On the hypothesis of the article on London bombings

Fazal Rahman, Ph.D.

Email:  Unpollutedfaz@aol.com
October 31, 2006

The article, “London bombings: the unasked and unanswered questions” was written on August 8, 2005, a month after the July 7th bombings. At that time, it was submitted to only one group in the UK, Red Pepper. They decided not to publish it. On October 28, 2006, I submitted that same article, without any changes, to the Indymedia in Oxford  http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/oxford/2006/10/354504.html. Through their link to the www.indymedia.org.uk , it also got published there  http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/10/354504.html. Later, I was informed by the July 7th Truth Campaign www.julyseventh.co.uk , that it was also published on www.rinf.com  http://www.rinf.com/columnists/news/london-bombings-the-unasked-and-unanswered-questions. That is how I came to know about July 7th and RINF.

Nine comments have been posted, so far , on the article on the above Indymedia web sites. Some are very nasty, mindless, and vulgar, with the intent to provoke, smear, and disinform; a couple are supportive of the basic premises of the article’s hypothesis; while others reproduce the government information and conclusions, totally uncritically and unquestioningly, expressing annoyance that someone is raising some questions about those Absolute Truths!

On October 30, I found that the article had been abruptly removed from the front page of Oxford Indymedia! That is unusual as the articles there, as well as on the other web sites, normally run their course, descending gradually under the newly published articles. On October 31, I could not find the article on the Oxford Indymedia site at all in the archives. It seems that they have completely removed it! They only allowed it to stay on their site for a couple of days. We may never know why it was done or under whose pressure. One of the basic purposes of such web sites is to promote debate through diversity of comments and opinions. During the short time this article was allowed to stay on the front page of Oxford Indymedia, more comments were sent about it than any other article on the front page during that time. And yet, they selectively and deliberately removed it from the front page and, one day later, from the archives altogether!

I have now visited the www.julyseventh.co.uk web site and found excellent research data, information, and analysis of all the matters connected with the London bombings. Among other things, they have presented official and alternative hypotheses and correlated all the known facts with these. Their impeccable scientific approach to this whole matter is self-evident.

Whatever the nasty and vulgar as well as other critics have reproduced, in their comments, from the government sources, has already been logically, factually, and scientifically addressed and analyzed on the www.julyseventh.co.uk . I cannot do a better job of that and, therefore, would like to refer all the conformists and firm believers in the government information (disinformation) to that site. There, they will find a lot more than the logical and factual refutation of their “facts” and “arguments”. In this brief article, my focus is on the nature of the hypothesis I presented in the above article and its similarities and affinity with some of the independently arrived hypotheses of the July 7th group.

My focus in the article-written a month after the bombings- when almost all the details and specifics were being kept in the dark, and selective contradictory information was being released-was on outlining a brief logical and historical hypothesis. As is stated clearly in the article, it is a hypothetical analysis, with the following four specific and concrete logical, factual, historical, and philosophical premises, some explicit, others implicit, in it:

1. In the London situation, there was no need for a suicide bombing. It could have been, and most probably was, carried out, relatively easily, without endangering oneself.

2. Muslim resistance has nothing to gain, and a lot to lose, by engaging in such acts in Europe.

3. US and UK imperialists are the main beneficiaries of such terrorist actions in Europe.

4. Both the imperialists and the leaders of Muslim resistance understand and know these political, military, and logical facts and their policies and actions include these.

These are the essential premises of the hypothesis involved in the above article. I contend that these are apodictic and irrefutable. I invite the conformists and firm believers in the mainstream hypothesis to try to refute these and make my day. They can probably attempt to do so with part of the 4th premise and, attributing irrationality, incompetence, and ignorance to the leaders of Muslim resistance, may argue that they do not understand and implement these in their policies or actions. But that would only prove their own ignorance, arrogance, irrationality, and incompetence, rooted in racism and national chauvinism. During the early years of Vietnam War, the West was full of such idiots, who, projecting their own ignorance, irrationality, and incompetence to the Vietnamese, were loudly broadcasting and claiming that no Asian nation could stand up to and resist the superpower of US. As it turned out, the Vietnamese were far superior in strategy, tactics, planning, and their implementation, as well as in fighting, than the technocratic elites of the superpower. However, obviously, the imperialists have become intoxicated again and forgotten the lessons of Vietnam. They are relearning them the hard way, with great loss of life and other damages.

As pointed out by the July 7th group, the government’s position, in regard to the London bombings, constitutes only one of many alternative hypotheses. It does not constitute the Absolute Truth, which the conformists and firm believers are making it out to be. Logically and philosophically, that insight is of fundamental importance in this whole matter. If one remains ignorant of that, one remains trapped in the disinformation.

What the July 7th group seems to be demanding is that all the facts be investigated, revealed, and utilized in the construction or validation of alternative hypotheses, and not just some of them, self-servingly selected, to fit into the implicit or explicit hypotheses of the officialdom. That is precisely what the British government and mainstream media have done. The July 7th group has made a concrete factual and logical analysis of this matter and more details can be found on their web site. The key point here is that facts are facts only when they are integrated and related to each other in their common logical structure (paraphrasing Hegel here). Only in that form, they fit into and are consistent with an appropriate hypothesis or theory. “Facts” that are fragmented, abstracted, and isolated from each other and their common logical structure, can be implanted into a variety of false and erroneous hypotheses.

In the London bombings, there were three train explosions and one on a bus. There was contradictory information about the timings of these explosions and the nature of the explosives used. The authorities were, somehow, quickly able to associate these bombings with four dead Asian Muslims and determine their identities, while overwhelming majority of the rest remained unidentified at that time. From there, they started fitting these facts into the prefabricated hypothesis of Muslim terrorism being responsible for what had happened. Alternative hypotheses of the involvement of imperialists, their secret services, organized crime etc., along with the four dead men, were totally ignored and remained uninvestigated. For example, everyone knows that the CIA is one of the major instruments of US imperialism and it has a long history of subversion, sabotage, terrorism, overthrow of governments, assassination or attempted assassination of the popular and democratic leaders of other countries, and the use of organized crime in some of these actions, e.g., having obtained the services of Mafia for the assassination of President Fidel Castro of Cuba during the early 1960s. All that is well documented. It even caused some conscientious ex-CIA agents to leave the agency and expose its real nature, plots, and crimes. Philip Agee has been the most conscientious, courageous, knowledgeable, and internationalist of those ex-CIA agents, who has shed very important light on such operations of CIA, in his various writings, lectures, and solidarity work. If the CIA could do that in so many other countries, why it would not do the same in UK or other European countries, when needed? Of course, it would be totally hopeless and unrealistic to expect the British government and secret services to investigate such connections. To the contrary, they should be expected to do the opposite, i-e. to leave such a possible connection totally untouched and to cover it up if any facts or evidence emerge. Hence, the importance of great public service by groups like July 7th, which are keeping the flame burning. Just imagine, what will happen to the known facts, and the mainstream hypotheses-listed on July 7th site- of which they have been made part of, if some evidence emerges of the involvement of organized crime or some CIA front group with the four dead Asian Muslims, in the London bombings? In such a situation, the context of these facts will totally change and so will the meanings and nature of these facts. Right now, these are part of an illogical structure, as part of the mainstream hypotheses, the basic premises of which are, as indicated above, in diametric contradiction with the required logical-factual-philosophical-historical premises of this matter, explicitly or implicitly inherent in the hypothesis of the above article or some of the alternative hypotheses proposed by the July 7th group.

The July 7th group has also documented the profiles of the four dead Asian Muslims, accused of having committed that crime, as well as of their families. If these profiles are even halfway accurate, it is hard to imagine how such human beings could carry out such violence against themselves and so many others.

The following three alternative hypotheses have been listed, among others, on the web site of the July 7th group and their numbers below are also those that are given there:

6. The four men thought they were going to be delivering drugs or money to various locations round London, but were deceived, set up and murdered along with the others on their tubes and bus when their back packs exploded.

7. As above but the men thought they were carrying dummy 'bombs' because they were participating in an exercise testing London transport's defences against backpack bombers.

8. The four men were chosen or lured in to be patsies in a classic 'false flag operation' or frame-up by a network involved with one or more of the intelligence services.

These hypotheses are more of a factual nature in contrast with the hypothesis of above article, the premises of which are more of logical, historical, and philosophical nature. Some of the hypotheses of the July 7th group and that of the article complement each other and make each other more wholesome and holistic. For example, if viewed from the perspectives of aforementioned four premises of the hypothesis of the article, these three hypotheses from the July 7th group are consistent with those premises, while the other five-not listed here, which are various concoctions of the mainstream and the officialdom-are not. There is a natural and organic compatibility and fit between the general hypothesis of the article and the above three specific hypotheses of the July 7th group..

Within the framework of the above-mentioned four premises of hypothesis of the article, with some modifications and combination of the three hypotheses of the July 7th group, a new hypothesis, Hypothesis #9 can be constructed:

Hypothesis #9: In this hypothesis, #6 and #8 or #7 and #8 are proposed to be combined. #6 and #7 would remain essentially the same while #8 would involve a secret service, coordinating and guiding a front organization and an organized crime group. Here four possibilities are proposed:

1. As exactly in #6, The four men thought they were going to be delivering drugs, money, confidential documents, or other material etc. to various locations round London, but were deceived, set up and murdered along with the others on their tubes and bus when their back packs exploded.

2. As above but the men thought they were carrying dummy 'bombs' because they were participating in an exercise testing London transport's defences against backpack bombers.

3. As in the July 7th group Hypothesis #8, proposed by Fintan Dunne, the four men were murdered before any explosions took place and then their body parts were planted on the sites of the explosions. In this scenario, the involvement of an organized crime group or some secret service front organization is more likely than that of the police, as proposed by Fintan Dunne.

4. There was a fifth man who followed the four men to one of the trains. This man was carrying the explosives. He left them near the four men and then got off the train. He noted down the car number and its location, etc., so that his contacts in the secret service knew exactly where to find the body parts of the four men, who then, through some key contact in the police, managed to link each of the four to the different sites of the explosions.

Third and fourth possibilities require the involvement and cooperation of some key police officials. The first and second possibilities do not need the involvement of any police official or organized crime. These would have required just one secret service or its front organization contact person with the four men. These seem to be the most likely possibilities.

Some of the above possibilities would have been relatively easy to arrange and implement for some resourceful, experienced, and powerful organization, with long global reach and presence. It would not even be too difficult to arrange something like that even for an individual, with some means at his disposal. For example, if Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma city Federal Building bomber, had thought about it and wanted to, he could have lured and trapped some Muslim men into his plot by arranging to meet with them near his explosives-filled vehicle. Just before the explosions were set to occur, he could have excused himself for having to go to the bathroom or something like that, leaving the men near his vehicle. After the explosion and devastation, their body parts would have been found and they would have been identified. If that had happened, all the other facts would have been concocted and tailored to fit into the hypothesis of Muslim terrorism being responsible for that act and McVeigh would have been walking free, planning his next move. The official investigation would have ended right then and there at that point. It is almost certain that no other alternative hypotheses would have been considered in such a situation. Even at that time, there was hysteria about Muslim terrorism and in the aftermath of the explosion, in the absence of any evidence, Muslims were being blamed for that act of terrorism. It was only after the unexpected arrest of McVeigh that Muslims were exonerated from the responsibility for that terrorist act.

Regardless of the practical results, it is most important to continue to struggle for truth and justice against all odds. At this diabolical stage of history, the power of truth, justice, spirit, intellect, and authentic human nature is diametrically opposed and overwhelmed by the power of capital, in the form of imperialist corporations, governments and their agencies in various advanced capitalist countries. Under such conditions, the inner ecology of human nature itself has been powerfully and drastically disrupted, to variable degrees and forms. More than any other time in human history, it is essential to preserve and express one’s authentic human nature, to the best of one’s ability. Speaking and uncovering the truth is a most important part of that process and that is what is also involved the matter of London bombings. So many people lost their lives in that tragedy. Lies, concoctions, fragmented and abstract “facts” and tailoring them to fit into illogical structures of incompatible hypotheses, refusal to consider alternative hypotheses or to discover other facts that these point towards etc. desecrate and disgrace the dead victims. Only a thorough and in-depth investigation, oriented towards uncovering all the facts and their logical analysis, with the objective of discovery of truth on that basis, will honor and do justice to those victims. Poisonous and mindless “patriotic”, national chauvinistic, and racist prejudices not only damage the Muslims and other minorities, they also damage and desecrate all the victims of that tragedy, regardless of race or religion, as well as obstruct justice and truth.

Fazal Rahman, Ph.D.

Email:  Unpollutedfaz@aol.com
Telephone: (623)847-5853 (USA)


Comments
the following 9 comments

Comment #1

so....
01.11.2006 17:16
...the basic premise of your article remains the fact that you see a suicide attempt by four Muslim lads as irrational, therefore it is not possible. Frankly that is nonsense, people act irrationally to a greater or lesser degree all the time and you cannot simply dismiss inconvenient evidence like the Khan video as 'fake' simply because it does not suit your argument. I have seen no convincing argument other than a few internet posters with no expertise in the area who can claim the videos were faked. So while you may wish to cite speculative comments about military explosives as evidence that things were not as they seem, you still have to explain away why four young asian blokes bought ingedients for home made explosives, and just happened to be on the bus and trains that subsequently exploded. You may wish to believe in some sort of elaborate conspiracy theory about this - but a more straightforward premise would be - that they actually did it.

Indeed, it seems far more patronising and condescending to argue that they could not possibly have done it - why cannot Muslim extremists organise such an action? And frankly this nonsense that if you accept that four young Muslim blokes blew themselves and other innocent people up on 7/7 then somehow you support the war on terror is absolute bollocks. I don't and I never have, nor do I wish to demonise Muslims. Why cannot people accept that - other religions have extremists, why not Muslims? And as for the so called 7/7 truth movement, why not ask someone like Rachel North how those sensitive souls have behaved towards survivors of the bombings. If you view their 'counter evidence' as rational and scientific then frankly I need to ask, what on earth did you do your PHD in?
FFS

Comment #2

the ego has landed?
01.11.2006 18:43
Sorry mate, being published on Indymedia and RINF does not give you bragging rights, nor does it give you room to complain about readers opinions of your article, despite the attention that may draw to you. Take the rough with the smooth.

Get your head down and focus on your research, it's more productive for everyone.
ugh

Comment #3

Published
01.11.2006 19:00
and if you are looking for a job in academia mate, being 'published' actually means getting an article published in a peer reviewed journal, not just sticking something up on the internet - you can try putting it on your CV if you want, but you will probably get short thrift.
academic

Comment #4

Blair is a lier but not on 7/7?
02.11.2006 08:02
We all know he lied about WMD and countless other things so why freak out when the inconsistencies of the official 7/7 story are questioned? What are you people afraid of -- that Blair and co will be found to have lied yet again?

Why throw abuse at anyone who doesn't swallow the official line hook line and sinker? Who are you defending?

There are many questions about 7/7 -- see Ludicrous Diversion:

"On the 7th of July 2005 London was hit by a series of explosions. You probably think you know what happened that day. But you don’t.

The ... all » police have, from the onset of their investigation, chosen to withold from the public almost every bit of evidence they claim to have and have provably lied about several aspects of the London Bombings.

The mainstream news has wilfully spread false, unsubstantiated and unverifiable information, while choosing to completely ignore the numerous inconsistencies and discrepancies in the official story.

The government has finally, after a year, presented us with their official ‘narrative’ concerning the event. Within hours it was shown to contain numerous errors, a fact since admitted by the Home Secretary John Reid. They have continuously rejected calls for a full, independent public inquiry. Tony Blair himself described such an inquiry as a ‘ludicrous diversion’. What don’t they want us to find out? Contact  ludicrousdiversion@hotmail.com"

 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4943675105275097719

 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/09/350822.html

 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/media/2006/09/350866.avi
amazed

Comment #5

well for one thing....
02.11.2006 09:01
....who exactly is freaking out here. The original poster asked for comments on his article and I have given him some - I have merely asked for some answers to a number of issues in a reasonable manner. Perhaps more significantly, where do you get this rather simplistic notion that all reports of the London bombings are controlled by Tony Blair? You seem to have a very reductionist view of how the state functions. Hundreds of people were involved in events that day, yet looking at the diverse range of evidence still fails to convince me of any of these 'occams razor' defying alternative theories.

If the July 7th website is impartial and objective, why on its page about Siddique Khan does it fail to mention any of those people who knew him, like Afzal Choudhry, who stated that it clearly was Khan in the video? - "It makes it more clear that he perpetrated these acts, it was definitely him, it was his voice and his face, that cannot be denied," If the site was as open and honest as it claims to be, it would have at least to acknowledge that such testimony exists. Yet it does not, it simply presents the testimony of those that question the veracity of the video and completely ignores testimonies that do not fit into its pre-determined conclusions. Does this not qualify as disinformation

Similarly, how do you explain the whole purchasing ingredients for home made explosives business. I have read the so called 'rebuttal' to the Observer article on the July 7th 'truth' website, and it is particularly feeble in this respect, seeking to highlight an irrelevant point as to whether or not the purchasing aroused suspicion among shopkeepers. Whether it did or did not is not the issue here, the major question remains - why on earth were they buying these ingredients in the first place and in such large quantities - yet once again, the whole question is sidestepped and avoided. Why? The fact that the four blokes purchased large quantities of chemicals for home made explosives and subsequently found there way onto a bus and trains that exploded seems worthy of slightly more consideration than is given on the 'open and objective' 7/7 truth website.

Similarly, little emphasis is placed on the testimony of people like Danny Biddle who saw Siddique Khan reach into his rucksack just before the explosion took place, though the 'truth' website tries to subtly undermine this rather inconvenient testimony by using the phrase 'claims to have seen Siddique Khan'. Such cautionary phrases are not used when the 'truthseekers' find a fragment of testomny which they beleive they can use to suit their own arguments.

FFS

Comment #6

Point by Point
02.11.2006 14:56
"1. In the London situation, there was no need for a suicide bombing. It could have been, and most probably was, carried out, relatively easily, without endangering oneself."

Anti-terrorism policing in London, particularly at major landmarks and transport junctions, has been tight for years. Many precautions have been taken since the IRA, such as removing bins from the Underground. Most major shops, airports and stations have staff looking out for suspect unattended packages. It's hardly "relatively easy". It's as tricky in central London as it is in many parts of Israel.

"2. Muslim resistance has nothing to gain, and a lot to lose, by engaging in such acts in Europe."

Except if you're an Islamic death cult, intent on jihad. Then it's exactly what you're supposed to be doing. Obviously most sensible people don't think like that. But some do, as the various bombings by Muslims against Muslims have shown. Engaging in acts of violence in Europe is a powerful way of saying "You ignore violence when it's miles away in the Middle East - how do you like it on your doorstep?"

"3. US and UK imperialists are the main beneficiaries of such terrorist actions in Europe."

No they are not. Terrorism damages a country's economy in a multitude of ways, as well as its international reputation. Where's the benefit in that? The July bombings came after the second Iraq war. And they only lent weight to one of the arguments opposing the UK's involvement in the second Iraq war - that it would lead to terrorism in Britain. The Government still deny there is a connection, but the media and the public have made it clear they think that's laughable. It was a huge blow to Blair and made the UK's involvement in Iraq even less popular.

4. Both the imperialists and the leaders of Muslim resistance understand and know these political, military, and logical facts and their policies and actions include these.

That sentence makes no sense. Which "military" and "logical" facts are you talking about, or are you just saying "I think the above three points are right"? Do you really think the "imperialists" have behaved in a logical fashion, throught their military work? Or the Muslim resistance?

With the woolly thinking you've displayed, I can't believe you've really got a valid Phd.
Norville B

Comment #7

Oxford reason
02.11.2006 15:28

Oh - and maybe Oxford Indymedia deleted it because you've never made clear, anywhere in it, why it's relevant to Oxford, rather than the main UK Indymedia site. Just a thought....
Norville B

Comment #8

A few more thoughts before it disappears off the front page
03.11.2006 13:18
‘others reproduce the government information and conclusions, totally uncritically and unquestioningly’

As you are so keen on idealist or hypothetical interpretations of events, perhaps you could begin by clearly outlining your theory of the state and how the state interacts with other governmental and media institutions. If you are going to posit some neo-Gramscian/Chomsky based theory of cultural hegemony over ordinary people achieved through such ‘superstructural’ institutions, perhaps you could begin by delineating where such hegemony ends or breaks down. No system of the control of ideas and information can ever be absolute, or else there would never be any kind of dissent or political resistance apparent within any given society. We would not even be having this conversation. So, there must be limits to the ‘control’ exerted over information and ideas, or what people think and do. What I would like to establish is why you think the government somehow ‘owns’ the events of July 7th. Just because the government produced its own belated narrative over those events, that narrative was made up of a wide range of disparate information, drawn from eyewitnesses, emergency services staff etc. Their experiences and reflections exist independently of the government narrative. I am particularly interested in how you delineate a ‘pure’ from a ‘tainted’ source in this respect. Are all forensic people involved in such investigations part of the conspiracy, are all police officers and emergency services staff? Are they nothing more than evil automatons with no human feelings at all? Do they all routinely go about unquestioningly covering up government murders without a second thought? Please make explicit what your assumptions are in this respect, as such apparent ‘self evident truths’ strike me as childishly simplistic and unsophisticated. Do you see the world largely populated by cartoon villains?

The so called ‘truthseekers’ are supposedly full of compassion for all people, yet simultaneously display a condescending arrogance towards anyone who simply does not share their interpretation of events – see the abuse someone like Rachel North or Danny Biddle have had at the hands of these so called ‘investigators’. I am of the belief that you, like many conspiracy theorists, simply like to label something as ‘official lies’ or ‘disinformation’ if it is thrown up against one of your own arguments, yet somehow feel you and your fellow ‘truthseekers’ can quote from mainstream media sources without a problem if it suits your own purposes. Likewise you can selectively quote certain eyewitness testimony, yet complain of ‘disinformation’ if other, contradictory, eyewitness testimony is offered back to you. If you genuinely have a more sophisticated approach to this issue, then please make explicit what that approach is so we can at least decide if it is being objectively applied in each case. Personally, I do not think you have, but I am happy to be proved wrong.


‘Whatever the nasty and vulgar as well as other critics have reproduced, in their comments, from the government sources, has already been logically, factually, and scientifically addressed and analyzed on the www.julyseventh.co.uk . I cannot do a better job of that and, therefore, would like to refer all the conformists and firm believers in the government information (disinformation) to that site. There, they will find a lot more than the logical and factual refutation of their “facts” and “arguments’


Frankly, even a cursory glance at the contents of the julyseventh website indicates that this is far from the case. This site selectively quotes and openly avoids certain questions far more overtly than any mainstream media source that you criticise. I have already cited a number of examples of ‘unanswered and unasked’ questions which the so called ‘truth’ site does not wish to explore and there are many more. Under ‘Mind the Gaps 2’ when discussing the Khan video, we are told that Khan looked ‘significantly different’ in the video. Yet when you read the press story linked to this statement, we discover that what former associates of Khan went on to say was that: ‘They believed the message had been recorded some weeks or months before the bombings. One acquaintance, Irshad Hussain, thought it could have been recorded as long as a year ago’ The impression that the July Seventh site is trying to give is that these people were questioning whether or not it was Khan in the video, but this is simply not the case – they were merely stating that the recording was made some time ago – no mention of it not being him. This is disinformation at its most blatant. That the video was recorded some time prior to the bombings, possibly before even they had an agreed target for their action, would also explain another so called ‘anomaly’ – that the video message was ‘rather vague’. Yet this rather basic and obvious hypothesis is not mentioned at all by the so called ‘truthseekers’. I could go on and on. Frankly, how you can view the approach of this website as ‘impeccable and scientific’ just indicates to me that you have very low standards as to what constitutes an honest and impartial analysis.
FFS

Response of the author to comments:

To the "sophisticated" exploders of folly-From the author
04.11.2006 13:22

1. To: FFS

You sound like a text-bookish type of person, reproducing parrotized clichés, phrases, and terminology, imagining them to be “sophisticated”. Frankly, I have no use for such pretentious “sophistication”. I try to simplify things rather than make them appear “sophisticated” or complicated. You are muddying the waters to make them look deep. Moreover, you have pecked on me personally for no reason at all except your poisonous and “sophisticated” arrogance and ignorance, most probably, rooted in racism and national chauvinism. Normally, I would have ignored your nonsense completely but a few things need to be clarified briefly. I cannot respond fully to your muddied waters, as it would require writing another article, for which I do not have any time.

Your placing Chomsky and Gramsci in the same category, in relation to cultural hegemony of the superstructural institutions is totally erroneous. Chomsky does not have anything in common with any real Marxists. He is very good at analyzing policies in abstraction but has never been able to relate those policies to their structural and objective origins. He has very little knowledge and understanding of Marxism and whatever little he has to say on that subject is quite bizarre. He himself has described himself as some kind of an anarchist. Gramsci, on the other hand, was an authentic, profound, and creative Marxist. Lumping them together, like you have done, distorts them both.

So, you want me to go into the theory of the state, its interactions with governmental and media institutions, cultural hegemony etc, .in relation to the two brief articles on the London bombings! That would require, at the very least, writing a few chapters for a book. Moreover, it is erroneous to discuss their nature without reference to the politico-economic system in which they are rooted. Their nature and interactions vary in accordance with the socio-economico-political system and class structure, history, and culture of the society. In spite of your irrational demand in this connection, I will address some of these matters below.

I have done in-depth critical studies of political sciences, philosophy, and psychology in various Western societies, including the UK. Moreover, I have academic background in biology and genetics. I have also done in-depth studies of the political economy of capitalism and socialism. I have attempted to synthesize knowledge and research information in many of these areas and have proposed and published a new and original macro-level theory on the bio-social regulation of human nature by social system-science and technology-culture complexes, first version of which was published in an interdisciplinary scientific journal, Journal of Social and Biological Structure (1980, vol. 3, 375-389). It is very unlikely that you would be able to understand that theory or the review and interpretation of research information that went into it. Even the above terminology might appear strange and shocking to you, as “it is not cricket”. The key point I am trying to make is that I am using terminology and concepts that are not found in the textbooks and are quite different and relatively more precise and scientific. For example, instead of using ‘hegemony’ of culture and human nature by superstructural institutions, I am using regulation of human nature and culture by the social system-science and technology-culture complexes. My approach to these matters is quite different than your “sophisticated” textbook stultification. Frankly, I have no respect for the contemporary learned ignoramuses (Ortega y Gasset’s terminology for the present-day academics and scientists), who are terribly brainwashed themselves and are brainwashing their students. I would have thrown away my own Ph.D. long time ago if I did not need it to make a living. I have no respect for it. My ex-wife had more courage and did precisely that. Threw away her Ph.D.

My theory on the biosocial regulation of human nature and culture includes variable and differential regulatory processes. In addition to the mainstream processes, there are also dialectically opposite processes and interactions between them. However, some of the processes in a given society are general and are shared by all the groups, regardless of class and race, or religion etc. This should address your superfluous assertions about cultural hegemony, diversity, dissent etc.

I may be wrong but you appear to be a typically conditioned and molded positivist or neo-positivist. For those who do not know what positivism means: It is a trend in bourgeois philosophy which declares natural sciences to be the sole source of true knowledge and rejects cognitive value of philosophical study, ethics etc. Along with behaviorism, it has established almost complete monopoly and domination over the methodology, subjects, and results of studies in all the social sciences, including philosophy, in all the advanced capitalist countries, particularly the US and UK! It has almost killed all the genuine and authentic philosophy and reduced it to a caricature. It is the ultimate of reductionism. Its adherents want to reduce everything, indeed the whole world and universe, human societies and human nature, all the social and natural sciences within its rigid and narrow boundaries. A major part of the fragmentation of the human nature and behavior that one sees in the advanced capitalist societies, can ultimately be traced to the effects of the domination and monopoly of positivism in society. In spite of its contradictory effects and results, overall, it has done great damages to all the areas of social knowledge, society, and human nature itself. Various varieties of positivism and neo-positivism have dominated the British and American research and educational establishments for a longtime now. These have played a major role in the formation of culture in these countries. When Bertrand Russell, a neo-positivist and great contributor to the development of mathematical logic, attempted to extend such concepts to the knowledge of the whole world, in the field of logical atomism, it ended in total failure. There has been some important opposition to the exclusivity of positivism in the continental Europe, especially Germany, where the importance of inclusion of historical-normative concepts and methodology has also been stressed and implemented. British political science, historically, had important differences from its American counterpart in that that it retained historical-philosophical-humanitarian interests. However, these have been progressively eroding under the onslaught of “knowledge” from the US.

The above matters are of fundamental importance if one wants to get into the discussions of political theory, state, government, culture, hegemony etc. I did not want to get into this discussion because of the length of writing and effort it would require. I have been forced to do that because questions have been raised that go far beyond the scope of the papers posted on the London bombings. I am trying to keep it to a minimum. However, to deal with such topics at all, requires a minimum of explication.

Instead of discussing the work of political scientists in other countries, it is, perhaps, better to focus on those from the UK. Two contrasting approaches are those of Richard Rose and Bob Jessop. Rose’s methodology involves structural-functional analysis and he stresses the importance of differential attitudes towards one’s betters and superiors in the political culture, in addition to his studies of legitimacy, political socialization, recruitment, communication, public opinion, political parties and elections. He also used historical, formal-legal, behavioral methodology in his research. Professor Jessop of the Cambridge University made important contributions to the British political science. He has been one of the most progressive political scientists in the UK. He studied the links of political culture with society’s socio-class structure and showed the inadequacy of former theories of “civility”and deference”. He concluded that deference in regard to the socio-political elites is one aspect of adherence to the dominant system of values in a class-divided society. UK has classes and strata with structured inequalities in the distribution of control and benefits, the most influential and powerful being the various capitalist organizations and institutions and also the traditional upper social and economic classes. Capitalist state predominantly represents the influence and power of these classes and interests. The bureaucratic and military elites play a supportive and subservient role to these rather than an independent one. He describes the whole power structure as institutional integration and maintenance of control through combining hegemony, institutional inertness, and clever implementation of social, economic, political, and cultural power. Institutions and groups such as the trade unions, cooperatives, nationalized industries, and all the ‘non-elites’ are seen as having insignificant power, even though they might be able to disturb the existing balance between the dominant elites and rest of the society. Jessop correlates the power model with the political culture of value-cultural system in Britain. The major effect of this power model being the identification of private enterprise and capitalism with the national interest and the ‘functional necessity’ of inequalities of distribution of benefits in a hierarchically structured society. In his analysis, such a model counteracts the value of changes in the system or regimes.

Professor Jessop’s research and analysis, covers almost all the points you have raised about individual and institutional diversity and uniformity, their integration into the hierarchy of the power system, as well as their actions and decisions, in general and particular matters.

As far as your statements and allegations against the July 7th Truth and Justice Campaign (www.julyseventh.co.uk) are concerned, you seem to have some axe to grind against them. I am in no position to speak on their behalf. Why don’t you address your questions, objections, and criticisms to them directly? I am sure they will respond and try to resolve these matters with you. I have read and thought about their facts, information, analysis, and hypotheses. In my second article, I have evaluated those positively. You are free to disagree with me about that evaluation. But you have no right to pester me, insult me, and engage in petty personal attacks.

This is the response you asked for and you have got it.

2. To “Amazed”:

Thank you for being a human being with a critical and healthy mind and for not being a Rhino, when so many are turning into ones, without even realizing it!

3. To Norville B and FFS:

The explosion of Folly

Some have the misfortune of having mouths and hands through which the hidden inner folly explodes with deafening and mind-numbing noises. Their mouths and hands are too hasty and start blabbering and writing, way ahead of their minds. Afterwards, when they see the folly, it is too late. They curse, clench their teeth, bite their tongues, and want to smash their hands against the rocks. But it is useless. The exploded folly cannot be brought back, cannot be erased. It is on the Internet, on the World Wide Web, where the whole world can see it! How they wish now that their hands had not done that and the folly had remained hidden and they had continued to appear smart, intelligent, educated, and wise! After all, it has been a lifetime of effort to develop the proper facial and eye expressions, intonations, and mechanical movements to create that façade. And now, in a moment of haste, their hands gave them away, letting the folly out so explosively!

Only to: Noville B

You did make my day but a bit too much as I was laughing so much that it kept me from sleeping last night. I had to remember some tragic episodes of the past to try to stop laughing, to go to sleep. In spite of my efforts not to do so, I kept on imagining your naïve, self-confident, and smart looking face at first, before your realization of what your hands had done, but then becoming convoluted, deranged, and enraged after that realization. No need to get too upset though. Such things happen sometime. Besides, no one can identify you. Your exploded and escaped folly cannot be linked to you and there are multiple copies still there. No harm has been done and nothing has been lost.

I have had opponents come at me disguised as friends. This is the first time that a real friend has come disguised as an opponent. Keep on posting, my friend, keep on posting. I have some other articles too on those sites. I hope you do that there too.

Please forgive me for the above humor. Humor is always on expense of someone. Someone may get a laugh or two and no one can identify you. So, no personal harm done.

On the serious side

It is 4:30 AM here. I cannot address all the Point by Point follies. The folly of the first is so obvious that any child will see through that right away. What you are saying there is that it was hard for the London train and bus bombers to get the explosives through the security!!! But, they, whoever they were, all got through. Didn’t they? Otherwise, how could the explosions have occurred? The essential point is that once they got the explosives on the trains and the bus, they could have easily left them there and disembarked, instead of blowing themselves up with them. No sane person would do that if he or she has that choice. Making the choice of exploding oneself with the explosives, instead of just leaving them there and disembarking, requires a very rare and specific type of psychosis and insanity. Were all four of the accused afflicted with that? Impossible. Their profiles also show to the contrary.

By imperialists, I do not mean just their political representatives. The real foundations of imperialism are the giant financial and industrial corporations. It is a truism. There are numerous British political scientists and sociologists whose research and findings you can refer to in that regard, if you need some authoritative source for that, including the above-mentioned Professor Jessop. All these giant corporations are reaping record historical profits, in the US Exxon-Mobile, Halliburton, Bechtel, and Lockheed-Martin etc. as a direct result of the phony war on terrorism. Every few weeks, a new absurd plot is concocted by the government to continue to fuel the fear and rage against terrorism and against Muslims. Every time that happens, including the actual London bombings and the recent fraudulent liquid bomb plots, the ratings of Bush and Republican candidates increase considerably. It has proven to work in the US. However, like here, in the UK, there are contradictory effects of such manufactured or real events. The overall effects of such incidents on the objectives and profits of imperialists are overwhelmingly advantageous. In the UK, the race relations have worsened and attacks against Muslims have increased, after the London bombings. That was one of the primary results, and objectives, of the London bombings as well as the ridiculous “liquid bomb” plot, evidently jointly invented by the Pakistani, British, and American secret services and governments.

My friend, I must stop and go to sleep now. It is 5.00 AM!

Author of the article: Fazal Rahman