From: Paul Zarembka (zarembka@BUFFALO.EDU)
Date: Fri Jul 29 2005 - 06:20:52 EDT
The only video shot of 7/7 four seems to be fake, and the police are not releasing any other video shots which could support their public position. Even the Metro. police are now openly considering that the alleged four were not doing suicide operations. One survivor close to a tube explosion says he saw no one with a backpack. The bombs could have been pre-planted under the seats of the train cars. I trust the families who are disbelieving the four could have been involved in something like what happened. Brazilian de Menezes was late for work, wearing a jeans jacket (hardly what we'd call bulky), passed through the ticket machine (did NOT jump over, as originally reported). Yes, he seems to be guilty of no more than running to catch the tube. Paul Z. ************************************************************************ RESEARCH IN POLITICAL ECONOMY, Paul Zarembka, editor, Elsevier Science ********************* http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/PZarembka On Thu, 28 Jul 2005, Philip Dunn wrote: > Hi Jerry > > Update on the London situation: > > 1. 7/7 complete closure. The police have no-one alive, not even plausible > links. > There is no available evidence against the four. > > 2. The Stockwell killing. It looks as though the police were expecting > something on the Victoria line (Stockwell, Vauxhall) and were keyed up. > It could very well be untrue that the block of flats where Jean Charles de > Menezes lived was under surveillance, that he was followed from Tulse Hill to > Stockwell, that he was challenged in the street, that he jumped the barriers, > that he was wearing a bulky coat. It is untrue that he had any immigration > problems. It was just cop mass hysteria, I think. They were expecting > something and JCM triggered them, perhaps running to catch a train knowing he > was late for a job. > > 3. 21/7. Nobody has any conspiracy theories! There is the copycat theory. > Otherwise, it is very strange. The bombs did not go off. One backpacker was > reported as looking astonished -- the question is: was he astonished not to be > dead or astonished that his backpack had gone pop. A drugs mule theory is > possible, but there is no evidence. > > Still no idea of what explosives were used. Strange that photos of the Russell > Square train surfaced on ABC. > > There was a big showing of police at Tube stations today (Thursday), but not > yesterday. > > Good links: > > http://wagnews.blogspot.com/ > > http://www.kurtnimmo.com/blog/ > > > > Quoting glevy@PRATT.EDU: > > > Hi Phil and Michael W: > > > > No, I'm not going to talk about the London bombings here. > > > > I'm not really in a position to expand on this subject at the > > present time (I am in a public library in Boothbay Harbor) > > but I find that the _general_ question of how Marxists have > > historically reacted to charges of conspiracy (by the state, > > especially) to be of interest. The prevailing attitude seems to > > have been: > > > > a) "show me the proof!" I.e. scepticism. Underlying this > > attitude may be the liberal bourgeois conception: "innocent > > until proven guilty". But, is this a proper stance to take > > towards the state, especially in the context of so many historical > > experiences where the state has launched various intrigues and > > conspiracies for war, repression, etc.? > > > > b) in general, historical events occur for necessary reasons > > tied to the "logic of capital". I.e. there is a stance that > > wishes to eliminate the accidental and subjective factors in > > order to show that capitalism is by its very nature exploitive, etc.. > > That is, the intuition seems to be that conspiracies have no > > basic and systemic role in reproducing capitalism. Yet, > > even if this were true, isn't it important to differentiate > > between what we believe happens _in general_ from what happens > > in a _particular_ case? I.e. particular conspiracies could be > > important in grasping conjunctural developments. > > > > If one were to compare anarchist thought to Marxian, then I > > think that the former is much more receptive to charges of conspiracy > > by the state and capital. Yet, shouldn't we recognize that > > conspiracies can and have played important roles in > > triggering actions by the state? > > > > In solidarity, Jerry > > > > > Philip Dunn > > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Jul 30 2005 - 00:00:01 EDT