenness does him credit, his rebuff of 9/11 facts shames him. In his honour, I sadly missed this weekends conspiracy show (and recieved no reply to 2 emails to his show on the first two weeks regarding Scholars for Truth) he did at least not answer at all when people aired controlled demolition views etc. Perhaps letting his silence speak for him like Royksopps song.

Thanks for the letters link, I'll resend my letter to Emily the editor and to that link too, just incase!

Regards

[frankie]

I've emailed the Editor, Emily Bell.

If the Editor gets enough emails, it could make Marina Hyde's career prospects just a little bit shakey - hopefully!

Maybe then 'journalists' will not think it such a good career move to be such unquestioning puppets of the Globalists.

Frankie

[Ally]

[frankie]