What about Jean Charles de Menezes???

In the aftermath of the murder, a cascade of misinformation and lies from the very top down. From Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair to the trigger-happy plain-clothes shooters identified only as "carrying a long-barrelled weapon", the actions that day have been exposed as a cover-up of the events that resulted in the extra-judicial execution of an innocent man.

What about Jean Charles de Menezes???

Joined: Jul 27 2006, 03:13 PM

Jul 27 2006, 05:09 PM #1

Wow, there are a lot of incredibly well informed/well educated people accessing this site putting forward brillant question in an attempt to get some REAL answers - for that you should be commended!!

This is just a small section of the events that took place but im interested as to why Jean Charles was murdered so brutally, quite simply the police force/intelligence unit DOES NOT make mistakes like that?!!! The PR machine feels like it is distracting us all with the stories of incompetence of the police force and how they should be held accountable for this huge 'MISTAKE' - all the while no-one is considering that maybe he was gunned down on purpose - could it have been that he learned or knew something that led to betwwen 7-11 gun shots being unloaded into his head from point blank range??!

The things that trouble me are the links between an eye witness (who was on one of the trains) claiming the floor had been blow UPWARDS (suggesting the bomb was already under the train), the 'Power Surge' statement (which the National grid denied), the mobile phone 'Timers' & where John Charles was working in the three weeks before 7/7. (I am very sure that the intelligent people amongst you will be able to come up with more links between the 7/7 event and John Charles but im just trying to capture the main part). As we all know John Charles was working as an 'illegal' electrician and worked contract jobs with no fixed employment. What with London underground delays and all the other possible affecting variables the only way to carry out these explosions at exactly the desired time and place while leaving NO evidence of the 'type' of timer used would to be to use 'engineered electrical explsions' - or what London Underground may call a 'Power surge' - lets also not forget that passengers on the train claimed to see 'Electrical discharge'.

My theory, and you are all welcome to call me what ever names you feel appropriate is that John Charles may have been associated with these 'controlled explosions' in some form, 7/7 takes place as a pre text to scare us all into giving up our freedom, then 21/7 takes place (as if the British public were not already pi**ed off with the fact that you couldnt get on a bus or tube without having to worry if you will reach your destination alive) to reiterate the 'Threat of Terrorism' and the next day an innocent man is shot dead in Stockwell station (where one of the 21/7 bombs 'failed' the day before) in front of petrefied commuters by MISTAKE!?!! Oh yeah, i forgot to mention that that was the ONLY day when ALL cctv cameras in Stockwell station 'malfunctioned'!

Its Absolute BULLS*IT!! So he was able to leave his house get a bus, get off and walk to the staion, buy a ticket and suddenly when he got to the staion the police decide that should be his final resting place!!

I think that killing him in the staion was a ment to make the British people feel safer because they then 'thought' the government was acting on their behalf by protecting us from those trying to inflict damage on the people of London BUT that is not the case, the fear just keeps people in their 'place'...............they killed 3 birds with 1 stone that day, 1. if Jean Charles was 'involved' in 7/7 then they have eliminated a person with the potentional to tell of his involvement if ever the Government were to be tried for the orchestration of the 7/7 events 2. It scares the people of London into thinking that by giving up freedom we shall be secured thus giving wa*k*rs like Tony Blair the power to bring in Bio-metric ID card so those f**kers have ultimate control over us citizens and finally 3. If Jean Charles was involved in 7/7 in some way then his death by mistake serves as a smoke screen so no-one bothers to look into his history and what he was doing before he got gunned down!!

For the sake of those who died, thos who got injured, the relatives who have to live with family members who were maimed or damaged so badly psychologically, Jean Charles and his family we MUST know the truth because this is modern day genocide!!

Id like to thank anyone who reads this, this is the first time i have posted anything like this so please excuse my ignorance as i am aware that the many, many people with better history or 7/7 knowledge could rip me to shreds with info so feel free to fill in the gaps of my ignorance and tell me what a wan*er i am for not knowing x, y or z!!

Joined: Jul 14 2006, 09:00 AM

Jul 27 2006, 07:59 PM #2

All valid points...

There are three possibilities in this case.

1. Jean Charles was just in the wrong place at the wrong time and it was all an unfortunate mistake. Obviously that doesn't excuse the subsequent lying by the Police Authorities, but accidents do happen, and the Met were somewhat twitchy given the events of the previous weeks.

2. He was murdered on purpose in order to strike fear into the heart of the British public.

3. He was murdered on purpose because he knew something and the clean up had begun. The fact that this was done in full view had the added bonus of No 2's knock on effect.

The problem I have with No 3 is the whole full view thing. If I wanted something tidying up, I would have either disappeared the poor man, or killed him earlier in the preceedings that morning. That way there'd be more chance of getting away with it, less eye witnesses etc. The other nagging doubt is the assumption that the J7 Black Ops team needed to contract out some of the electrical work in the first place. I cannot believe that they'd employ some illegal alien sparky to carry out some work during what would have been one of the biggest operations of their lives, it doesn't make sense.

No, I'm gonna go somewhere between 1 and 2, er... ok, if you're gonna push me - I'd say 2.

Joined: Nov 25 2005, 11:41 AM

Jul 27 2006, 08:06 PM #3

Welcome aboard bobh. I think the lack of information about Jean Charles' background is very pertinent indeed.

How's your Portugese?
"The problem with always being a conformist is that when you try to change the system from within, it's not you who changes the system; it's the system that will eventually change you." -- Immortal Technique

"The media is the most powerful entity on earth. They have the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent, and that's power. Because they control the minds of the masses." -- Malcolm X

"The eternal fight is not many battles fought on one level, but one great battle fought on many different levels." -- The Antagonist

"Truth does not fear investigation." -- Unknown

Joined: Nov 26 2005, 01:46 AM

Jul 27 2006, 08:23 PM #4

Hi bobh

Welcome to the forum.

The great thing about this forum is that there is no abuse, so no fear of being thought of or called a w******.

I've included a link to the article that the Antagonist has posted above, but it is a pretty poor Google translation.

It seems to suggest that Jean Charles was doing some work for a Brazilian journalist who was a member of JIBRA (independent journalists of Brazil).

I have talked with Alex Perreira, Jean Charles' cousin. who said that when the police contacted him about his cousin's murder over 14 hours later they had no idea of Jean Charles' address, which is odd if they had followed him from his flat.

Hopefully if the family can insist that the Inquest is held before the H & S case is heard then much more information will be made public.

JIBRA article
�To those who are afraid of the truth, I wish to offer a few scary truths; and to those who are not afraid of the truth, I wish to offer proof that the terrorism of truth is the only one that can be of benefit to the proletariat.� -- On Terrorism and the State, Gianfranco Sanguinetti

Joined: Nov 25 2005, 11:41 AM

Jul 27 2006, 09:05 PM #5

Bridget @ Jul 27 2006, 09:23 PM wrote:The great thing about this forum is that there is no abuse, so no fear of being thought of or called a w******.
Well, apart from this one instance here.

Back to the point:
The Installation of a US Military Base in Paraguay: A Wedge in Mercosur
By Razl Zibechi

November 29, 2005

Agencia Latinoamericana de Informacion (ALAI)

The mystery about the installation of a United States military base in Paraguay begins to clear: The purpose is to drive a wedge into the Mercosur trade bloc and to control the region, objectives that contrast with the passivity of governments that should have reacted long ago.

The diplomatic immunity granted by the Paraguayan parliament to the American troops set off an alarm. Speculation immediately arose that Washington was going to establish a military base in Mariscal Estigarribia, where in the 1980s U.S. technicians built a huge airport with a 3,800-meter landing strip suitable for B-52 bombers, and C-5 Galaxy and C-130 transport planes. The base has housing for 16,000 troops and is barely 200 kilometers [120 miles] from the border with Bolivia.

Despite the denials from Washington and Asuncisn, the objectives of the northern superpower became clear with the passing of months. One of the most remarkable facts, one that showed the operation was part of a "hidden agenda," was the manner in which the Paraguayan parliament's decision to grant immunity to U.S. troops came to light.

On May 26, Congress approved the immunity, but the decision became public in mid-June, when the Argentine daily Clarmn published the news (1). For sure, the news was not made public by the Paraguayan parliament or the Paraguayan media or the media in Brazil (a country that holds major interests in Paraguay.) Something important was beginning to happen and nobody seemed to be concerned.

Diplomatic and military detour

According to all indications, the administration of George W. Bush decided to alter its policy toward South America in early 2005. What happened at that time?

In February, the government of President Nistor Kirchner negotiated a pardon for 60 percent of Argentina's foreign debt, but the decision had the support of the Bush administration and -- despite straining relations with the International Monetary Fund -- did not generate major problems.

Other events that did not seem to have played a decisive role in Washington's detour were Brazil's "friendly" separation from the IMF and the White House's defeat in April, when it tried to impose its own candidate to the post of secretary general of the Organization of American States.

On the other hand, the Guayana Summit, held in late March in Venezuela, did not go unnoticed by the Bush administration. The meeting between presidents Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva of Brazil, Alvaro Uribe of Colombia, Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, and Prime Minister Josi Luis Rodrmguez Zapatero of Spain irritated the U.S. administration, which chose to openly criticize the sale of Spanish weapons to Venezuela, a transaction worth $1.3 billion.

Venezuela already had bought 100,000 assault rifles and 40 combat helicopters from Russia. Now, Spain was supplying 10 transport planes, four corvettes and four coast-guard cutters.

"I'm concerned," said U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, adding: "It won't be good for the hemisphere." But that wasn't the United States' sole concern.

The Declaration of Guayana, signed by the four leaders on March 29, represented an endorsement of both the creation of the South American Community of Nations (which links the Mercosur bloc to the Andean Community) and Chavez's initiatives of Petroamirica and Petrosur, which propitiate the integration of the region's energy sources.

A greater political coordination, along with initiatives of economic integration with the participation of the two largest South American countries (Brazil and Argentina), threatened true isolation for Washington in a region that is key to his plans for world hegemony.

The response was lightning-swift. In less than one month, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice made a tour of the region, stopping in Brazil, Chile, Colombia and El Salvador. Around that time, the European press reported that the U.S. "is again directing its attention toward Brazil" to secure that country's support "in the stabilization of a region that is increasingly volatile." (2)

On the same day, The New York Times, pointed out that the Bush administration was studying "a long-range strategy that could mean the hardening of its position vis-`-vis Hugo Chavez, after concluding that it was impossible to maintain a pragmatic attitude toward him." The hardening toward Caracas was part of -- and an excuse for -- a change in course that seeks to involve the whole region.

According to other analysts, once the political crisis exploded in Brazil, the Bush administration cast aside its doubts about the ability of that country to carry out the "mandate" to stabilize the region issued by Washington and chose to take direct action on the matter.

Along the same lines, sectors in the regional elites maintain that "those who claim the government of George W. Bush does not have a policy toward Latin America are wrong. In reality, that policy exists, is healthy and continues to add new rungs to its project." (3)

The project consists of "trade and security" and, in the face of the failure of the Free Trade Area of the Americas, seeks private deals that accomplish the same goals. The analyst maintains that the inability of Argentina and Brazil -- much too preoccupied with their own domestic woes -- to install a "zone of democratic security" in the Southern Cone generates a vacuum that will be occupied by the United States when it picks Paraguay, "a key country, as the axis of a security plan."

Paraguay, the weakest link

Shortly after Rice's tour of the region, a series of events occurred: On May 5, the U.S. arranged for the Paraguayan Congress to approve an increase in the number of U.S. troops. That was done on May 26, under the strictest secrecy.

On June 10, Paraguayan Vice President Luis Castiglioni traveled to Washington, where he met with Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and the then-Assistant Secretary of State for Hemispheric Affairs, Roger Noriega.

On July 1, the first contingent of 500 U.S. soldiers arrived in Paraguay, and on the 7th of that month, reacting to widespread alarm, the U.S. Embassy in Asuncisn issued a communiqui stating that the U.S. had not intention of establishing a permanent base in the country.

Finally, on Aug. 16, Rumsfeld arrived in Asuncisn for a brief tour that took him also to Peru, another country that's being pressured to grant immunity to U.S. troops.

Meanwhile, the prolonged and crushing political crisis in Brazil (instigated by the United States, according to local journalists (4), has paralyzed Lula's government for the past four months. According to the group Independent Journalists of Brazil (JIBRA, as it is known there), former President Fernando Henrique Cardoso traveled in February to Washington, where he maintains close relations with former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger.

Cardoso sent a message to Bush to the effect that he should be more attentive to the region and avoid the emergence of "new Hugo Chavezes" and, upon returning to Brazil in February, predicted that the country would undergo an institutional crisis. According to members of JIBRA, American Consulate officials have been seen visiting Cardoso's apartment in Sco Paulo.

In July, shortly after the arrival of the first contingent of U.S. troops, the Brazilian Army conducted war games simulating a defense of the strategic hydroelectrical dam at Itaipz.

On June 12, the Senate debated the topic at the insistence of Alvaro Dias of the Social Democratic Party, who said that "through the eyes of Roberto Jefferson [who had created a climate of crisis by charging the government with corruption] we are not paying attention to the situation in Paraguay."

He said more: "All around us, the military presence of the United States is widespread," referring to U.S. military activities in Colombia, Ecuador, Bolivia and Peru. "This is not the first time we feel threatened, particularly under the pretext of combating terrorism that might concentrate in the Triple Frontier, as if it were an extension of Iraq." (5)

At the same meeting, Workers Party senator Jefferson Peres proposed that, just as the Mercosur countries signed a "democratic clause" that states no dictatorship may be part of the bloc, they should also approve "another clause stating that third countries [without naming the U.S.] may not establish permanent bases in any of the member states, without prior consultation and approval of all members" of Mercosur.

Despite the gravity of the topic, however, no other Workers Party senators took any action.

On the other hand, the neoliberal policy of Lula's administration seems to be particularly negative for the other countries in the region, including its closest allies on the Mercosur bloc. In addition to the constant trade clashes between Argentina and Brazil, an analyst says, both countries "have constantly underestimated Paraguay and Uruguay," particularly the former, who would feel "slighted." (6)

In reality, a policy based on free trade contradicts continental unity. Brazil, the only country capable of leading the unity movement, has opted -- unlike Chavez's Venezuela -- to give priority to trade relations with countries that offer large markets to the exportation of its basic products, countries such as China, India, South Africa, the European Union and the United States.

In South America, relations are tinged with a certain economic expansionism ("imperialism"), while a quest is on to reach accords on infrastructure works, such as Bolivia's corridor to the sea, that are to the exclusive benefit of the larger country.

A good example is the recent start of the Inter-Oceanic Highway. The 2,600-kilometer roadway, which in two years will join the Atlantic and Pacific oceans and connect three Peruvian ports with the Brazilian port of Santos, is budgeted at approximately $1 billion. Brazil will contribute 70 percent of the cost, but will be its principal beneficiary, because it is increasing its trade considerably with Asian countries, particularly China. (7)

Under such conditions, it is impossible to generate a consensus to promote integration. Further, the policy based on free trade creates strains between countries that should be partners and allies. It also generates "cracks" that are used by Washington to introduce its policies.

A good example is the presence of the Brazilian company Petrobras in Ecuador, where it exploits wells in indigenous zones. Petrobras also participates in the exploitation of natural gas in Bolivia, a country where Brazilian enterprises control 20 percent of the gross domestic product.

The relationship between the U.S. and Paraguay does not merely or principally involve a military presence, because in the neoliberal mindset military affairs are subordinated to political affairs, which in turn are subordinated to economic affairs. What's at issue is a long-range shift in regional alliances, the introduction of a wedge that threatens to crack the Mercosur bloc and endangers the foreign policy, based on regional unity, that seemed to be Lula's best strategic bet.

In a situation like this, it should surprise no one that a small and weak country like Paraguay, which finds no solution to its problems in a paralyzed and crisis-ridden Mercosur, should seek alliances with the United States, with which it hopes to establish a bilateral free-trade accord. The policy of "trade and security" advances not only thanks to the ambition of the Bush administration but also to the inability of those who should confront the Empire to design genuine and generous alternatives.

[Razl Zibechi, a Uruguayan writer and journalist, directs the international section of the important Uruguayan weekly "Brecha."]


(1) "U.S. Marines set foot on Paraguay", Clarin, Sept. 11, 2005.

(2) Financial Times, quoted on Folha de Sco Paulo, April 26, 2005.

(3) Natalio Botana in La Nacisn, Aug. 29, 2005.

(4) Brecha, June 24, 2005.

(5) Federal Senate of Brazil, www.senado.gov.br July 18, 2005.

(6) Rosendo Fraga, "Meaning of the presence of the United States in Paraguay", Aug. 25, 2005.

(7) Prensa Latina, Sept. 7, 2005.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

To become a Member of Global Research

The Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) at www.globalresearch.ca grants permission to cross-post original Global Research articles in their entirety, or any portions thereof, on community internet sites, as long as the text & title are not modified. The source must be acknowledged and an active URL hyperlink address to the original CRG article must be indicated. The author's copyright note must be displayed. For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: crgeditor@yahoo.com

www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of "fair use" in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair use" you must request permission from the copyright owner.

For media inquiries: crgeditor@yahoo.com

© Copyright Razl Zibechi, Agencia Latinoamericana de Informacion (ALAI), 2005

Source: http://www.globalresearch.ca/PrintArtic ... cleId=1363
"The problem with always being a conformist is that when you try to change the system from within, it's not you who changes the system; it's the system that will eventually change you." -- Immortal Technique

"The media is the most powerful entity on earth. They have the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent, and that's power. Because they control the minds of the masses." -- Malcolm X

"The eternal fight is not many battles fought on one level, but one great battle fought on many different levels." -- The Antagonist

"Truth does not fear investigation." -- Unknown

Joined: Nov 25 2005, 11:41 AM

Jul 27 2006, 09:21 PM #6

Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, head of the fourth biggest producer of greenhouse gas emissions and urged by many to pursue Kyoto goals and renewable energy sources, was a special guest at G8 in July 2005:
Brazil: Greenpeace asks Lula for firm stance in favor of Kyoto Protocol

Source:  Copyright 2005, Agência Brasil
Date:  July 7, 2005
Byline:  Mylena Fiori

São Paulo - The environmental movements hope that Brazil will assume a leadership position in the discussion on climate change, one of the chief topics at the G8 Summit Meeting, which ends tomorrow (8), in Gleneagles, Scotland. President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva is a guest participant at the meeting of leaders of the world's seven richest countries and Russia.

"Brazil is the world's fourth biggest producer of greenhouse gas emissions, thanks to our elevated indices of deforestation. This gives the country a great responsibility for the solution of the question of climate change on the planet," affirms Marcelo Furtado, director of Greenpeace campaigns in Brazil. "One of our major concerns is that this meeting not be limited to empty rhetoric. The population is tired of listening to rhetoric and wants to see concrete actions, with definite timetables, goals, and resources," he observes.

Greenpeace sent a letter to President Lula last Friday (1), asking him to join with the G8 leaders to encourage a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and to put pressure on the United States to implement measures to combat climate change (the United States refused to sign the Kyoto Protocol, the only international agreement that makes it mandatory to adopt policies and targets for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions). According to Furtado, other international organizations are directing similar appeals to the Brazilian President.

Industry, energy production, and transportation consume large quantities of petroleum, coal, and natural gas, generating billions of tons of carbon gas that is launched into the atmosphere each year, altering its balance. The changes in the chemical composition of the atmosphere are manifested around the world in the form of droughts, floods, tropical cyclones of greater intensity, etc.

In the judgment of environmentalists, it is fundamental for the G8 countries to assume their responsibility for the global warning of the planet by setting additional goals for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and supporting developing countries in the search for solutions. "The G8 can provide support through resources and technology, until the developing countries cease being part of the problem and join the group that is part of the solution," Furtado believes. "The presence of President Lula is very important, to make the rich countries do their homework and finance developing countries in discovering solutions to the problem," he affirms, stressing Brazil's potential for generating energy from renewable sources.

Furtado even thinks that Brazil can lead the debate on solutions to the problem of climate change among developing countries. But the environmentalists also hope that Lula will present solutions for the problem of deforestation. "We hope that Brazil assumes responsibility for dealing with the issue of deforestation in the Amazon, which affects the country and contributes to the global problem of climate change. It is essential for President Lula to arrive at the G8 meeting able to guarantee that we will no longer have shameful indices," emphasizes the Greenpeace director.

Source: http://forests.org/articles/reader.asp?linkid=43929
"The problem with always being a conformist is that when you try to change the system from within, it's not you who changes the system; it's the system that will eventually change you." -- Immortal Technique

"The media is the most powerful entity on earth. They have the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent, and that's power. Because they control the minds of the masses." -- Malcolm X

"The eternal fight is not many battles fought on one level, but one great battle fought on many different levels." -- The Antagonist

"Truth does not fear investigation." -- Unknown

Joined: Jun 19 2006, 01:58 PM

Jul 28 2006, 10:48 AM #7

Menezes officers back on the beat

Two police firearms officers involved in the fatal shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes have been cleared to resume "full operational duties".
The officers had restrictions put on them while their conduct was being investigated.

But Scotland Yard has lifted the restrictions following the decision not to prosecute anyone over the shooting.

Brazilian Mr Menezes was killed by officers who mistook him for a suicide bomber on 22 July last year.

The 27-year-old electrician was shot seven times on a Tube train at Stockwell Underground station in south London.
All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them - Galileo Galilei