Christopher T. George
-
Posts
247 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Christopher T. George
-
-
Hi all
The supposed murder of United Nations Secretary General Dag Hammarskjöld (1905–1961) while on a peace mission to the Congo is probably related to the murder of Patrice Lumumba (1925-1961), the first prime minister of the Republic of the Congo. Lumumba was killed on January 17, 1961 by CIA-backed counter-revolutionary forces while in the custody of the illegitimate separatist government in Katanga, and Hammarskjöld died eight months later on September 18, 1961. See The Assassination of Lumumba by Ludo De Witte. Following is a poem I wrote about Lumumba.
Patrice Lumumba
Patrice, pater patriae, por patriae mori, lacrimae rerum
In the Katanga savannah that terrible night,
they sacrificed you on an altar of pan-Africanism;
in your Congo of violets and violence, copper and blood.
You were the expendable African, who died for your people,
liquidated because faceless men decreed it be so,
Ike who wished you "would fall into a river of crocodiles"
and the British foreign secretary who "regretted the loss
of the techniques of old-fashioned diplomacy,"
your old masters, the Belgians, the CIA, the Russians,
the U.N. How many stood by and watched your
degradation? So you were delivered into the hands
of your enemies that night in Katanga, delivered for execution.
Later, the butler said the Katangan ministers lined up
to wash blood from their hands and more bottles
of whiskey were drunk. Your elimination was well done.
Patrice, pro patriae mori.
Christopher T. George
-
Hi Jim
You wrote: "Would the story of Oswald's assassination attempt on the life of Walker provide a degree of 'protection' to an obvious suspect in the assassination of the President?"
I think this is a very plausible scenario. Oswald's alleged attempt on the life of Walker seems otherwise odd and contradictory. However, setting up Walker as another "victim" of Oswald could have helped give him immunity from suspicion as being a key person in the Kennedy assassination.
All the best
Chris
-
It seems Oswald was aware of the fact that he was a "patsy" when he made the statement, "They're taking me in because of the fact that I lived in the Soviet Union. I'm only a patsy." Most critics wish to use only the last four words of this statement while Oswald in fact used the sentence about Russia to preface his "patsy" statement. If true, according to Oswald, his life as a "patsy" began in 1959, before Kennedy was elected, making the case for a "patsy" much more complicated than a simple "set-up" on November 22.
Jim,
I have a different take on Oswald's "patsy" statement than you do. Yes, he had to know he was a patsy at that time, but he also must have had hope that he would not be completely abandoned, that somehow his co-conspirators or some benefactor would help him out of this predicament. (Hence his attempted call from jail to the mysterious John Hurt, possibly the Hurt you've been researching.)
I think he was just blowing smoke with his patsy statement. The "they" whom he was accusing of setting him up was the DPD, not his handlers. He was simply saying the DPD was on the spot and needed a patsy in a hurry, so they arrested him because they knew he had lived in Russia.
Oswald was not going to accuse his handlers of setting him up or of anything else at that point because they were the only people who could help him, as slim as that chance might be.
Ron
Hi Ron
The other thing about the patsy statement is that it is typical tough guy talk right out of the gangster movies of the thirties and forties. I made the point on another thread that the arrest of Oswald at the movie theatre mirrored in some respects the end of gangster John Dillinger in the shootout with G-men outside the Biograph Theatre in Chicago. It was as if Oswald was set up to be viewed by the general American public as a bad guy in the Dillinger mold by being arrested there. Perhaps all that was intentional, and Oswald played along, the "patsy" statement being part of the act as well. Not sure what this tells us but those are my impressions.
All my best
Chris
-
Question to Forum members.
Why do you imagine that nearly all who meet their end in this fashion are either Socialists, liberals, or reformers.
Hi Stephen
Your list of reforming figures can be extended to include Czar Alexander II, assassinated in Russia in 1881, for his land reforms and partially emancipation of the serfs, and U.S. President Abraham Lincoln assassinated in 1865, after he emancipated the slaves. And before that, the Huguenot French king Henry IV, who renounced Protestantism to ascend the throne, and was assassinated in 1610, twelve years after he passed the Edict of Nantes, ending the religious wars in France. This Edict granted to Huguenots the right to worship publically, to occupy public office, to assemble, to gain admission to schools and universities, and to administer their own towns.
All my best
Chris
-
Peter Jennings, the ABC news anchor who hosted the controversial special on the JFK Assassination has died. The 67 year old recently announced in April that he had been diagnosed with lung cancer.
Hi Paul
Many thanks for posting these links. Jennings, born a Canadian and thus an adoptive American, always seemed a consummate newsman and professional. He made for a friendly figure on the evening news if never quite of the stature of Walter Cronkite or of the quirky controversiality of Dan Rather.
Best regards
Chris George
-
The only eras in which America has been able to pass for anything remotely resembling a true "democracy" was during Lincoln's term, FDR's, and JFK's, that I am aware of. All other terms have been a paradox, due to the intentional extermination of the Native Americans, the slavery issue, and the equal rights issue, which have yet to be adequately addressed, and have always been swept under the rug in the hopes that it will either go away, or die away.
Hi Terry
Since persons of color and women were disenfranchised at the time of the Lincoln administration and for much of the nineteenth century eligible voters were bullied by machine politicians (Boss Tweed etc) or by street gangs, I don't see Lincoln's time or the rest of the 19th century as being a golden age of democracy. Civil rights were an issue during FDR and JFK's administrations so those examples don't really show us democracy at its best either. In fact, in terms of the population eligible to vote, the United States populace of today is probably best able to enjoy the fruits of democracy, although the flaws in the U.S. system with the electoral college and the inability to have a vote of confidence for lawmakers to call an election, unlike the British system, impair the ability to have democracy.
Your media and the European media portray America correctly, but the majority of Americans are unaware of Operation Mockingbird, and have been coerced pschologically into believing whatever is fed to them via NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, and MSNBC. Therefore, the impression that "the American people are not aware of what is happening..." is very much on the mark, but you can add to that, "nor do the majority want to know, but prefer to remain in the dark, as long as they're assured their most basic needs are going to be met." Case in point, I can only discuss what we're addressing here with a few people at my job. Three to be exact, out of fifteen, because the other ten are afraid to make what they believe to be waves in their lives, are fearful of what kind of a can of worms they may open up and find, and consider themselves totally helpless to change the pattern they feel has been allowed to evolve, because they view their vote as an exercise in futility. The two others are not citizens. I have heard only one of my colleagues mention remorse in casting her vote for Bush. And, that's probably because she never really listened to what my two like-minded co-workers and I were discussing until recently, and began observing inconsistencies in the Bush administration that ran counter to what she had been anticipating.The majority of the American people are more impressed by "showmanship" and the latest fashion, moreso than by content and quality. It's been successfully ingrained into their psyches by the media. Nor will they listen to something not presented as a sound byte, or a catchy slogan. They prefer everything pre-packaged, par-boiled, and easily consumable, with the minimum of effort required to read the fine print, or warnings on the labels. This is what I refer to as the dumbing-down of American, or of western intellect. And, they've bought it, wholeheartedly and accepted it, regardless of the consequences, or recognizing any responsibility their actions [in-actions] may have contributed to what they now find to be so inadequate.
They've allowed themselves to be led down a primrose path, and could care less about government policy, just as long as they're able to afford to send their kids to private schools, in order to avoid the stark and gutted realities of our inner cities' public school system. Those in California, who've voted for Scwartzenegger [sp.?] are finally coming to terms with his worthless promises. There aren't enough textbooks to go around, and the ones that exist must be shared between students. People in California vote to keep their property taxes down, but as a result, shoot themselves in the foot, because their school system ends up taking it in the teeth. What about all those promises of Lotto money and the shot in the arm it would provide for the schools? Probably pocketed by the owners of the Lotto franchises. Let's face it, there's no pie in the sky scheme that's going to somehow miraculously come down and "amnesty" us out of this debacle. If people come to California, hoping to raise a family, they'd be better off looking to Oregon or Seattle to meet the educational needs of their children. Because, unless you're able to afford private schools, you'll be doing your children a grave disservice.
So, if we sound cynical, maybe we should heed the words of either George Bernard Shaw, or was it Noel Coward, or Oscar Wilde [pardon my lapse of memory here] who stated in so many words, "A cynic is not one to be thought of as a negative person, but one who is simply aware of his surroundings." Or, something to that effect. The majority of Americans are totally unaware because they choose to be ostriches and hide there heads in the sand.
A total embarressment before the rest of the world.
I really think the American populace is complacent because they are living the good life and are not faced with enough economic woes to want to change the system, plus the media and popular myth tell them the American system is the best in the world, that they are better off than anyone else in the world, so there is no fire in the belly to change things. The situation in the Sixties when college students were faced with the draft and when blacks were fighting for their rights shows that groups of Americans can become mobilized when they have a personal reason to become active. At present, the large majority people in the U.S. populace believe they have no reason to become activists, and so many do not even vote for the same reason.
Best regards
Chris
"for anything remotely resembling a true "democracy"..."
is what I believe I stated.
"I really think the American populace is complacent because they are living the good life and are not faced with enough economic woes to want to change the system, plus the media and popular myth tell them the American system is the best in the world, that they are better off than anyone else in the world, so there is no fire in the belly to change things. The situation in the Sixties when college students were faced with the draft and when blacks were fighting for their rights shows that groups of Americans can become mobilized when they have a personal reason to become active."
To whom are you referring as, "living the good life and not faced with enough economic woes to want to change the system"? and, "plus the media and popular myth tell them the American system is the best in the world, that they are better off than anyone else in the world, so there is no fire in the belly to change things." Surely you jest?
Have you been to South Central, Compton, or Carson, lately? Oh, I forgot. They've had crack cocaine supplied to them via Operation Watchtower for 15 or more years now, to help them view their surroundings in a much better light, and from a much better perspective.
If and when the supply is ever cut off, which I seriously doubt will happen, [otherwise how else will the huddled and weary masses be controlled, and thus contained?] and people are allowed to come off this grand illusion of an economic boom town, we're supposed to be living in and through, heaven help Nero when Rome really does begin to start burning.
Or, maybe what's needed is the reinstatement of another "involuntary" draft board to drag the kids away from their game boys? Hell, by now their hand and eye coordination should be exceptional after the many hours they've spent playing virtual war games! Of course, once faced with the reality and gore of real warfare, they might possibly get a "fire in the belly", especially after seeing their buddy's body blown to bits and sprayed all over them, in the interim. Then again, what are the drafts for in the first place? Not fighting for liberty and justice for all, that went the way of WW II. No, just think of it as another form of culling the herds of humanity aka "huddled and weary masses".
Warmest regards,
Ter
Hi Terry
The people of "South Central, Compton, or Carson," Watts, Harlem, poor Appalachia or poor Mississippi are another matter. I'm talking about middle America which makes up the majority of voters who are satisfied with the way things are and don't have a reason to want to change the system.
All my best
Chris
-
Perhaps an added dimension can be : Why Dealey Plaza?
As I see it, from studying reports of the limo stopping, Kennedy getting out to shake hands, and separation from security, and in looking at other photos : there might have been better, more certain, places to kill the President.
Dealey Plaza was a very special place in the history of Texas, as is vividly described in 'Dealey Plaza, the Heart of Texas' web site. Not only is it the historic centre of Dallas but integral in the development of Texas. It housed at one point all the essential buildings of early commerce, plus is the site of the home of the founder and of the first official building, the Post Office.
The symbolism of Dealey Plaza as the place where 'the message' was sent from is arguably a significant factor in identifying the perpetrators.
Hi, John, George, and Stephen
The historical significance of Dealey Plaza might have importance to the assassins but I should think that overriding this would be that logistical advantages would be paramount for the success of the operation. Thus, on the practical level, Dealey Plaza, as an intersection of various streets, offers numerous escape routes. Thus it might be more advantageous than attempting the assassination at the airport, say, where the assassin(s) escape route(s) would be more limited. Also as we have been discussing, Dealey Plaza would seem to offer a number of places to place a sniper that other areas might not. That is, you could hit the motorcade from front, rear, and both sides. As per our conversation, it's possible that at least two and perhaps three or four or more sniper's positions were used to engage Kennedy in an effective crossfire.
Best regards
Chris George
-
Hi all
Just a thought. Is it possible that Oswald had more than one wallet? That he dropped one at the Tippett murder scene and had the other one on him at the movie theatre? Is it not credible for a man who goes by an alias or aliases to carry more than one wallet, and to produce that wallet that would contain the identification he wants seen at the moment he is stopped?
Chris
-
(4) All main-stream media sing from their hymn sheet, and act as trained attack dogs on any "Nay-sayers"
I found your take a bit on the cynical side, but for the most part quite accurate.
However, journalists--or at least the mainstream media here in the US--seem to vascillate, first as cheerleaders of the powers-that-be, and then as attack dogs.
During the Kennedy administration, the early days the media were cheerleaders for the space program, for the Peace Corps, and for other forward-thinking programs. But as the administration started encountering problems, the press shifted into attack mode...first just gently nipping at the heels, and eventually trying to take a bite out of the "seat of the pants" of the administration. When the assassination occurred, the press then went into "circle-the-wagons" mode; for a time, whatever the new Johnson administration did, it was hunky-dory with the press.
But as Vietnam escalated, and as domestic violence exploded in places like the Watts section of Los Angeles and Detroit and ghettoes in other cities, the press also turned on Johnson. White it may have been in the form of a chihuahua with its teeth imbedded in Lyndon's backside, eventually the chihuahua wore down LBJ's resolve, and in March of 1968 LBJ became a single-term lame-duck president when he ruled out a run for re-election.
The press' honeymoon with Nixon was short, as they remembered the "Tricky Dick" Nixon of the 1950's...but they began on Nixon's side. After the Watergate break-in, the media began to react as sharks who smelled blood, and they wanted a taste of flesh. Agnew, whose abrasive attitude had irritated the press from the get-go, was thrown to the sharks and promptly devoured...but the press could sense that they finally had Nixon in their sights, and their tenacity on the Watergate story was remarkable.
Upon Nixon's resignation, Gerald Ford was looked upon by the media as a Nixon appointee, a sort of "stepchild-President," an object of both pity and scorn but little actual respect. Viewed as a "caretaker" of the office until the next election cycle, President Ford's term is remembered chiefly for his stumbles and errant golf shots rather than any policies, primarily because this is how the media portrayed him.
Fast-forward to 2001: After the 9/11 incidents, the media again "circled the wagons" as they did after Dallas, and anything the administration said or did was hunky-dory with the press once again. Only recently, when the US death toll in Iraq has passed the 1,800 person mark, is the media beginning to question policy...not unlike the Vietnam era.
The media can sense a turning of the tide of American public opinion...and the media always wants to be on the side of a winner. That explains why they were behind LBJ when the Gulf of Tonkin resolution came up, and why they were behind the anitwar protests a few short years later. That's why the press was on the side of the "commie-hunters" like Nixon in the early 1950's, and then teamed with those who exposed the excesses of "Tailgunner Joe" McCarthy a few short years later.
Some in the press certainly are "bought and paid for" by the power elite. I would suggest that an example of that might be last night's incident, in which Robert Novak, having been told beforehand that he was going to be asked about the Valerie Plame incident, walked off the set of a live program on CNN, ostensibly over an incident that seemed trivial in itself. But the vast majority of the media don't respond so much to the power elite as they do to their own perception of "what the public wants," however meatless that carcass might be.
Hi Mark
A quick observation about the Robert Novak - Valerie Plame affair, it boggles my mind that it is Judith Miller in jail and not Novak. After all, Miller wrote nothing about Plame being a CIA operative, even if she knew about it, and yet Novak did make the information public. The whole affair stinks.
Stephen and George--
I don't know if you are aware but the American idea is that the United States is a classless society and that there is no upper class and no lower class, emanating from the idea that anyone can be successful if they really try. Of course, the idea that the nation has no class system is wrong, but it is something that appears to be believed, more or less, even in the face of facts to the contrary.
All my best
Chris
-
Hi John
Excellent work here. This is a bizarre thought and probably is not original to me. That bloodstain looks like a map of Vietnam--see below.
Chris
-
Hi John
I see there is an issue from Spring 1935 with Queen Mary on the cover for sale on eBay at present. The seller has started the bidding with a "Buy It Now" price of 1.99 British pounds so if that price reflects knowledge of the current value possibly the worth of such issues is not too high. See bm336 Pictorial Education Quarterly - Spring 1935. I also see an issue from 1930 on ABE books for $10.86 US.
Best regards
Chris George
-
Hi John
Dylan's song well states the basic American view that God is on the side of the United States, and that the U.S. is divinely endowed. Starting from the time of the founding fathers, such sentiments have been enshrined in the American belief system. The God and America theme sounded by the present Christian right in the United States has a basis that goes back to the beginnings of the nation even if the political power flexing of the present U.S. fundamentalist Christian movement is new.
All my best
Chris
-
Hi John
I am an editor and moderator on several poetry forums and I have no problem about removing any posts that I view as being inappropriate or of a troublemaking nature. As Al Carrier stated, I believe the majority of the forum would support you in whatever such actions you undertake for the benefit of the forum. If Tim Gratz is the troublemaker you say, the answer is to ban him from the site.
Best regards
Chris George
-
Do you seriously believe Kennedy would have or could have ended the Cold War? That he would have made peace with the USSR? Remember it was Nixon in the kitchen with Krushchev and it was Nixon who went to China. I don't believe Kennedy would have ended the Cold War. If he would have lived and been reelected in 1964, I suspect we would have seen the same type of nuclear brinkmanship as seen in the 1950's through the fall of Communism. In other words, as long as the USSR remained strong and was faced with a strong United States and NATO, the Cold War could not have possibly ended.
Yes, I do. See my postings here:
JFK’s Foreign Policy and the Assassination
Hi John
I very much doubt if Kennedy would have been able to end the Cold War at that moment in history. Forces were in motion on such a massive basis with the build-up of missile arsenals, nuclear warships and new bombers on both sides, just like the trains on the brink of the First World War. A possible Kennedy accomodation with Cuba, it is true, might have been feared and unwanted by the CIA and Cuban exiles, and your point about that does, I believe, have merit as a possible element that led to the assassination.
All my best
Chris
-
The nearest we have come to a charismatic leader is John F. Kennedy. Although elected as a right of centre politician in 1960, he became a new person after the Cuban Missile Crisis. He therefore posed a serious threat to the power elite in America, but ultimately, throughout the western world. Given time, it is possible that Kennedy would have turned out like other politicians. However, in 1963, he posed a real threat as it looked almost certain that he would win the 1964 election. This could have brought an end to the Cold War. If that happened the western world, without the distorted fear of communism, might have started thinking about out to create a more rational society. Therefore, I believe that the power elite had no option but to kill Kennedy.
Hi John
Do you seriously believe Kennedy would have or could have ended the Cold War? That he would have made peace with the USSR? Remember it was Nixon in the kitchen with Krushchev and it was Nixon who went to China. I don't believe Kennedy would have ended the Cold War. If he would have lived and been reelected in 1964, I suspect we would have seen the same type of nuclear brinkmanship as seen in the 1950's through the fall of Communism. In other words, as long as the USSR remained strong and was faced with a strong United States and NATO, the Cold War could not have possibly ended.
Where your thoughts about Kennedy vis a vis what caused his assassination might have some basis is in the thought that he might not have invested US military resources in Southeast Asia as happened under Johnson. That could be the key to why he was assassinated, that the Military Industrial complex felt he might not follow through with backing South Vietnam and would withdraw US advisers from Southeast Asia. But to end the Cold War? No, not possible or even plausible as a scenario in my opinion.
All my best
Chris
-
Hi Eugene
I would like to see you develop your theory some more but here is my initial reaction.
Under "Motives" all you say is "Several possible motives......" leaving us hanging. However, this is where such a theory would appear to fall down since it is hard to see why anyone in the Dallas Police Department might have such a huge motive to bump off Kennedy. Neither would Dallas have the tentacles to reach into the Federal government and Washington DC to alter or disappear evidence, the apparent problem with the Castro or mafia scenarios also.
All the best
Chris
-
I have been concerned for example in the way that people have reacted to the calls by the UK government to curtail our civil liberties since the London bombing. Tony Blair tells the public that we cannot allow the terrorists to change our way of life. Yet he immediately talks about bringing in legislation that will do just that. The majority accept these measures. Not only that, the popularity of Blair since the bombing has gone up. Instead of people thinking that the bombing only took place because of Blair’s policy on Iraq, they embrace his “tough talking” and reward him with high poll ratings.
Hi John, Graham, Toby, et al.
Here in the United States, Blair is reaping praise particularly from the right wing for his "Churchillian" stance, and indeed it probably is likely that he would reap the benefits of talking and looking tough, just as George W. Bush did with the American populace after 9/11.
In regard to attitudes toward immigrants, the things that are being said about Muslim newcomers are much the same as those said in other periods about other newcomers, e.g., against the Jews fleeing the Russian pogroms of the late nineteenth century, they're not like us, they dress differently, they stick together. History repeats itself endlessly. I do think it is important to distinguish the minority radical Jihadist Muslims from the majority law-abiding Muslims. The Muslim immigrants are here to stay in Western democracies, and we must amicably live side by side with them.
All my best
Chris George
-
hello
that sounds interesting. I look forward to it - I've heard you many times on black op radio so will be nice to meet you.
Excuse my ignorance though - what or who is Wellstone? Another story of cover-up I take it?
Shame you can't make it John - are you still coming to Dallas?
regards
Francesca
Hi Francesca
It looks as if Dr. Fetzer will be talking about one of the current themes he has been working on, see the publication information on the book "AMERICAN ASSASSINATION: The Strange Death of Senator Paul Wellstone" by Don "Four Arrows" Jacobs, Ed.D., Ph.D., and James H. Fetzer, Ph.D. about the 2002 plane crash that killed the liberal Democrat from Minnesota, a rising star in his party before his untimely death and also a key vote in the U.S. Senate against the programs of the Bush White House and the conservative Republicans overall.
All my best
Chris
-
Hi John
I am not sure I would necessarily trust a deathbed confession to one's daughter or to anyone else. People confess to committing crimes or to assisting in crimes all the time for whatever reason--it's a regular phenomenon seen in a lot of cases. In the Jack the Ripper case, scores of people wrote letters claiming to be the murderer.
Another example is that the Chauncey Holt "confession" might be akin, somewhat, to the revelation made to his own family by former FBI official Mark W. Felt that he was "Deep Throat." John Simkin has raised some doubts on this forum about whether Felt could have revealed all of the information that Woodward and Bernstein credit to him. While I am not saying Felt was not a source for Woodward, it is possible that in revealing himself to have been "Deep Throat" Felt was claiming more for himself than he actually did in terms of providing information to Woodward. That is, the aging Felt chose to invest himself in the mantle of the myth of "Deep Throat" as depicted in All The President's Men rather than the possibly lesser role that he actually played. Just a thought.
All my best
Chris
-
Not a joke as such. I am a poet and this might amuse some of you. . .
The Danger of Abbreviations
"Tiny PCs goes into administration. . ."
Headline, BBC Business News, July 27, 2005
Tiny police constables in giant bobby's helmets swarm
over the London Underground! Must be a strategy
to get 'em to crawl under passenger seats,
bite the legs of terrorists as they get ready
to blow up their backpacks, their midget
incisors specially sharpened for the job.
Christopher T. George
-
Hi John and Lee
I have to agree with Lee's assessment that it would seem to be hard to find anywhere to find the elevation to take a shot from the south side. Besides, Jackie would have been in the way of making a shot from that direction. It seems to me the witnesses were saying the shots appeared to come from the vicinity of the North Pergola, and that includes not only people who heard shots coming from the behind them but those who felt bullets whizzing by them.
All my best
Chris
-
John, nice to see your tramps research. I do note that on one page you show a photograph labeled as Sturgis but on another page say the same photo is Howard Hunt.
Chris
-
JFK was assassinated as a result of the changes which he was forcing upon such a society. These changes resulted in the loss of literally millions of dollars due to Cuba, and the forced integration of the most prestegious bastion against integration to exist.-----Tulane University.
Rest assured that when Black students entered Tulane University for the first time in early 1963, the final signature on the "Death Warrant" of JFK was put in place.
Hi Tom
Of course this presupposes that the planning and orders for execution of the assassination came out of the south. You might well be right but that theory would not seem to explain the subsequent government cover-up of the facts of the assassination. It would seem more likely that elements of the government may have been complicit in the assassination beforehand as well as after the event rather than that the motivation for the assassination came from the south.
All my best
Chris
-
Why was the man running, vaulting a turnstile, if he was not a "person of interest" in the case. For all the police knew, he might have been about to detonate a bomb. I would say, the police have to use their own judgement in protecting the public.
It appears that we may now have the answer to your question. Jean Charles de Menezes, the Brazilian shot in error, was in the UK on an out-of-date student visa.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4713651.stm
This may indicate why he chose to run away from his pursuers. The officers in question have been trained to deal with such situations. It will now be up to the independent inquiry to determine whether they acted appropriately. I can only assume these officers fired five shots into the man's head because they thought Menezes was a potential danger to the public. Given the circumstances, it is very easy to see why such as dreadful mistake was made.
Hi Chris
Thanks, Chris, I also saw that report, and it does show that the police have a major problem on their hands. I am sure many immigrants are in the country illegally and might choose to run as Mr Menezes did and not follow orders. The same tragic event thus could happen again.
All my best
Chris
Oswalds strange motivation.
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
Hi Stephen
I have to agree that Lee Harvey Oswald was a very odd fish. You would think that knowing more about him, would hopefully clarify what the assassination was all about. I do agree that Oswald in no way fits the mold for either a crazed, fixated gunman or a hired gun.
Knowing Oswald's strange biography and movements only seems to muddy the waters and make the assassination harder to comprehend. Even if he was the "patsy" for the killing as he claimed, and he had no role in the actual killing, Oswald's story seems to confuse things. He remains the veritable fly in the ointment of trying to understand the assassination, or, ha ha, "Waiter there's an Oswald in my soup!"
Yet if it was a set-up, it could be that this is exactly what the plotters wanted, that Oswald was such an oddity that it would confuse investigators who were trying to get to the bottom of the crime. If that is so, possibly Oswald's involvement as gunman or patsy has functioned precisely as the planners desired.
Best regards
Chris George