Not everybody "got" the ambivalent humor of my Build a Mega-Mosque on Ground Zero proposal. So I'm returning to straightfaced seriousness -- all outrage and no wit. Below is today's letter to the New York Times ombudsman.
The "New York Slimes" slimes Muslims with
Arthur Brisbane, Public Editor
The New York Times
620 Eighth Avenue
New York, NY 10018
Dear Mr. Brisbane,
The article "Mosque Used by 9/11 Plotters Is Closed" published August 9th contains misstatements of fact that appear designed to incite Islamophobia.
The article begins: "The authorities in Hamburg said Monday that they had shut down the mosque where several of the hijackers involved in the Sept. 11 attacks had met..." Its ninth paragraph reads: "The mosque achieved worldwide notoriety after the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001. Mohamed Atta, Marwan al-Shehhi and other members of the group that carried out the attacks had used the mosque as a meeting place."
Atta, al-Shehhi and the "other members of the group" have never been convicted in a court of law of carrying out the 9/11 attacks, nor has any actual evidence against any of them -- and by "evidence" I mean evidence that would stand up in a court of law -- ever been made public. On the contrary, not one shred of evidence has ever placed any of the nineteen alleged hijackers aboard any of the alleged attack planes. Conspicuously missing from the record are boarding passes, official passenger lists, security videos, and testimony from those who would have ticketed and boarded these young men had they actually been on the planes. Additionally, at least ten of the alleged hijackers were reliably reported to have been alive after 9/11, and several others were victims of identity theft and impersonation, apparently by intelligence agents setting them up to be framed for 9/11.
The best short scholarly study of how these nineteen young men were apparently framed for 9/11 is Jay Kolar's "What We Know About the 9/11 Hijackers," published by Elsevier, Europe's leading scholarly publisher.
Kolar's article, which has never been adequately answered by supporters of the official conspiracy theory, shows, at minimum, that there is a robust scholarly debate about the quality of "evidence" against the nineteen alleged hijackers. Therefore, calling these innocent young men -- innocent because they have never been proven guilty in a court of law -- "9/11 plotters," "hijackers," or members of "the group that carried out the attacks" is Islamophobic propaganda, not journalism.
Dr. Kevin Barrett
Ph.D. University of Wisconsin (2004), Arabic/Islamic Studies focus
PS The English-speaking world's leading Mideast journalist, Robert Fisk, has (along with most of the world's Muslim intellectuals) noted that the five-page handwritten document the FBI says it found in Atta's luggage is a ludicrous fraud.
Likewise, America's leading academic Bin Laden expert, Dr. Bruce Lawrence, has called Bin Laden's alleged confession video "bogus." When the authorities plant evidence or accept planted evidence, suspects are routinely deemed "not guilty" for obvious reasons.
For an overview of the subject, see: http://davidraygriffin.com/articles/was-america-attacked-by-muslims-on-911/