NAFEEZ AHMED'S 7/7 BOOK, A REVIEW

[Kier]

I would be amenable to Belinda's suggestion. However, I would point out that my responses here have not been for the sole benefit of Nafeez, but for anybody who might visit this forum and understand why people might have criticisms with certain aspects of the approach employed by Nafeez.

I will reiterate that I have no problem with anybody raising the salient questions about 7/7 and pointing out various anomalies in the official account of 7/7, as Nafeez has done. For that reason, I would recommend his book over other similar works. I have no personal criticism of Nafeez whatsoever.

What I am criticising here is the stating of unproven hypotheses as fact, as this book appears to do. I am not saying Nafeez should be putting any angle on the account to fit in with a particular scenario - that is precisely what I am arguing against. From almost the outset of the book, it is stated "7/7 was blowback". This a valid hypothesis but an unproven one. It shouldn't be stated in this fashion, because there are also other reasons why 7/7 might have occurred. I'm sure all of us have a private opinion about what might have happened, but the important thing is to get to the truth and if we really are to have 'An Independent Inquiry' this should surely avoid drawing conclusions first and fitting the 'evidence' into those, as my worry is that this will simply serve to cloud the issue.

[policyresearch]

my reference to "blowback" should be taken in the same spirit as michael meacher's use of the term here

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,9115,1566919,00.html

and we all know where meacher is coming from with his carefully worded analysis here

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1036571,00.html

which bears close resemblance to gore vidal's review of my first book, 'the war on freedom', in the observer, available here
http://tmh.floonet.net/limited/vidal.html

my use of the word in the 7/7 book is explicitly in the context of reference to western collaboration with terrorist networks worldwide. cursory reflection on this well-documented reality raises some very awkward questions about why western states have consistently fostered, funded and coopted the networks that, they say, we are supposed to be having a "war" on (and which by the way are supposed to be "warring" on us). if we are, in fact, in the words of professor michel chossudovsky "buddy-buddy" with our "enemy" behind-the-scenes, then what is the meaning of the play unfolding on the media stage?

i focus on such issues and ask the obvious questions, rather than offering ready-made answers. that's just my style. it tends to work, as people need to undergo their own processes of critical reflection, which can easily be hampered if the unsavoury outcome of that process is handed to them on a plate before the process even begins.

in terms of outlining conclusions, i've gone out of my way to avoid indulging in speculation and putting in my own personal opinion. but some theoretical observations are inevitable. in any case, readers can, and do, draw their own conclusions, and i've tried to facilitate that.

i think one thing that might help before anything else is for people here to become more familiar with my other work. the following links will be useful:

a review of my 'war on truth' book, and daniele ganser's 'nato's secret armies', here
http://www.onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_277.shtml

a lengthier and deeper analysis of the geopolitics of terror drawing heavily on my 'war on truth' research, here
http://world.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/32947

my paper which is due to be published in kevin barratt's forthcoming edited 9/11 volume from olive branch, available at website of the perdana global peace forum, where i spoke about these issues last year at their conference organized by former malaysian prime minister dr. mahathir
http://www.perdana4peace.org/forum_pdf/Nafeez%20-%20Terrorism.pdf

and finally, see the attachment, which is my paper published in this year's 'hidden history of 9-11-2001' research in political economy volume (the one where the steve jones paper was supposed to go but was pulled by his dept. which we replaced with dave griffin's article).

best
nafeez

[policyresearch]

i forgot to say that i welcome the suggestion of a meeting where these things can be discussed in more depth. unfortunately, i doubt i'll be able to make time for such a meeting in the next few weeks. the 9/9 meeting would've been a good opportunity but as i've already informed dave griffin, i won't be able to make this either. but i'm sure something will arise later on, perhaps in october.

best
nafeez

[Belinda]

Thanks Nafeez, sorry you can't be with us at DRG but we'll certainly keep you to a get-together thereafter. Appreciate what you're doing within the realms of the currently possible. Belinda

[ian neal]

http://nafeez.blogspot.com/2006/09/censored-urban75-forum-bans-british .html

CENSORED: Urban75 Forum Bans Nafeez from Posting