EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Chronicle of a Hate Crime Foretold: Muslim-Bashing Has Consequences
The inevitable finally occurred Tuesday evening: An American Muslim taxi driver was violently attacked and nearly killed by a fellow New Yorker who was influenced by the hateful rhetoric and vicious propaganda that has flourished recently. Ahmed Sharif, who was born in Bangladesh and has lived in the United States for twenty-five years, picked up 21-year-old Michael Enright, who, after a few innocuous comments, established that his driver was Muslim and began taunting his religion.
"As the cab inched up Third Avenue and reached 39th Street [in Manhattan], Mr. Sharif said in a phone interview, Mr. Enright suddenly began cursing at him and shouting ‘This is the checkpoint' and ‘I have to bring you down'," the New York Times reported. "‘He was talking like he was a soldier,' Mr. Sharif said. He withdrew a Leatherman knife, Mr. Sharif said, and, reaching through the opening in the plastic divider, slashed Mr. Sharif's throat. When Mr. Sharif turned, he said, Mr. Enright stabbed him in his face, on his arm and on his thumbs. Mr. Sharif said he told him: ‘I beg of you, don't kill me. I worked so hard, I have a family'."
Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin, and Fox News bear considerable responsibility for this attack and for any other hate crimes committed against Muslims in the immediate future. If you continuously shout that "Islam equals Nazism" and "all Muslims are responsible for 9/11," which has been the explicit message of the leaders of the campaign against the Park51 community center, someone like Mr. Enright will eventually translate your rhetoric into action.
While Gingrich and Fox lead the charge, lesser-known local politicians are conveying the anti-Islam message to their communities. Allen West, who is running for Congress in Broward County, Florida, "told a group of supporters that ‘Islam is not a religion' but rather ‘a vicious enemy' that was "infiltrating" the United States." Elsewhere in Florida--not far from the site of a planned Quran-burning on September 11--Congressional candidate Ron McNeil "told a group of high school and middle school students last week that Islam's plan ‘is to destroy our way of life'."
The recent controversy over the Manhattan community center has brought to the surface and intensified our society's deep-seated bigotry toward Muslims. A few myths and facts about the Park51 Community Center, also known as the Cordoba House or, inaccurately, as the "ground zero mosque":
Myths 1 and 2 are captured in the label "ground zero mosque." The proposed building is not a mosque. "The Community Center will feature recreational programs and services for all community members regardless of religious affiliation or faith," explained the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee in an August 23 statement. It will be, "in fact, an interfaith Center." And it is located two long city blocks (roughly the length of two football fields) from the former WTC, and is not even visible from the site of the 9/11 attacks. As Clyde Haberman wrote in the New York Times this week, only exaggerating slightly for comic effect, "Two blocks is equivalent to several miles in other cities or in the suburbs. Your dry cleaner moves two blocks, and it's so long, pal. He'll never see you again. He might as well have relocated to Yonkers."
The presence, another block away, of the "New York Dolls Gentleman's Club"--which I suppose should be called "The Ground Zero Strip Club," if we're going to persist in calling Park51 the "ground zero mosque"--hardly upholds the sacredness of the site, but has provoked no hysteria.
These facts have been widely reported over the last week or so, yet this controversy is still described as the "ground zero mosque" issue in the news media, even by supporters of Park51's constitutional rights.
Myth #3: "Muslims have not condemned the attacks": This is quite false. "American Muslims utterly condemn" the "vicious and cowardly acts," declared the Islamic Society of North America a few hours after the attacks. "No political cause could ever be justified by such immoral acts." This was among the first of a long list of condemnations issued by Muslim organizations and individuals. The Council on American Islamic Relations has compiled a 68-page collection of Muslim repudiations of terrorism.
Myth #4: "Cordoba House," which Park51 was officially called until very recently, invokes the memory of "Muslim conquerors, who symbolized their victory over the Christian Spaniards by transforming a church there into the world's third-largest mosque," announced Newt Gingrich. Dr. Gingrich has a doctorate in History, and should know better. Córdoba is seen by most knowledgeable people as a symbol not of Muslim conquest and triumphalism, but of the relative tolerance, inter-religious harmony, and profound cultural achievements of Islamic Spain. As Carl Pyrdum wrote in an astute commentary for the History News Network, the Córdoba mosque (or Mezquita), a marvelous and inspiring work of architecture, "far from ‘symboliz[ing] their victory' ... was held up by Muslim historians a symbol of peaceful coexistence with the Christians." It was Christian conquerors in the 13th century, not the earlier Umayyad dynasty, who appropriated the building "in an aggressive erasure of history and statement of faith," as Edward Said noted.
Myth #5: The big, unstated myth that underlies the hysteria: "Muslims are collectively guilty for 9/11, and Islam is a violent, un-American religion." Some commentators, such as Mark Williams, until recently a prominent Tea Party leader, are explicit in their bigotry (Williams stated that the Cordoba House would be a "temple to terrorists" where Muslims would "worship their monkey god"). Others are more subtle, but there is no escaping the implication, in all this hysteria over Park51, that all Muslims are responsible for 9/11. Why else would an Islamic center (in reality, a multi-faith center run by Muslims) provoke such a furor? The fact is that twenty Islamist zealots, with the assistance of a few others, were responsible for September 11. The rest of the world's 1.5 billion Muslims, and the Islamic faith itself, had nothing to do with it.
Citizens of the United States have congratulated themselves far too much for transcending racism. The election of President Obama, for example, was seized upon by many over-optimistic (or, in some cases, cynical and calculating) people as proof that we now live in a "post-racial" society. Thanks to the courageous efforts of civil-rights campaigners and activists of previous generations, this society did indeed become a more civilized place over the last fifty years. But the cancer of racism and ethnic bigotry--this country's original sin--never vanished, and over the last two years we have slid dangerously backward. Bigotry against Muslims, and also against African Americans and Latinos, can now be expressed more openly and loudly than in many years.
Professor Gingrich, Glenn Beck, and Bill O'Reilly--who are only the most persistent within the deafening chorus of anti-Muslim hate speech--owe an answer to Talat Hamdani, whose son was one of several dozen Muslims killed in 9/11. "Why are we paying the price? Why are we being ostracized?" asked Hamdani of an Associated Press reporter. "America was founded on the grounds of religious freedom," and opposition to the cultural center "is un-American. It's unethical. And it is wrong."Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...

42 Comments so far
Show Allfrom the article:
~ The fact is that twenty Islamist zealots, with the assistance of a few others, were responsible for September 11. ~
how is a sentence like this allowed to go unquestioned?
If we all get to say whatever we want, and call it fact, here's mine:
The fact is that Islamist zealots weren't responsible for September 11, the United States government, with the assistance of a few others, was...
Thank you. I believe that also, although I can't say who really did it but I feel certain explosives brought down the buildings. How it was all done I don't know. The government took all the evidence from the largest crime scene in modern history and sold it as scrap to China or somewhere. Normally evidence would be kept and examined, but of course, they (Bush and his gang) had already "solved" the crime to their satisfaction. Anyhow, thanks for the reminder, and remember there are plenty other people who also don't believe the official party line about 911.
Yes, clearly Santa Claus was involved somehow.
It always pleases me when true believers in the Official Story can't make a real argument and simply use sarcasm and ridicule. There are enough questions to justify a new, impartial investigation, and that's what 911 Truth is about. If you true believers are right, you should welcome the investigation as an opportunity to prove your point.
I noticed you didn't bother to address WT7. You asked what's not covered in the official report, and there's your answer.
Maybe it didn't go unquestioned because its a fact. There were hundreds of witnesses who saw the perps board the planes, phone calls from passengers on the doomed planes, video at the airport.
The doubters? Well for starters there is that French guy who claimed the Pentagon was hit by a missile. Which he noted, apparently, from across the Atlantic. So I guess my colleague who was looking out his office window and saw the plane hit is part of a vast cover-up conspiracy.
Hate to burst your psychotic little bubble, but for all the crap that has been done covertly by the US Government, 9/11 isn't part of it. Maybe you should just go stand in the corner with the birthers.
You're wrong on pretty much every point, and 20 minutes of serious research would prove that to you.
Perps on the planes: Nope--no proof of that. Their names were not on the passenger lists.
The calls from the planes? Wrong again. Even the FBI now says those calls never happened.
Video at the airport. Sorry. The images of Atta are from a totally different airport. Look it up.
If your friend really saw the plane hit the Pentagon from his office window, that could be easily corroborated with one of the 85 videos that were confiscated. But we've never been allowed to see those videos. Does that seem suspicious to you? Or maybe the hijackers were warlocks too and they confiscated all those videos.
How's your psychotic bubble of denial right about now?
I agree, Dubet. I saw this sentence in an article yesterday. How can an TOTALLY UNPROVEN (and hearsay, if you ask me) statement like that get to go printed in an article as if it is fact?
Also, I have noticed that narcissistic sociopaths always blame other people for the exact things they themselves are doing or have done. I see "Islam equals Nazisim" as the Repukicans finally admitting THEY themselves are the Nazis. The Republicans are practicing Facism at its worst -- they truly ARE Nazis with not exaggeration. Plus "Muslims are responsible for 9/11" -- ok, they also finally admitting THEY themselves are responsible for 9/11. The whole lot of them are a cancer on the world's society.
So, the Republicans are responsible for 9/11?
Yes, of course, it couldn't have been committed by people of color - it must have been Old Rich White Men. They are the only ones capable of evil in the world.
Some say that Timothy McVey was brought back to life by . . . I forget (by Whomever it is that does that sort of thing).
A Bandar Bush (in Saudi talk – ‘Bandar’ means ‘burning’) ordered the Zealot to fruitfully multiply himself into multiple box-cutter guys, some have said. (This gets into this whole Miracle thing, which I don’t yet understand fully.)
I get somewhat confused with details, but some say most Americans agree with this.
Wait . . . some say the story has not yet been properly presented on the FBT (Fair and Balanced Terrorist) fear channel?
Haha, right on!
Myth #6: The government's official explanation for 9/11.
I'm heartened by the comments from informed people on this site, and I was sickened by the line,
"The fact is that twenty Islamist zealots, with the assistance of a few others, were responsible for September 11."
19 cave-dwelling Arabs can't shut down a trillion dollar defense industry.
Two planes can't bring down three buildings in Manhattan (anyone who doesn't know about Building 7, look it up).
The put options, the molten metal, the explosions, the destruction of evidence, the intimidation of witnesses and critics, the billions in profits after the fact--this is all Criminology 101, people.
Demand a new investigation.
Some people just can't face the fact that a few determined people can cause such a calamity. But they can.
Just as there are those who never will admit that a lone, sociopathic gunman can take out a beloved President from a 6th floor window. There has to be some vast evil conspiracy involved.
Fuel explodes. A plane full of jet fuel traveling at over 500 mph that slams into a steel building...explodes. When steel is subject to a high temperature, SUCH AT THAT AT WHICH JET FUEL BURNS, it deforms and weakens. When there is 30 stories of additional building above that point, it collapses. Building floors are meant to support the weight of that part of the building that is above them, not absorb the force of that weight falling on them.
The fact is that no one has come up with a remotely plausible alternate explanation that matches with the known facts. Or with anything that can't be explained by the "official" version.
The collapse of WT7, already mentioned by another person, was not explained. In fact, it wasn't addressed at all in the official 9/11 report.
You're very selective about what "facts" you put forth.
You say yourself that at burning-jet-fuel temperatures, steel "deforms and weakens." Fair enough.
How do you explain the pools of molten metal that were discovered under all three WTC collapses? That was not explained by the official version.
The speed of Bldg. 7's collapse is not explained in the "official" version and defies the laws of physics.
You use the term "remotely plausible." How can something that is in clear violation of the laws of physics be "remotely plausible."
The fact is, it can't.
Debate over. You came in second. Thanks for playing.
If you'd like to do some serious research, you're welcome to try again.
I agree with dubet [3:36 pm], Frodnonag [6:35 pm], Truthseeker58 [4:51 pm], and nomorebush [7:23 pm].
Which are all of the comments so far.
It's a refreshing consensus that rejects the preposterous Official Conspiracy Theory pinning the blame on Nineteen Lone Nuts in the thrall of a diabolical Arch-Supervillain.
Demand or no demand, though, I'm not sanguine about the prospects of a real investigation, sorry to say; as with the JFK assassination and a string of other Merry Mixups, ignorance, complacency, denial, and most of all power trumps truth.
And now I'm getting the hell out of here before the usual Trutherphobes show up with to rumble with their Occam's Razor™ switchblades and the chains and brass knuckles of their Unassailable Command of Adult Science and Engineering.
I may peek in later, if my scrolling finger has enough stamina to scroll past the lively crossfire that shrinks the thread down to fortune-cookie message dimensions.
You won't get an erudite conspiracy discussion like this in the mass media. This is why I come to CommonDreams: the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth! It is not coincidence that Obama did NOT investigate that dick, Cheney's crimes, along with sidekick Little GW Bush-League. Can you say "in cahoots"? They can!
No one is derailing a thread. Hate crimes against Muslims didn't happen before 9/11, so talking about the lies of that day is absolutely on point.
If you can contradict one of my following facts, I will buy you a beer.
Building 7 collapsed at free fall speed. The government admits this now (look it up). That is scientifically impossible without explosives. Are you saying Al Qaeda placed those explosives?
Jet fuel can't melt steel (look it up). There was molten metal beneath all three buildings in Manhattan. Does that seem odd to you?
Several hijackers are still alive (look it up). Does that seem suspicious to you?
Steel girders weighing several tons were ejected laterally from the twin towers more than 500 feet. Does that seem likely from a gravity induced collapse?
I don't think al Qaeda could have confiscated all the videos of whatever hit the Pentagon within minutes of the attack. Do you?
Did al Qaeda make the BBC report the collapse of Building 7 before 20 minutes before it happened? Do you find it odd that they reported it before it happened?
I know someone personally who saw the plane hit the Pentagon. Furthermore, there is a very busy freeway in plain sight of the side of the Pentagon that was struck. Do you think that if it was a missile that no one would have come forward to the media? Funny that those who claim it was a missile were nowhere in sight of the place at the time.
The fire didn't have to melt the steel, just weaken it enough to no longer support the weight above it. Plus the impact of a 500 mph jet is significant in itself. And if you knew anything about the design of the WTC towers, you would know that they were built with much lighter support beams than would be expected in a building that size, as the exterior walls were designed to be supportive.
And which hijackers are still alive? I am sure it wouldn't be difficult to go to an Arab country and find someone with the same Arab name as one of the hijackers; I'm sure there are plenty of Bill Walton's out there who never played pro basketball.
I'll have an IPA, if you don't mind.
" Do you think that if it was a missile that no one would have come forward to the media"
Is it a statement or an assertion or an expectation? Or is ita given?
May be you can clarify why the media stopped persuing the "dancing Israeli" and "the Urban Moving company " or the instant message from Odigo?
Following anthrax even , did the media ask FBI how somebody could send a letter to them( FBI) about mailing of anthrax before the actual mailing and try to implicate an Egyptian?
Did media listen to Hanx or Md El baredi or Iraqi scientist and Sddams's relatives on WMD ?
Did media ask why the CIA and Pentagon was making videos on Saddam and on Bin Laden?
Is media listening now on Iran from the sceptics?
911 was engineered by men and by planes.Thats all we know and thats all could be confirmed nothing more .
You don't mention the molten metal. I wonder why. I'll ask again: How do you explain the molten metal that was found under all three WTC buildings?
You don't know anyone who saw a plane hit the Pentagon. You may know someone who thinks they saw a plane hit the Pentagon, and that could be easily corroborated by one of the 80+ videos that were confiscated. I wonder why the government won't show us the footage of what your "friend" saw.
The plane that your "friend" saw hit the Pentagon was pretty amazing. It didn't hit the lawn, even though it was flying about an inch above the lawn at 500+ mph. It made a really small hole in the facade, much smaller than a Boeing. The fireball was so intense that it VAPORIZED the plane and all the luggage and seats, but somehow let a passport of one of your "hijackers" emerge in legible condition. What are those Arab passports made of anyway? Those things are amazing. Too bad they didn't build the Pentagon out of Arab passport paper. That stuff can withstand anything.
Waleed M. Alshehri - Alive
Wail M. Alshehri - Alive
Abdulaziz Alomari - Alive
Mohand Alshehri - Alive
These guys don't just have the same names as the guys in the official government conspiracy theory, they are the guys in the official government conspiracy, and the government has never changed the list of hijackers.
Are you still buying the government's story?
Really?
No beer for you.
Believe me, I have plenty of condemnation for the dems who championed war, lied about 9/11, sanctioned torture, and continued to give the country away to big banks, big war, big pharma, and big everything else.
I've said this all along: Illegal war is still wrong, even if a democrat is president.
Torture is still wrong, even if a democrat is president.
Lies about 9/11 are still wrong, even if a democrat is president.
I have no patience for the Obama kool-aid drinkers. If you are willing to call them out along with Bush, Cheney, et al, then you and I have a lot in common.
What specifically of what I said is "implausible"? I never characterized this as a Republican plot. There is plenty of blame to go around on the Dem side.
You tell me I'm wasting everyone's time with my "yodeling" (a colorful term, to be sure). I don't see it that way. I'm the guy who is against illegal war, torture, and false flag events. What do you stand for?
thank you nomorebush for this
Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin, and Fox News bear considerable responsibility for this attack
I beg to differ...these three pieces of shit bear ALL the responsibility....just like the guy on Rwanda radio did.
Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin, and Fox News bear ALL the responsibility...just like the Rwanada "cockaroach" radio announcer did.
"Williams stated that the Cordoba House would be a "temple to terrorists" where Muslims would 'worship their monkey god'"
Mr Williams seems to be conflating one group of brown-skinned people with another and has converted Hanuman of the Hindus to Islam. That is likely to inflame the passions of another couple of billion or so people of both religions.
""Muslims are collectively guilty for 9/11, " The double standard is clear, Americans may bomb and destroy your country but we are not collectively responsible, only you are.
"The fact is that twenty Islamist zealots, with the assistance of a few others, were responsible for September 11."
Let's be accurate and make that "alleged to be responsible for..."
And lets be accurate and say "Hitler ALLEGEDLY ordered the invasion of Poland, France and the USSR", and "Ted Bundy ALLEGEDLY murdered dozens of young women", and "The Yankees ALLEGEDLY won the 2009 World Series".
If you really want to be accurate and not just make belittling remarks, you could say that Hitler and Co. perpetrated a false flag event with the Reichstag fire as a pretense for seizing power and aggressive war. I wonder what we could learn from that...
Actually, verno, to use allegedly in those situations would be neither accurate nor true. The term 'allegedly" is a term of art used prior to a trial and conviction. Perhaps you are unaware of this meaning. Ted Bundy received a trial and was convicted. That is the minimum requirement in our country. (Make that, "used to be the minimum requirement.") Perhaps you forgot that there hasn't been a trial regarding the 911 attacks and no one has been convicted.
Hitler's ordered invasions are a well known part of history, with many witnesses at the time, and is easily verified, unlike the 911 attacks in which the names of the alleged perpetrators were announced by the FBI, quite possibly by simply releasing the names of all the male Muslims who were passengers on the affected aircraft. How can we know what methodology the FBI used to make that claim?
And as for the Yankees, even though many would prefer it to have been otherwise, this feat was widely witnessed by millions of people, thereby eliminating the conditions necessity for using the term 'allegedly."
And lets be accurate and say "Hitler.."
There was a trial called Nuremberg , out in the open.
There was an invasion by Hitler of Poland as was that of Iraq and Afghanistan and pakistan by Bush. Who needs confirmation when missile and phosphorus fall like monsoon rain and the downpour is praised at the homecountry as the graetest achievement of a free society, ( let me make it more explicit the incident is being confirmed by both the perpetrator and the victim).
Now help us understand why Bush did not provide any evidence of wrongdoing by Osama to Mullah omar? Was it arrogance or lack of evidence or both?
How many of those 19 hijackers were later found alive ? Why 911 commission was given a confession obtained at torture ( 200 waterboarding )as evidence of wrongdoing and nothing else to back up the claims ( Oh!! we have the tapes of accecptance of responisbility after tape of denial by Osama .Now we have tapes made by CIA ).How is that within 10 hours of attack , ziocons were asking for nuking Saddam! Was not it supposed to be a time for grief and sombre planning after gathering of detail? That combined cacophany of neocons and Israel sounded like 911 had offered them an opportunity of divvying up the real estate of a slain grandmother before even the body had turned cold!
Let's put the other foot in the mouth. McVey was an Irish Catholic when he blew up the Federal Building in Oklahoma City.
Obviously, it was either a "Christian" or a Catholic plot against America. We should have gone out seeking Catholics and brutalizing them. We should have started vandalizing and destroying cathedrals. Perhaps we should have nuked the Vatican and carpet bombed Ireland. Perhaps the citizens of Oklahoma should hate "Christians" because the Fed Building was destroyed by a "Christian."
Somehow, that didn't happen. He was tried, convicted, and executed (some say for the same reason Saddam was hanged, so there would be no answers in the witness box about how we built up Saddam Hussein, supported him, supplied him, until he started playing games with Petrodollars. Then, he had to go.) Similar questioning could have brought out some interesting connections between, say, McVey and the CIA.
McVey didn't say Jesus or God or Christianity was why he bombed Oklahoma, Al Qaeda did claim jihad/ Allah as their reason for the 9/11 attack. Your comparison is completely pointless.
I don't purport to know the truth about 9/11, there are probably few men alive who do. But I don't put it past certain evil men within the US gov't to LET something like this happen so they could use it for their own ends. I can't prove this to be true any more than verno could prove it to be false. But it should be pretty clear to anyone with an ounce of sense that there is much about the events of that day that were actively covered up by our government. Further, it is clear that there were some folks within our government whose political and financial fortunes benefitted tremendously from the events of that day, and I think few can deny that if the Bush Administration was anything, it was a criminal gang of thugs for whom the ends always justified any means.
I have now finished reading the immensely interesting book "The Last Call" by Daniel Okrent. It deals, among others, with the machinations by behind-the-scenes political puppeteers of the Prohibition Movement. For that reason alone this book tells me much about the political landscape and its puppeteers of today.
There is no doubt on my mind that there are political and financial puppeteers behind the "Tea Party" and other anti-government, anti-incumbent movements. Their objective is to revoke every social legislation enacted by various administrations since 1932; then to keep labor wages permanently depressed. In other words: "back to the 19th Century cloaked with their mantra "back to the founding fathers" presumably without chattel slavery. They failed to do that in toto with Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II but they, like the "prohibitionists" who failed on their first try, have not given up. Glenn Beck is their "drummer".
Okrent pointed out how "fear-mongering" about the effects of alcohol on health was a crucial ingredient of the Prohibition Movement. Make no mistake. The fear-mongering about Muslims, illegal immigrants, gays and lesbians is not a diversionary tactics; it is part and parcel of the main attack, of the main fear mongering.
As an aside: during an interview of the pastor in Florida who is organizing a "burn the Koran day" it was never mentioned that the Nazis had their "burn the Jewish-Communist books" in early 1933.
This is pretty far out. The author singles out Gingrich, Palin, and O'Reilly, and is denounced in fevered (but only semi-literate) language as an apologist for the Democrats and their foreign policy, while various other wackos use this article as an opportunity to peddle conspiracy theories--which happen to be irrelevant to this opinion piece. The sentence about "20 Islamist zealots," obviously, was intended to point out that the huge majority of the world's Muslims bear no responsibility for 9/11 -- not to instigage a debate about the precise origins and execution of the attacks. It would be helpful if the folks who post comments could confine themselves to the issues being discussed, rather than taking off into bizarre flights of fancy.
The comments posted here are absolutely not "bizarre flights of fancy." Without the lies of 9/11, there would be no Muslim bashing in this country. There would obviously be no hate-mongering discussions about a "ground zero mosque."
If I accuse you of stealing my car (when, in fact, you didn't), and then I want to talk about a bunch of issues relating to that, I'm pretty sure you would insist on backing up and pointing out that my original premise was based on a lie.
Right?
"Right?" No, wrong; Muslim-bashing has been a national sport since at least the early 1970s, although certainly you're correct that 9/11 has greatly exacerbated it. Nonetheless, the issues raised by this article (rabid Muslim-bashing being translated into violence; myths about the "ground zero mosque") are worthy of discussion, and are independent of the theories about 9/11 that you and others have raised.
The issues raised by this article are not independent "of the theories about 9/11" that I and others have raised. Not at all. I maintain that the article would never have been written without the lies of 9/11. They are inextricably linked.
You're correct that Americans didn't learn hatred or xenophobia on Sept. 11, though. It just got a lot worse and out in the open that day. If we can tell the truth about what really happened, it will make at least some people rethink their anti-Muslim stance.