Sept. 11 remembrance from the GPUS

I received this today from the Green Party of the United States.  I'll let it speak for itself.

Dear Stephen ,

Today members of the Green Party of the United States and our state Green Parties reflect on a number of personal tragedies resulting from the events of September 11, 2001, and continue to work to prevent further tragedies resulting from these events. We note the importance of remembering those who died eight years ago and those survivors who work today for justice, peace, and the stability of a sustainable, democratic society.

We urge the Obama administration to fulfill the promises made to reverse the Bush administration policy of waging war in Iraq and Afghanistan in response to 9/11.  We challenge President Obama to abandon his plans to commit another 20,000 American troops to the occupation of Afghanistan and demand that he withdraw all troops from Iraq, as he had promised during his Presidential campaign.

We believe that building a strong base of Green officeholders will increase pressure on the local, state, and federal level for more peaceful alternatives to occupation and war.  We need your support to run more candidates.

On September 20th, 2001, the Green Party of the United States noted that a military response to the events of September 11, 2001 would lead to "a protracted war [that] will result in thousands, perhaps millions more civilian casualties, including many Americans, leading to further attacks against the U.S. and other nations and to possible destabilization of a region that includes Pakistan, which owns nuclear weapons..."

The Green Party notes that although a major incident has yet to occur in the United States, the U.S.-led response to the events of September 11, 2001 has resulted in 5,130 American deaths, over 30,000 injuries to American soldiers, an unknown number of civilian deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan - listed in published reports as anywhere between 100,000 and one million people - major bombings in Madrid in March of 2004 and London in July of 2005, and continued instability through the Middle East.


The Green Party continues to work toward its goal, also stated on September 20, 2001, of "peace with justice: peace which preserves the human rights and stability for all people in the Middle East, the U.S., and the rest of the world, and justice for those who have suffered death, injury, and loss".

Today we remember the losses of September 11, 2001, and re-commit ourselves to building a nation of peace, justice, human rights, and stability through our continued growth as an alternative to two administrations of war.

Comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

A bit too much blame

I don't think it's fair to say "the U.S.-led response... has resulted in... major bombings in Madrid... and London"

Those may well have taken place regardless of what the US response had been. In fact, since Al Queda's aim was to provoke violent over-reactions, those attacks might have been joined by others if the US had taken a high road. If anything, the US response to invade Afghanistan and Iraq meant AQ didn't need to do any more domestic (US) attacks, since the American government was already doing what AQ wanted it to be doing - boots on the ground in Islamic countries.

AQ was trying to start a fight, not end or avoid one. They got their fight and have been using it as a major propaganda/recruitment tool. If/when the US finally does calm down and move out, expect attempts from AQ to get them to re-engage.

 

Erich Jacoby-Hawkins, Barrie ON - although I'm on Cabinet (Nat'l Rev. and Ecol. Fiscal Reform), views here are my own and may not reflect official GPC positions. Please visit www.ErichtheGreen.ca

04-05-06-07-08

I'm afraid "U.S.-led response" is truly applicable, and not in ways criticized here.  There must be plenty of GPUS folks who understand that what has momentously passed for Sept 11 storyline is utter garbage.  There are activists in this field among them (Carol Brouillet comes to mind), and their recent presidential candidate, despite loopier recent adventures around Gaza, has openly called for a public re-investigation into those events, the government & forced mainstream presentation conclusively proven utter garbage long ago already.

Likewise, what happened in '04, '05 looks like the same crew.  For more of a clue into what's going on, take note of what sharp-eyed commentator on monetary affairs, American lawyer Ellen Brown, has pointed out how on Sept 11/07 Northern Rock was taken down, on Sept 11/08 Lehman Brothers...anything today?  Too many watching & in the know?

What about '06?  Nobody recall what looked like our near miss in Toronto (June 1 I think it was)?  Nobody remember the weird TTC strike/lock-out, the subway car plate falling off right after, the donut shop bombings? What about '07? Members of the Canadian Action Party actually went to Montreal to warn their municipal government about their choice of "security" arrangement for their subway, there was worry around the Montebello meeting (remember the goofy SQ provocation, too?)...

Please see my contributions to webpage http://www.greenparty.ca/blogs/930/2009-07-24/hutterites-photographs , where this largely bogus security regime comes up in discussion.

 

 

And the Madrid bombings are

And the Madrid bombings are related to the U.S., how?  It's not even conclusive who orchestrated the attacks, or why.  On the surface, it looks like it was part of an unended war to annex Spain.  Why is that any less plausible?  The US was legally within its rights to remove the Taliban from Afghanistan whether you like it or not.  There is plenty to blame the Bush administration for, but instead they went for a few cheap shots.

The GPUS has achieved a subterranean apex of support in the US for a reason.  Maybe it's time for some introspection on their part.

"whether you like it or not"

Why?  The Taliban offered to deliver up the laughably alleged culprit, if provided with appropriate material.

Why? To eliminate opium production?  The Taliban had already done that (although might have had something to do with prior bumper crops, too; but notice skyrocketing drug-running out of there since American-British takeover -- Bram has to look one level beyond his globalistas, as does Naomi Klein for that matter...hey, to tie in another blog topic a bit further, notice Mike Ruppert's film at TIFF, I think a debut; I might mention a recent book for those interested in Afg. -- Stephen? -- Afghanistan and Canada (ed. Kowalcuk & Staple, '09), but don't tell Hulet because it has some Murrray Dobbin in it...).

Why? Because pipeline negotiations were not going as US operators wanted exactly?

Bram, you're lost on this.  And so are Canadians who support our presence there.  Maybe we can do good, but under completely bogus pretext, immoral to support as it was, and is.  Why not go a bit further with this, while we're on the touchy subject, here's more innuendo: Anybody recall those bombed out Canadians by those amphetamine-high US pilots early on in Afghanistan, and the inquiry & all that?  Really believe it was an accident?  Like the 1999 bombing of the Chinese embassy in Yugoslavia was an accident? Like 100-story buildings collapse as fast as gravity onto their own footprints exactly like a demolition job, like that was from burning jet fuel?  Nobody notice the proliferation, at least around Toronto, of helicopters from the very day those hapless fellows were arrested for, what, plotting to decapitate Harper? What about the sudden upswing in Canadian fatalities at that time? I know these are a bunch of seemingly loose strands (I'm pressed for time again, as sunset nears & I observe that, call it weekly "Earth Day", Jewish Sabbath I have to prepare for -- it was on a summer '06 Sabbath day sitting at home I recall hearing the hours or hovering copters...more to tell about those later if you want...), but are all of you out there "coincidence theorists"?  What about those Encana bombings -- an enviromentalist doing it?! (see webpage http://www.greenparty.ca/blogs/14649/2009-07-17/renewable-energy-called-... )

It's highly unlikely that real honesty can be allowed for Green campaigning before a Canadian public, too many Greens even can't seem to bring themselves to really look at what's staring at them.  It is tough, I'm not doubting that (I think the woman I mentioned above, Brouillet, has done some learned writing on why it's so hard to face for so many).  But it is worth knowing about since it ties in intrinsically to what Greens are fundamentally about, and effective public education & policy can really only come from knowledgeable people, or else you risk being used again & again. 

No need for conspiracy

"Anybody recall those bombed out Canadians by those amphetamine-high US pilots early on in Afghanistan, and the inquiry & all that?"

I most certainly do.

"Really believe it was an accident?"

Why wouldn't it be? What possible US purpose would be served by deliberately killing Canadian troops in Afghanistan? The potential result would be stronger Canadian public objections to our presence there.

It was an act of negligence on the part of the pilots, their controllers, and ultimately their President for his cowboy "shoot first" attitude. But to imply that it was deliberate strains credulity.

"Like 100-story buildings collapse as fast as gravity onto their own footprints exactly like a demolition job, like that was from burning jet fuel?"

A hot enough fire can weaken (not melt - weaken) the strength of structural steel in buildings. Such are designed to be strong enough when cold, and under the heat that can be expected from a building fire (wood, paper, etc.) - not from the extra heat of tonnes of accelerants. (Also vulnerable to explosions, which is how buildings can be intentionally demolished.) You question how jetliners with full tanks - tonnes of jet fuel - have enough power to take the buildings down, yet happily assume tiny surreptitiously hidden explosives do?

Tall buildings which suffer from structural failure not due to extreme wind will almost without fail fall straight down "into their own footprints". Gravity pulls buildings down, not over. The extra weight of a storey falling will collapse the story below it, then the one below it and so on, in a perfect domino pattern. You'll notice the same with a house of cards - in a room with no breeze, it falls down, not over. (Ever built card houses?) The compromised structure has no ability to slow the fall to anything less than the "speed of gravity" you seem to have invented. Tall buildings don't collapse slowly - they do so catastrophically. It's a non-linear event (just like climate change threatens to be). I'm not sure what "into their own footprints" even means - do you think the buildings didn't have a debris spread? (They did). Do you think tall buildings fall over like a tree? (They don't).

Intentionally demolished buildings are blown up from the bottom up, whereas the Twin Towers clearly fell from the middle down, as the fountains of expelled debris showed. You can quite clearly see the towers failing/falling from the precise levels where the planes struck and the fires burned. If one were to try and plant explosives in each building for demo, how could you possibly predict which floor each plane would hit? Or do you think you could instruct the pilots (or remote-control auto-pilot, if that's your theory) to hit a specific floor? Any pilot will tell you that's ridiculous. That alone puts the kibosh on the demo theory, unless you go so far as to say they had bombs on EVERY floor and just set off the ones where the planes hit. Again, impossible, as the plane impact could have set off such bombs, or the other explosions would have (making them very visible).

The Pentagon survived because it wasn't tall and was built to a stronger standard, in anticipation of some kind of attack.

Erich Jacoby-Hawkins, Barrie ON - although I'm on Cabinet (Nat'l Rev. and Ecol. Fiscal Reform), views here are my own and may not reflect official GPC positions. Please visit www.ErichtheGreen.ca

Only a fool believes the official 911 story

Again Fuzzy  (Erich Jacoby-Hawkins).....you are fuzzy.....and sadly to me also flaky.

Are you really just a ...........sheeple?

Really...?  I thought you more..really.

I simple ask what would then create the precision  demolition of building 7......with no planes even  hitting it?

Hours later?

Underground fire like a tree...LOL?

Your knowledge of demolitions is sorely lacking ....too bad your ability to mantain credibility is just as lacking.

LOL...Why then also .....were there no plane debris outside the Pentagon and no impact marks from engine many feet apart on either side?

Why was all video outside the Pentagon seized and why were some of the terrorist's seen in London after supposedly dying on these planes?

Much much more I could ask but wont bother.

I sure now think much less of your opinions... yes now that you have shown just how silly you really are.Wow !

You are just being blind I think for political correctness.... as I having met you I actually  thought you smarter than this?

 

Sorry but only a fool believes the official story of 911

 

 

And as I may not get the chance on the 23rd .... I to wish this threads originator a very happy 52 birthday...Happy birthday Stephen !

Cheers

"What possible US purpose"

So asks Erich.  It is amazing you cannot come up with one.  What sadly does not "strain credulity" is that so many good people can be duped and calmed into accepting so easily the results of official inquiries, especially regarding "security" matters.  Do you really think, when ultimate intimidation is running amok, that there is concern about a sheepish Canadian public's response?

"A hot enough fire"
Erich, you'd better not start going to bat for this.  Every brave enough independent-minded architect and engineer who has glanced at the matter has already signed onto their professional grouping debunking the official ludicrous story.  Cutter charges have to have been planted, in the explosive dust telltale spherical iron with signature presence of other matter was found most prominently by expert archaeometrist & physicist Stephen Jones long ago, buttressing the destruction of the official story yet further on this fairytale point about jet fuel & combustibles &c.  Griffin's recent piece I bring below about WTC 7 further mentions another forensic study yielding similar observation. Get it: top to bottom, a gargantuan lie.  Rest of you Greens: wake up and get it & its direct relevance.  William Blum himself (you know, the one even touted in one of those bogus Bin Laden videos) has said that if "9/11 truth" researchers are right on their path & succeed in awakening the public, it would be greater than his own unsurpassed cataloguing of American depredations worldwide could be as catalyst for arousing a political mood for major change.  The more you look away, the more you empower the evil, which cannot thrive with good light shone on it.  

"almost without fail fall straight down"
That's a laugh.  There are already umpteen videos online you can see of such happenings, not a single one on its own footprint.  In one memorable video long ago already, a noted international expert (Jowenko) was replayed the WTC collapse, not knowing the identity of what he was watching, and immediately identified it as the type of work he arranges, and praised it as a well done explosive demolition.

"Ever built card houses?"
I know of a very good one, called the official government & mainstream media story about Sept. 11 that has been blown down from so many angles alreday, it's like Griffin & so many others have said, it's so ludicrous you couldn't make it up. (If you delete your post, so will I, I do not want to embarass anyone, just to foster better thinking politics for healthier result.)

"a non-linear event (just like climate change threatens to be)"
Yes, yes, read the Moore poem below, the "inconvenient truth"!

"Any pilot will tell you"
What I mentioned about responsible architects & engineers, ditto for pilots, already long ago. How do Greens, which I had always thought would be a healthy den of dissenters, fall for the ludicrous & fail to examine others' dissent?

"The Pentagon"  
Does Erich know about the trillion-$ (yes, 12 zeroes) anomaly in Pentagon spending announced by pigfaced Rumsfeld just prior to those events? How the Pentagon wing hit just happened to be the least populous at the moment, and, guess what it housed -- the auditors going over the books? Just another little tidbit for you.

If you want to know how I got exercised about all this.  On Sept. 12/01, just after midnight, I was astonished to hear audacious radio from a local mainstream station, but I guess after midnight all kinds of stuff is allowed, and circumstances were surreal; I heard legendary muckraker, the late Sherman Skolnick, give his account of what was going on the day before.  From that moment, even taking into account his own peculiar manner of expression, I understood things were not as we were being fed.  Too busy with my own intense family & business affairs to delve much further, let alone get into politics as the past three years, I kept eyes open.  The dissentng evidence kept growing.  But I could not take it anymore when I actually saw Griffin's name in print, coming out of retirement at friends' urging to look into something he wasn't into at all.  You maybe noticed the "process philosophy" in my background?  He was an important contributor to the field I gained much from.  His recent retirement was aborted to follow his honesty & competence where urged by the accumulating evidence, and the "9/11 Truth" movement had acquired its most capable spokesperson & writer.  When I saw a leading left journal baselessly attack his work, I couldn't take it anymore & went public in my own way. You can see my first forays ('05) at http://www.inthesetimes.com/community/profile/3031/ .  The originating article is not worth wasting your time on, except to watch irresponsible journalism in practice. Anyway, I'll delete this, or at least remove embarrassing references to yourself if you efface your own ludicrous post.

Building 7 is a red herring. 

Building 7 is a red herring.  It was fully evacuated when it collapsed, and it housed several sensitive government agencies.  If there is any conspiracy, it's that it is reasonable to believe the building could have been rigged to collapse in the event of an emergency evacuation to prevent recovery of whatever sensitive things may have been in that building.  I'm not saying that's what happened.  All I am saying is that as far as conspiracy goes, that at least could explain whatever irregularities you think you know about the building 7 collapse.  I really don't care why building 7 collapsed.  It's completely immaterial to anything.

No building has ever been designed to remain standing after being hit by a fully fuelled widebody jet.  When the main buildings were deisgned, they were only designed to handle burning jet fuel from a half full 707.  There was also a flaw in the design that no one thought about: the fire retardant could be blown off the steel by  the huge pressure wave caused by an impacting jet.  The building, therefore, was unlikely to remain standing if hit by a 767.

I actually find it amazing that people think the tallest buildings in the world, using 1960 technology could remain standing after being hit by a fully loaded 767.  Had the buildings not collapsed, everyone would be telling tall tales about how the jets were just holograms, because after all a fully loaded jet would surely take down one of those buildings.

What's more incredulous is that people think there is some need for some conspiracy.  If the US wanted to take down the buildings, why would they fake it?  Where are the people who were supposedly on the plane?  Were they executed and buried?  Why not just fly them into the buildings?  Why fake it?  There are plenty of terrorists who would relish the opportunity to fly a plane into symbols of Western finance.  You don't need to fake it, you don't need a conspiracy.  Bush put a bunch of incompetent cronies all over the government in key posts.  They didn't do any real work.  There was a terrorist attack because there were too many children trying to be grown ups, and the intelligence system broke down.  It's that simple.  You don't need to make it any more complicated.

I can't believe this discussion is still going on.  This is something belongs in the back of Now magazine for consumption by uninformed teenagers.

911 - Can we skip??? Please.

I would highly recommend not getting into a debate over 911 on the Green Party site.  Its a lose-lose scenario when it comes to conspiracy theories, instantly destroys credibility, and its outside of Canadian jurisdiction.  Even Chomsky won't touch it..

We've got enough to worry about within Canada!  

Although, I do highly recommend the authoritative South Park episode, mystery of the urinal deuce as required viewing:

http://watch.thecomedynetwork.ca/south-park/season-10/south-park-1009-my...

 

Dan, Bram, Erich, all

This topic is of such moment & DIRECT UNDERLYING RELEVANCE, that if I do not see any responsible words or actions on it from GPC-ers at this point, to encourage me that there is a sufficient something to some active party people, I'll have to draw unfortunate conclusions, probably to direct my energy finally elsewhere (it's been fun, though). 

Bram the "scientist" says what he said?  Erich bravely wades in but can't see the waters' bottom. Dan maybe is being entertained on his iphone.

I remember seeing Layton asked, and while disappointing, gave at least a minimally capable response about not being aganst study of history or something, at least not turning aggressive or completely avoiding like many politicans.  Or the totally foolish response by some here.

Dan worries about Canada.  Does he not worry about Afghanistan, & why & how his Canada is there?  Or about the practices of a national neighbour with a grip on principal elements of his Canada?  Does he not know about the developing security regime & its background?  Does he have no idea about the financial disasters temporarily warded off, the strategic positioning in relation to petroleum supply, and much similar that have generated the problems Greens were motivated to try to politically overcome?  Now that there is access to deeper understanding of how those problems are generated, how could it possibly be a responsible political move worthy of public support by thoughtful dissenters, to ignore or look away or act imcompetently on what's put before you? There is simply no point to adding another political party to the federal mix if it cannot even be minimally useful in dissent, which it ulimately must fail to be if its principals are uncomprehending, you will only be eventually used by what you should be opposing & shining a light on.

Because I have expressed myself forthrightly in internet venues from around '05, I have drawn unwelcome attention.  Even in our riding, we have reason to believe two candidates stepped forward, provincially & federally, in the last few years, who were suspicious, eventually withdrawing.  There is very much that has occurred, witnessed by those around me, that lead me to reasonably feel that this observer & commentator of some competence is a concern to some watchers.  So I have been personally affected by the clandestine "security" regime for speaking out with whatever even miniscule effect I might have -- does the personal touch move any of you?

"Chomsky won't touch it".  Right -- what about a more competent Canadian voice on Chomsky & his failure to touch it, veteran highly respected journalist Barry Zwicker?  Look into his recent work.  And note well how retirees are at the forefront of speaking out, who have less to materially lose, and consider how so much possible dissent has been co-opted or shut up by material threat.  Chomsky was notoriously silent about the Kennedy assassination which he refuses to touch as well.  He knows where his funding came from, and the personal threat to speaking out.  Chomsky's work is valuable but severely limited (in linguistics as well I think), esp. his ridiculous & irresponsibly counterproductive one-sided mideast focus.  He also, as with the apparent vast majority on the left, have their pet concerns, serious as they are, and choose to not deflect from attending to them -- oblivious to how their causes would be improved by staring down the utter evil of things like this. Same goes for Greens, more so, since that primary office for dissent has largely been abdicated by leftist assimilation & some waywardness.  The left was born & developed in the midst of real & ongoing suffering, including of political organizers and activists (remember, again, that Tommy Douglas -- you know, the one first elected in Saanich... -- was tailed by secret agents for so long?), so mostly comparatively very comfortable & naive Greens are even easier for plucking and manipulation and co-optation by what they should be out front opposing.

If I have acquired any respect for my contributions here and more privately among Greens over the past few years, if I had to grade the underlying political importance of what I have contributed, this Sept. 11 debunking, as alluded to when I mentioned eminence Wm. Blum, would foundationally surpass it all in importance.  You don't have to go aruond talking about it in open political venues, although you could with some preparation; you don't have to campaign on it, it's mostly too late for that, but if you fail to grasp that you have been had, you will be had again and again, and your political good intent can amount ultimately to useless & counterproductive distraction.

 

JFK?

You want the Green Party to take a stand on the JFK assassination?

 

Which one?

No ....I do not think we need to get into this as most could not take it actually as too much truth just hurts their heads...so....

Lets just wait for the next Bram Fairy Tales installment...shall we?

You are getting pretty good at the political deflection techniques though ...Dan.

Good effort.

hardly...

...and neither necessarily on "9/11 truth" directly

What I do need to see is enough members' and activists showing that they have a modicum of understanding.  Dan, a whole generation ago, when Greens were politically born, they had been preceded by a budding ecology-minded movement, which itself had the intellectual background set by thinkers in the stream of Griffin.  When you see John Cobb (another recent eminent process thinker, mentioned here by me several times) and, more directly relevant here, David Ray Griffin, take public stands as responsible public intellectuals, you MUST take them seriously to be true to your Green roots.  Unless you intend to subvert it, which I doubt, or to merely go along with its misdirection, which I'm sure you don't want either; and that doubt & sureness I have, especially about young people involved with Greens, is part of what keeps me going on  putting out what I do, so a few well-intentioned thinking people atttracted this way in the first place will go deeper, with staying power the intended effect, as well as insulation from being too easily used, from merely surface-skimming when called on to address major problems.  That whole generation ago is exactly when what Greens propose now should have been acted on.  The whole generation was hijacked, Americans leading the awful way.  The awful hijackers have gotten away with an generation-long extension of their mania.  Sept. 11/01 would be the inception of another generation of hijacking.  There is even continuity among players. You must learn to connect enough dots to get at least a blurry overview.  It demands structural analysis, the kind of thing, for example, Michael Parenti excels at.  It demands detection of where power ultimately lies, and how the money & oil & powers of "action at a distance" &c work, at least a vague overview as can be afforded by what is discernable in the shadows AS YOU SHINE THE LIGHT (I mentioned Mike Ruppert and the new film about him -- he was at the forefront in joining the dots as an ex-policeman could, and has paid an enormous personal price). 

The JFK assassination is part of the hijacking.  Enemies of what you presumably stand for as a Green weighed in at the Kennedy threat to their mostly unseen hegemony, run through a financial-clandestine-security nexus, and they eliminated a perceived threat to their hegemony.  Kennedy wanted to resume powers of printing money.  He disallowed, famous among "9/11 truth" researchers, another planned killing of American innocents to blame on Cuba ("Operation Northwoods"), he wanted to go around that by-then burgeoning postWW2 nexus (full of ex-Nazis, take good note) to pursue an independent tack in many affairs.  So much more can be said about this, here's not the best place, and, as I've said before here somewhere, Kennedy is no paradigm for Greens at all.  So a stance on his assassination?  No. Awareness of what you are ultimately up against in promoting Green policy, yes.

Noam Chomsky, (and I'm not

Noam Chomsky, (and I'm not always a fan) makes a valid point, that the conspiracy theories around 911 have the ability to divert energy and focus away from the aftermath and the reaction.

Is it not as equally potent to say that failed American strategies abroad created the breading ground for violent religious extremist which caused these events, and that the use of one absurdity to validate another set of actions is equally as troubling.

Governments and the status quo feed off of conspiracy theories because it marginalizes and divides opposition.  It removes the potency of the message as distrust is never as powerful as hope and a future vision.

If I missed 25 years of the "green movement" concentrating on massive government conspiracies (which I don't believe it has), then I'm quite glad to have come in at the time when they focussed on the scientifically and economically based concepts of peak oil, global warming, and the push for localized food supplies.

I would rather be part of the group that identified the solution than the group focussed on the problems of the past which cannot be undone.

You may not feel happy about the current state of the movement or the Green Party, and perhaps would prefer to go back 20 years to a point when candidates managed to get 10 or 20 votes.  I'd like to see a meaningful change made in the political system and a long term focus being made.

If we woke up in a pseudo world, the  US government admitted they "orchestrated 911 and JFK".  Then what?  How would that change foreign policy?  How would that resolve global warming, end starvation, and reduce global conflicts between the first and third world.

It wouldn't change anything, nor would it prevent anything from happening again.

equally potent

It is rather potent, about failed strategies abroad, and a major expositor on this would be Chalmers Johnson (whom I've referred to as well on the blogsite -- how many followed up? it is a bit fun & an exercise for me, but if almost no one shows signs of cluing in, i must quit).  But it itself would be a distraction from what Chomsky & you'd have as distraction.  Do you think the arrangers of these things are total dummies?  Control over message coupled with public credulousness around a "plausible" storyline, even if a fairy tale at minimally close inspection,  that's what is needed to get away with the murder -- and, "make no mistake", that's what it is. (I refuse to use that phrase, since it was an important part of Bush's post-9/11 speechification.) The potentially most potent critics of yet more depredation are bought out by foundations' funding, the left intellectuals off on their merry mostly ineffectual pursuits.  Then there are the straightaway character assassins, and there are complete fools among them as well.  Don't you get it: you harvest a genuine fear about security threats, and use that to keep on with the next phase of the greatest protection racket of them all.  Duped and duped again.  Nazi theorists understood well that you could do anything really if you convince an only dimly with-it population that they're under threat.  So what use looking only as Chomsky would?  The left will eventually get its way, but only after the murderous advantage-takers have had their fill first.  If falling right into your lap is awareness of what they're trying to pull off, and you let it go to follow where they want you to, you are simply duped into playing their game.  That is part of what I mean by repeating about "being used".

"Governments and the status quo feed off of conspiracy theories" -- Dan, what did you miss: the government & staus quo folks PROVIDED YOU WITH A CONSPIRACY THEORY.  Competent 9/11 researchers & debunkers have no theory of their own, they just want more of the truth to come out.  What is so hard to get about that?

"problems of the past which cannot be undone" -- but it is happening RIGHT NOW, the direct result of what they pulled off, how is it not DIRECTLY RELEVANT?! The cover-up continues, the media muzzling, murder heaped on murder, preparation for whatever sequel might be "needed" to keep with the programme.  I was a Green 25 years ago because of intuition & reason that just about everything around me was on a wrong track -- now you have put before you elements of how that has worked, and you refuse to stare it down, or look it up just a bit? That's senseless.  You'd be relinquishing any real ability to get at the human roots of the matter.

I can't believe you really mean your last two paragraphs.

 

Brams Fairy Tales continued.......

QUOTE FROM BRAMS FAIRY TALES VOLUME # 666

 

Bram....."If there is any conspiracy, it's that it is reasonable to believe the building could have been rigged to collapse in the event of an emergency evacuation to prevent recovery of whatever sensitive things may have been in that building"

 

 

LOL..... now I know you are foolish and completely misinformed ...maybe just a blow hard willing to say anything just  to appear less stupid than what some would think naturally already?

Maybe all 3 building were set up  like that then?

Instead of looking worse (how ever hard that may be) I would stop with the fairy tales and actually learn some things.

Anyone who followed it live like I did would know immediately that with Bush not doing a thing except sitting in the classroom .... that something was a foot.

I am sorry Bram but you will never have credibility with me again as anyone informed would know that no fire retardant was even installed  that high up in floor numbers.

 

And the movie I was discredited with as an antisemitc...deals with all this and much more as the points of attachment in the buildings was left unsecured properly (they cut corners....hence the shoddily built part of my quote).

Would you like the video?

 

BRAM...."I really don't care why building 7 collapsed.  It's completely immaterial to anything."

 and ....."No building has ever been designed to remain standing after being hit by a fully fuelled widebody jet."

Did you forget to add ?.."So there !! and I am taking my toys and going home !"

Immaterial to anything??.....

haha... you are ridiculous and I will never forget this statement !

Sad ...just so sad ...that we have such naive people in this party.

 

 

And Dan I disagree with you and say we need to have more guts and less political correctness unless we just plan to join the liberals and then do not need to really work for our votes.

"Only fear it self" Dan..."only fear it self"! 

 

Bram maybe do not say anything else so some just want to delete another thread from this so called free and open opinion site... as yes... I will call you on all your silly musings with no real back up.....from now on!

Can you also maybe then tell us why with a nation wide "no fly zone " in place ??? Only the Saudi plane was allowed to fly out of the states on 911?

Lets hear this one please..LOL

2001 invasion of Afghanistan "legal"?

Bram, I can not agree that the U.S. was within its "rights" to invade Afghanistan. Where, pray tell, is it written that one country has the "right" to invade another?

"Sudbury" Steve May

It is legal because no

It is legal because no institution capable of passing judgement against the US has decided it wasn't legal.  Nor is their consensus amongst any states that it was not illegal.  Also note at the time that Ms. May supported it.

But that's actually all beside the point.  The GPUS decided to attack American's -- who were overwhemingly in support of the invasion at the time.  But let's not stop there, they attacked Americans on 9/11 and directly tied their moral reprehension to the attack.

It is poor politicking for the GPUS, and it is poor politicking for the GPC.  If we ever want to win a seat, we need to act like a political party not an NGO.  The GPUS chose McKinney as their presidential candidate in '08 and failed to achieve single digits IIRC.  Let's not reproduce their achievements here.

Afghanistan is generally

Afghanistan is generally legal under International Law (whether you agree with whether it is right), since neither the UN nor any country besides Pakistan, UAE and Saudi Arabia recognized the Taliban government. In 2001, the world community still officially recognized the Northern Alliance even though they controlled less than 30% of the country and has lost the capital city.

In 2001, it technically was not an invasion, in the same way that Iraq was.  The US and Allies provided military and logistic support (essentially running an air and artillery campaign against Taliban positions) to the Northern Alliance who was still technically the internationally recognized government.    

Once the Northern Alliance took over Kabul, the UN sanctioned the NATO stabilization force.

However, since that time, the US led forces have acted independently of the Afghanistan government (refusing any oversight) which the Afghan government essentially has endorsed (while vehemently condemning) under threat of having the US and other countries pull out and loose their funding.

Right now, only in Kabul does a UN Peacekeeping force actually exist, the rest of Afghanistan is occupied by NATO.

I think the big question, is not whether the actions at the time were correct (many condemned the international community for not intervening when the Taliban began overthrowing the internationally recognized UIF government) but why the mission has remained a US/NATO mission, and not a UN one, and why the US is able to unilaterally act within another country without having to report to the Afghan government.

Essentially all countries operating in Afghanistan are operating under their own flag and not under either the Afghan or UN authority. (The mission may be "authorized" by the security council but it is not under "the authority" of it.)  

 

 

 

NATO Justification

The wording of the NATO treaty, I believe it is Article 5 stipulates that any attack upon one treaty member in the North Atlantic CAN be viewed as an attack on all, and will legitimise action up to and including use of force. I haven't read the article for awhile, but there is an interesting Essay in the current edition of Foreign Affairs written by Zbigniew Brzezinski entitled "An Agenda for NATO, and in part it discusses this exact question.

If I can paraphrase, since the Taliban provided shelter, and comfort to Al Qaida, and Al Qaida launched an attack in the North Atlantic, the cassus belli, (subject to the interpretation of NATO members) existed. An interesting question is raised though, by the fact that NATO makes decisions by consensus, so you can imagine how complex the negotiations are surrounding an issue of War and Peace, with 30 alliance members required to form a common position through consensus?

Of course, the original rationale has morphed beyond recognition. Now NATO is there to 'Free the people', (From what, or whom, and to what end?), and a plethora of western values are being touted, and imposed upon an unwilling populace. So what else is new? The domestic political requirements of the NATO powers have rendered this whole mess insoluble. 

For example, we have acquiesced in a quest to arm, and train local security forces. By NATO estimates, the force required will actually cost more than Afghanistans' GNP. How sustainable is that? Such a force cannot exist without massive funding by foreign powers. The paymasters (NATO powers) of these troops will want to dictate policy to the Afghan government, which will undermine their legitimacy with Afghans. They will naturally be hated and opposed by their countrymen, and the conflict will be perpetuated.

The legitimacy of the original NATO actions were supportable, and in most peoples eyes there is a strong argument that they were legitimate. What has happened since is a mess, and whether legitimate or otherwise, is not likely to achieve any sustainable peace, order, or good governance in Afghanistan.

on legitimacy

Matthew,

In a word, no.  If the whole business is shot through with lies and deception at inception, it is useless to talk about legitimacy.  And regarding foul play and NATO, do you know nothing about Daniele Ganser's work on Operation Gladio?  You mention Zbig.  Do you not know how he gloated over the fall of E. Europe away from Soviet control at the paltry cost of how many millions of Afghan lives (to his mind -- a Green like Saral Sarkar would attribute the Soviet collapse on a deeper basis)?  Do you not know or sense that "Al Qaeda" is a construct of angloworld "intelligence", run through Pakistan, surely with Saudi $?  If Bin Laden was an expendable CIA asset (he was plausibly reported dead long ago, dependant on inaccessible dialysis, or otherwise killed, and yes, most of the videos are almost sure fakes), whatever responsiblility can you put on the Taliban, who even offered to give him up to an international tribunal with evidence provided?  Notice that no real evidence implicating Bin laden is available.  Don't use words like "legitimate" re NATO here, except in the narrowest of ways that are next to irrelevant in the context of this general discussion.

I make no attempt to justify

I make no attempt to justify the current activities, it is technically up to the Afghan government to continue the invitation.  At the moment the mission has this invitation.  We can quibble about whether the government is legal, considering the history of Karzai, but that's an entirely different discussion.

Regardless, the GPUS has decided to walk a path of ideological conviction that is unshared by the American people.  I'm not sure what the goal is in doing that.  But it is certain the cause behind their low standing in the polls can be used as a weapon against the GPC, so its something we shouldn't be dissociated from.

The GPC is not an NGO, we need to do what it takes to get elected.  It's better to get some power with compromise than to be ideological and sit on the sidelines.  I will never let up on this point.

Half the Science

D.R. Griffin at his typical best in yet another must-read demonstration of logical competence, honesty & great public service, at which GPC on this topic is critically laggard, at http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=15201 . As expected from an eminent process philosopher-theologian, he brings a great Whiteheadian quote:

"in his 1925 book, Science and the Modern World: “It is easy enough to find a [self-consistent] theory . . . , provided that you are content to disregard half your evidence.” The “moral temper required for the pursuit of truth,” he added, includes “[a]n unflinching determination to take the whole evidence into account.”

NIST, however, seemed to manifest an unflinching determination to disregard half of the relevant evidence."

That's the fraudulent US National Institute of Standards and Technology effort we're talking about, to assist with the cover up of the drastically fraudulent official story of Sept. 11/01.  

It's no more time to tiptoe around such things.  So let me play with this further suggestively. "Half the science" -- look at what was said at http://www.greenparty.ca/blogs/930/2009-08-28/told-you-so#comment-10726 ,

""Science" is a grossly misused term. If you follow the cell phone controversy, we have before us the most egregious example imaginable of "nothing like a scientific consensus", with industry-supported on one side, independents on the other."

Now here's the connective play: While clandestine planners of Sept. 11 obviously intended to have some people killed for effect (no, not unprecedented in American planning minds), it is hard to believe they wanted as many as were killed, it does put a possible kink into things, wouldn't it.  It did.  The enormous loss of firemen stuck in a collapsing tower apparently had much to do with failure of recently acquired wireless communications devices.  Perhaps they failed due to electronic interference when the explosives were almost certainly remotely detonated? (It had nothing to do with planes, in case 8 long continuingly murderous years later you still haven't heard.)  In any case, some firemen's wives pressed for the inquiry into events, and the Bush administration came up with the gargantuan fraud called the 9/11 Commission, overseen by a professional myth-maker no less, Zelikow. The probably unexpected scale of loss of firemen, who were consistently denigrated right after the events, a typical tactic akin to character assassination; the overwrought scale of loss likely due to communicative failure led to the grossly fraudulent Commission presentation, thus exposed for public attack by competent observers & reasoners, including of course the heroic Griffin, whose major work in the field to date has been, The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions And Distortions.

Action at a distance.  That's ever a human dream, and to the extent it becomes reality it enables arrogating imperial purpose.  Aviation is one thing, but coupled with wireless controls almost certainly employed to direct the planes involved in the attacks (whatever missiles might have been also involved in taking down one airliner & maybe at the Pentagon, too) --- do you get where this goes, action at a distance over action at a distance. And the irresistible delusion of control makes for its own failure, partial failure anyway, because some of the perpetrators' goals have been accomplished; the delusion is met by common sense employing the underestimated networking ability of the internet, similarly empowering activity at a distance. When the fraud around the JFK assassination was put forth, accompanied by a contradictory lengthy report, someone could scoff, "who reads anyway"?  Some did, but now there is ready ability to connect with like-minded in pursuit of honest & open research.  The result regarding Sept. 11 culminates in Griffin's stellar work, as with his latest at the link provided, regarding the "mystery" of WTC 7.

Half the science. Character assassination.  When Geo. Carlo went honest, turning against his overseers' pushy expectations in the 90s regarding cell phone radiation research, even tenatatively putting forth that there might be danger, he was dumped & had his reputation attacked, his & others' warnings swamped for enough time until independent research reached its critical damning quantity, as already by 2007 with the Bioinitiative report (referred to positively by GPC at the time, by the way).

I can't resist bringing this Marianne Moore poem, which although apparently having several versions, might have even been in the minds of the disgusting planners of the atrocities of Sept. 11, in crafting a mesmerizing image rendered manipulatively plausible, of being slapped with one's own hands, aggrieved dark-skinned antagonists conspiring to use airplanes to take down the centre of financial & military evil (and perceptive ones will notice another phrase used to "inform" the public about another menace actively exercising Greens, on climate change that longer-term clandestine planners surely were aware of as well, but just gotta position oneself to keep the power, eh):

[from The Poems of Marianne Moore (Viking Penguin 2003), pg. 100, but written, I believe, almost 100 years ago]
 
Sun
 
Hope and fear accost him
 
              "No man may him hyde
              From Deth holow-eyed";
          For us, this inconvenient truth does not suffice.
      You are not male or female, but a plan
      deep-set within the heart of man.
  Splendid with splendor hid you come, from your Arab abode,
  a fiery topaz smothered in the hand of a great prince who rode
      before you, Sun---whom you outran,
      piercing his caravan.
 
 
               O Sun, you shall stay
               with us; holiday,
           consuming wrath, be wound in a device
       of Moorish gorgeousness, round glasses spun
       to flame as hemispheres of one
   great hour-glass dwindling to a stem. Consume hostility;
   employ your weapon in this meeting-place of surging enmity!
       Insurgent feet shall not outrun
       multiplied flames, O Sun.
 
Do see also, by the way, those several of you who might take serious interest in how science & religious pursuit can interestingly mesh, at Griffin's writings in the field.  Just a few I hope sufficiently not disconnected, and hopefully provocative, thoughts to put down before I mostly retreat for a season of traditional observance, possibly precluding, some will be pleased to note, I'm sure, much of my participation here.  So many serious topics brought forth recently, I had to share what came to mind in an attempt to connect them all, in which I hope at least some of you will find some art, which if hasty the relative informality of this blogging medium allows me some shelter.  Enjoy.

 

Maybe I'm obtuse, I don't

Maybe I'm obtuse, I don't follow what the above post is about.

9/11 - book recommendation

This book is on my to-read pile, and I'm wondering whether any of you have read it and what you thought of it: The War on Truth, 9/11, Disinformation and the Anatomy of Terrorism by Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed. If you haven't read it, you probably should before expressing strong opinions on 9/11.

Ahmed book

I'd stick to Griffin's work, it is most accessible & competent, coming from an esteemed scholar.  I think that was Ahmed's book I looked at when it came out, and I think it was on page 1 he went off attacking Israel, with a bizarre reference.  I tried to contact him via the publisher to notify of the strange off-putting bit (although any musings he might have about alternate versions of any "security"-related episode are probably worthy of some attention).  Still, I remember the responsible footnoting, much competent research, I don't say not to read, just if you are looking for an accomplished view, I'd recommend Griffin's debunking.  Simply start by reading at the link I provided about WTC 7, and get a sense of how far the tissue of lies & deception runs, and it runs throughout.

Sibel Edmonds finally speaks

http://www.amconmag.com/article/2009/nov/01/00006/

Read it to get a sense of how bad things are underneath.  She only speaks openly now that she has testified in an Ohio court case which is presumably on public record, otherwise being forcibly shut up under some executive security privilege rule for years already.  Note well the Bin Laden references.  Erich, you paying attention? Your "Al Qaeda" bad guys working for the US?  Dan, you looking? Or should we all look the other way, or, not right not left just straight ahead? 

Seasick is recent book I went through (A. Mitchell, '09), spurred on a bit by E. May's enthusiastic blurb on the back cover.  The book was a disappointment, the vast majority not about what's wrong at sea as about her own experiences or those of the reserachers she accompanies.  I'm sure it's worthwhile for some who could be personally inspired by her personal style; but I don't recommend it, maybe the recommendations were not on its strength as a book but merely to draw attention to the grave topic.  But in any case, the book theme reminds me of the metaphor I used at http://www.greenparty.ca/blogs/930/2009-07-24/hutterites-photographs#com... and continued with at http://www.greenparty.ca/blogs/930/2009-07-24/hutterites-photographs#com... .  Please go back to read what went on at that page, as it touched significantly on the 9/11 business. 

Now that you've all (re-)read at the links...Poisoned water is not forgiving like earth.  The clandestine world amok & completely rotten reflects the state of the oceans.  The ultimate creative font is endangered.  Greens are supposed to be at the creative political font.  If Greens fail to grasp what's going on underneath, now that it's even luminescent with publicity if they fail to look, then they have abdicated their own place in the creative pool, and I dare say not worth so much the effort.

 

Not sure really what the

Not sure really what the point of the above link is.  This isn't a smoking gun showing the US is working with Al-Qaeda.  I'm not sure how you would conclude that. 

But this is pretty much how all governments works everywhere, is that what you're trying to say?  I'll agree with you on that.

Zwicker

I mentioned Barrie Zwicker above, whose work I only mostly know of 2nd hand, so thought it well to examine his Towers of Deception: The Media Cover-up of 9/11 ('06).  He basically says one can do no better than to rely on Griffin's work.  He also praises other authors & activists I've mentioned here favourably, Tarpley, Parenti, Brouillet. But his own book is particularly valuable for his longstanding & respected journalist's expertise & perspective. It was regarding a take-down of Chomsky that I mentioned him, and his 45-pg. 5th chapter focuses on Chomsky (entitled, "Shame on Chomsky and the Gatekeepers of the Left").  One most important quote, in the context of a review of the JFK murder, backing up my own mention of that within the general 9/11 discussion that Dan challenged:

.............
Then a friend gave me a little-known book by E. Martin Schotz, [History Will Not Absolve Us: Orwellian Control, Public Denial, and the Murder of President Kennedy, '96], which contains evidence that Chomsky indeed was exposed to a coherent collection of evidence undermining the official Warren Report version of what happened to JFK.  In one of the appendices was a first-person account by citizen investigator Ray Marcus, detailing his attempts to have Chomsky seriously study evidence Marcus had assembled.  In early 1969, Marcus met Chomsky with "a portfolio of evidence, primarily photographic, that I could present briefly but adequately in 30-60 minutes."

He believed this evidence "carried sufficient conviction to impress most intelligent and open-minded people." The one-hour meeting was extended to between three and four hours when Chomsky had his secretary cancel the rest of his appointments for that day.  Chomsky showed "great interest" in the material.  We mutually agreed to a follow-up session later in the week."  Marcus then met with Gar Alperowitz.  At the end of their one-hour meeting Alperowitz said he "would take an active part in the effort if Chomsky would lead it."  The "effort" would be the attempt to reopen questioning about the provenance of JFK's death.  A long second meeting with Chomsky and a colleague, MIT philosophy professor Selwyn Bromberger [I believe mostly known with 1st name, Sylvain, and his field I think is phil. of linguistics], followed.  After the meeting Bromberger said: "If they are strong enough to kill the president, and strong enough to cover it up, then they are too strong to confront directly ... if they feel threatened, they may move to open totalitarian rule."

Marcus provided further information to Chomsky, which Chomsky acknowledged. Chomsky then left on an extended trip abroad, saying in a final note, "I'm still open-minded (and I hope will remain so)."  Marcus reports: "I never heard from him again.  In recent years he has on a number of occasions gone on record attacking the critics' position and supporting the Warren Report."
 
There's a great deal of supporting evidence in History Will Not Absolve Us from author Schotz, from Vincent Salandria, from Ray Marcus and from legendary investigative reporter Fred Cook that, following JFK's assassination, Chomsky and other leading lights of the Left simply would not acknowledge the evidence that interests opposed to Kennedy's stands for peace, rapprochement with the USSR, normalization of relations with Cuba and other progressive policies had the means, motive and opportunity to kill him. If these leaders of the Left were overcome with fear, then I for one cannot continue to honor them for bravery.  But I shoved my disappointment and puzzlement off to one side and returned to my state of denial.
..............

Zwicker's is an intelligent, heartfelt personal account. The response of Chomsky & the Left generally to 9/11 put it over the top for him, as it should for "most intelligent and open-minded people".

abundantly obvious

Just as after mentioning Zwicker, I thought it wise to follow up directly in his own writing, likewise I got a hold of the book he quotes from that I brought above.  Schotz uses insights from his child psychology experience, and as it applied to the general failure to deal with the JFK assassination, it applies to the 9/11 murders, both without doubt arranged by American clandestine operators.  The very big difference between then and now regarding possible efficacy of dissent, is the networking possibilties of this internet medium (as long as even that can hold out as currently available).
.......
Knowledge is not something which everyone wants.  It is difficult to acquire, and in order to know, one must have a desire to know.  In turn, one's desire to know depends on social attitudes and social activity.[...]

The nature of the conspiracy that took President Kennedy's life was from the outset quite obvious to anyone who knew how to look and was willing to do so.  The same holds true today.
Any citizen who is willing to look can see clearly who killed President Kennedy and why.

The fact that "no one knows this" is an example of a subtle process of Orwellian mind control which has enveloped our society and which our public has been more than willing to have foisted upon it.  The process has been orchestrated by the [Amer. clandestine apparatus] in defense of itself and "the powers that be", but it has also been critically aided by the entire spectrum of our society's intellectual and political establishments, right, center, and left.

[...] we have a situation in which all these people basically know that the Warren Report is a fraud.  They know there has been a criminal conspiracy to kill the President and a conspiracy after the fact to obstruct justice in the murder of he President by the government, and they choose not to find out what happened. They look the other way. They are willing to live with the CIA's confusion and mystery story cover-up.  Where does that leave us?  Virtually the entire establishment knows that there was a conspiracy to kill the President but chooses not to find out who did it and why.  What does that say? It says that a conspiracy to kill the President and its cover-up are acceptable.  Not legal, mind you. Nor moral.  Upsetting?  Of course.  But, in the end, acceptable.  The government continues to function and everyone remains in place.  This is American democracy.

[...] what we have here is a case of what is termed "denial". Only in this instance we have it on a mass scale.

[...] the quality of American democracy is ultimately up to the American people to determine. [...] Such a process can only proceed on the basis of a broad social movement which is prepared to challenge the political assumptions of our society at its roots.  Along the way such a movement will inevitably want to know everything it can about the illness it must overcome.

[...]they will NEED to know [...] why and how the murder was covered up[...] because they will be struggling to overcome the Orwellian forces that today dominate our nation and the world."
.......
Why do I see Greens as a possible carrier of that kind of "broad social movement"? Some prominent 9/11 activists have taken to the US Greens as their political avenue.  It should be a natural match.  Failure to face these things and reason about them openly just settles Greens into the old sheepish mold, where their dissent is nullified in pursuing too partial goals with too little information. There is little or no use for Greens in Parliament if they can't deal with such fundamental issues with a difference. Of course it's a huge challenge.  Of course it really cannot be desisted from either. Whatever Greens purport to bring to the broader political forum can be done fine by the other parties, Liberals can steal, BQ can go to bat as they've done even more than the NDP on environmental issues, NDP can keep holding its banner for equity, Cons. can even come around in some strange fashion.  But to those of us who see that the societal sickness runs deep, that spiritual malaise is at root, and who take seriously the call for renewed spirituality in the public square, as Greens seemed to be for; to me, there is a crying need for a political force to tell it like it is, and go on from there.  Acquiescing in the same lies won't do.  Educate yourselves and own up.

The dastardly JFK business was scaled up for 9/11, and it affects us directly.

Now follow up by listening to this very recent good Griffin interview at http://www.electricpolitics.com/podcast/2009/10/building_seven.html.

"It is so abundantly obvious once the scales fall away from your eyes."

badge of honour

someone scored "-1 points" to almost all my posts here, which i tried to reverse in case it matters to anyone, but as i mentioned elsewhere already, when a negative score appears on one of my posts i am then pretty much assured it is one of the more valuably trenchant ones -- negative scorers, consider that you're scoring the goals into your own net

I do not think they use those votes anymore Daryl

As some one also voted down in posts then even those blogs removed as unsavory(temporarily after a fight) I do understand.

Here's to a future with a real Green Party....We can only hope at this point.

At least with no election the party is again a church mouse so I guess right as rain?

Cheers