Below is the exchange between Tom Murphy and ThomasMC (editor)
Dear editor:
I am disappointed that you chose to run the article "Never Again" by Norma Sherry. It had this very troubling paragraph:"Rumors abounded after 911 that mysteriously Jews didn't show up to work that day, that 911 was retribution to the U.S. for their misguided support of the Zionist country, Israel. However outlandish and absurd these contradictions to the reality may be, there remain individuals willing to propagate such falsities for the mere chance to rid us of the bothersome, loathsome Jew."
I have contacted Ms. Sherry and she says she "doesn't believe that 911 had anything to do with Israel."
This is an outrageous statement since one of the motives for the 9/11 attack was indeed anger at Israeli polices. I have explained this to Ms. Sherry but clearly she wants to deny the reality of the motives and the fact that Bush lied to the nation about why we were attacked.
New Priorities Council is working hard to set the record straight and expose President Bush as a liar. Please don't undermine our efforts by spreading misinformation. Please provide the correct information, posting Ms. Sherry's article is irresponsible and disrespectful. I have also written an article about Bush's 9/11 lie: Bush lied about 9/11 terrorists' motives
Tom Murphy

ThomasMC responds:

So, you espouse that ugly rumor that all jews were complicit in 9/11, and were warned to stay away from the towers???

Tom Murphy writes back:

No, I don't and I didn't write to you about that. I think that should be clear from the context since I only dealt with the motives for 9/11 in my letter to you. I bolded the section in Ms. Sherry's paragraph that I was writing about and the rest of my letter dealt with that statement.
Here is just the bolded parts: Rumors abounded after 911 that 911 was retribution to the U.S. for their misguided support of the Zionist country, Israel.
That was the topic of my letter as you can see if you read the rest of my e-mail:
I have contacted Ms. Sherry and she says she "doesn't believe that 911 had anything to do with Israel."
This is an outrageous statement since one of the motives for the 9/11 attack was indeed anger at Israeli polices. I have explained this to Ms. Sherry but clearly she wants to deny the reality of the motives and the fact that Bush lied to the nation about why we were attacked.
New Priorities Council is working hard to set the record straight and expose President Bush as a liar. Please don't undermine our efforts by spreading misinformation. Please provide the correct information, posting Ms. Sherry's article is irresponsible and disrespectful. I have also written an article about Bush's 9/11 lie: Bush lied about 9/11 terrorists' motives
Could you please deal with the subject of this letter? It is wrong for someone to lie to the American people about why we were attacked. President Bush is lying to the American people about a matter of life and death. Ms Sherry is denying a basic motive for the 9/11 attacks. It is manipulative, deceitful and disloyal to deny that hatred of Israeli policies is one of the motives for the 9/11 attacks.
You didn't respond to the topic, I hope you are not making the outrageous claim that the 9/11 attacks had nothing to do with a reaction to Israeli polices and US support of them.
For many years Osama bin Laden has made clear what his motives are. He said in a 1999 interview, "The International Islamic Front for Jihad against the U.S. and Israel has issued a crystal-clear fatwa calling on the Islamic nation to carry on jihad aimed at liberating holy sites. The nation of Muhammad has responded to this appeal. If the instigation for jihad against the Jews and the Americans in order to liberate Al-Aksa Mosque and the Holy Ka'aba Islamic shrines in the Middle East is considered a crime, then let history be a witness that I am a criminal."
Osama bin Laden said after 9/11, "We swore that America wouldn't live in security until we live it truly in Palestine. This showed the reality of America, which puts Israel's interest above its own people's interest. America won't get out of this crisis until it gets out of the Arabian Peninsula, and until it stops its support of Israel."
On February 14, 2003, he again recaps the motives that he has mentioned for years: " ... in 1995, the explosion in Riyadh took place, killing four Americans, in a clear message from the people of that region displaying their rejection and opposition to the American policy of bankrolling the Jews and occupying the Land of the Two Holy Sanctuaries. The following year, another explosion in Al-Khobar killed 19 Americans and wounded more than 400 of them, prompting them to move their bases from the cities to the desert. Then in 1998, the Mujahideen warned America to cease their support to the Jews and to leave the Land of the Two Holy Sanctuaries, but the enemy refused to heed this warning, so the Mujahideen, with the ability from Allah, smashed them with two mighty smashes in East Africa. Then again America was warned, but she refused to pay attention to the warnings, so the Mujahideen destroyed the American Destroyer, the USS Cole, in Aden, in a martyrdom operation, striking a solid blow to the face of the American military and at the same time, exposing the Yemeni Government as American agents, similar to all the countries in the region."

He then goes on to respond to Bush's lies: "... the Mujahideen saw the black gang of thugs in the White House hiding the Truth, and their stupid and foolish leader, who is elected and supported by his people, denying reality and proclaiming that we (the Mujahideen) were striking them because we were jealous of them (the Americans), whereas the reality is that we are striking them because of their evil and injustice in the whole of the Islamic World, especially in Iraq and Palestine and their occupation of the Land of the Two Holy Sanctuaries. Upon seeing this, the Mujahideen decided teach them a lesson and to take the war to their heartland. On the blessed Tuesday 11 September 2001, while the Zionist-American Alliance was targeting our children and our people in the blessed land of Al-Aqsa, with American tanks and planes in the hands of the Jews, and our people in Iraq were suffering from the America's sanctions upon them, and the Islamic world was very far away from establishing Islam properly."
A German friend of Mohammed Atta is quoted as describing Atta as "most imbued actually about Israeli politics in the region and about US protection of these Israeli politics in the region. And he was to a degree personally suffering from that."
The Wall Street Journal wrote about the grievances, ("America in the Eyes of the Arab World: A Complex Mix of Emotions Fuels Hate" Sept 14, 2001): "The main political grievance is well-known, frequently aired in the region's media: America's alleged double standard in defending Israel's occupation of Arab lands while continuing to hit Iraq with economic sanctions and military attacks for what some Muslims consider essentially the same behavior. For many Arabs and Muslims, this humiliating disparity is compounded by the fact that so many of their own authoritarian rulers have not only acquiesced in this state of affairs but also actively helped maintain it by cooperating with the U.S. military."
These facts point to a motive for attacking the WTC in 2001 that is consistent with the motive expressed by terrorists in a letter sent to the New York Times after the 1993 bombing attack of the WTC, "We declare our responsibility for the explosion on the mentioned building. This action was done in response for the American political, economical, and military support to Israel the state of terrorism and to the rest of the dictator countries in the region." It is also the same motive that Mir Aimal Kasi had for killing CIA employees Frank Darling and Lansing Bennett outside CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia in 1993. Mir Aimal Kasi said, "What I did was a retaliation against the US government for American policy in the Middle East and its support of Israel."
The American people have a right to know why they are in harm's way. Please don't insult their dignity by propagating falsehoods like the one in Norma Sherry's article. Running her article without a correction does wrongs your readers. Don't rob them of their right to know the truth, spreading ignorance takes away the people's freedoms.
Clearly Ms. Sherry has no respect for the American people, she prefers that they get fed lies about why we were attacked. Her rude letter to me ended with mocking my organization's efforts!: "I find your self-promoting position of setting us free with truth full of puffery and self-importance. As far as I can tell you have no position to "undermine"."
I think insisting truth and justice is a position and one that is a necessity. Ignorance threatens our freedom and today more than ever our very lives. "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." - Thomas Jefferson
Tom Murphy

ThomasMC responds (the section highlighted here in blue was underlined text in the original e-mail):

First of all, if you are going to quote your previous email, it is dishonest to edit out the part that I was referring to:
very troubling paragraph:"Rumors abounded after 911 that mysteriously Jews didn't’t show up to work that day, that 911 was retribution to the U.S. for their misguided support of the Zionist country, Israel.
the rumor wasn't about 911 being retribution, it was about jews not showing up for work that day, and you had Rumors abounded after 911 in bold, indicating that is what you disagreed with.
Second, if you read her article, you know that it was not about 9/11, but anti-semitism. She is entitled to her opinion that 911 didn't have anything to do with Israel. I personally believe that our blind support of Israel has caused severe anti-americanism in the world, and may have been a factor. Then again, 911 may have had nothing to do with al-Qaeda at all. There is certainly enough reason to suspect our own gov't was behind it. But as my ABOUT page clearly points out, I don't necessarily agree with every word that is published on this site. It would have far less content than it does if it did. Tell me, do you contact all the other websites and ask if they agree with absolutely every word of every article they publish?
You are welcome to submit a piece on how Israel's policies (and the neocon support of zionism) may have brought about 9/11, but I'm certainly not going to ask Ms. Sherry to rewrite a piece on antisemitism to focus on the cause of 9/11 for you.
Quite frankly, (and I speak as a member of the jewish community) you are coming off just as some in the jewish community do, trying to hijack the issue for your own cause. Not everything is about anti-semitism, and not everything is about 9/11.
Respectfully,
ThomasMc.
Tom Murphy responds:
Dear ThomasMC:

Your comments are in << brackets >>
<< First of all, if you are going to quote your previous email, it is dishonest to edit out the part that I was referring to:
very troubling paragraph:"Rumors abounded after 911 that mysteriously Jews didn't’t show up to work that day, that 911 was retribution to the U.S. for their misguided support of the Zionist country, Israel. >>
No it is not "dishonest" to "edit out" the part you keep referring to. I was trying to explain to you that my e-mail dealt just with the bolded parts and I told you exactly what I was doing in my e-mail which was pasting just the bolded parts. As I explained in my previous e-mail. "I bolded the section in Ms. Sherry's paragraph that I was writing about and the rest of my letter dealt with that statement. Here is just the bolded parts: Rumors abounded after 911 that 911 was retribution to the U.S. for their misguided support of the Zionist country, Israel."
<< the rumor wasn't about 911 being retribution, it was about jews not showing up for work that day, and you had Rumors abounded after 911 in bold, indicating that is what you disagreed with. >>
Yes, the "rumors" she refers to were about 9/11 being retribution, she was writing that both "Jews not showing up for work" and "that 9/11 was retribution."
This is what it means when you have two sentence fragments (shown here in green and red) separated by a comma following the first part (shown here in blue):
Rumors abounded after 911 that mysteriously Jews didn't show up to work that day, that 911 was retribution to the U.S. for their misguided support of the Zionist country, Israel.
<< Second, if you read her article, you know that it was not about 9/11, but anti-semitism. >>
Actually it was about anti-Semitism and many things she considers to be examples of anti-Semitism including in effect telling the truth about 9/11. Now that you understand what she was actually saying in the above sentence highlighted in blue, green and red I think you should be able to see just how outrageous it is what Ms. Sherry has done.
This is a serious problem because she considers saying that hatred of Israeli polices is one of the motives for 9/11 to be spreading "rumors." And she concluded that people who do talk about this are anti-Semites! She writes, "However outlandish and absurd these contradictions to the reality may be, there remain individuals willing to propagate such falsities for the mere chance to rid us of the bothersome, loathsome Jew."
ThomasMc, I should hope you see the seriousness of her ignorant and reckless allegations. Using the charge of anti-Semitism as a weapon to silence those that are speaking the truth about a matter of life and death is grotesque. It doesn't mitigate the seriousness of what she is doing if she is doing it out of ignorance. I laid out the facts and she didn't respond at all to them and instead wrote "I find your self-promoting position of setting us free with truth full of puffery and self-importance." Frankly I think she is intentionally using smear tactics to intimidate those that dare point out facts she would rather swept under the rug.
<< She is entitled to her opinion that 911 didn't have anything to do with Israel. >>
Just as any one is entitled to think any sort of dishonest idea. But what she is doing with her article is outrageous and dangerous.
I don't know why you didn't understand the meaning of the sentence in that paragraph of hers that ends with: "However outlandish and absurd these contradictions to the reality may be, there remain individuals willing to propagate such falsities for the mere chance to rid us of the bothersome, loathsome Jew." Perhaps you didn't want to admit to yourself what it actually meant since then it is seriously wrong.
<< I personally believe that our blind support of Israel has caused severe anti-americanism in the world, and may have been a factor. >>
"May have been a factor"? Please review the facts again, this isn't a "hunch." But since you acknowledge that "our blind support of Israel has caused severe anti-Americanism," I hope you can see the seriousness of what Ms. Sherry is doing. The American people deserve to know the truth. Ms. Sherry's letter spreads ignorance and undermines efforts to get the truth out by smearing those that dare tell the truth as anti-Semites.
<< Then again, 911 may have had nothing to do with al-Qaeda at all. There is certainly enough reason to suspect our own gov't was behind it. But as my ABOUT page clearly points out, I don't necessarily agree with every word that is published on this site. It would have far less content than it does if it did. >>
I suspect you wouldn't put an article on your site that says we need a "chance to rid us of the bothersome, loathsome Jew." And what do you think people would think of your web site if you did have an article on your site that told the people we need "chance to rid us of the bothersome, loathsome Jew."? I too think anti-Semitism is a serious thing and very destructive. And it can be very destructive and hurtful for those that are labeled as "anti-Semites" and that includes those labeled rightly or wrongly. It is vicious and horribly wrong to use the label "anti-Semite" as a smear weapon to further the Israeli agenda.
<< Tell me, do you contact all the other websites and ask if they agree with absolutely every word of every article they publish? >>
Again you are saying this is no big deal. Ms Shelly is using a very serious smear tactic that is devious and dangerous. This isn't an issue of "just a word" or "agreeing with me." Ms. Sherry's article can cause harm by falsely labeling decent Americans who then can suffer bad consequences and this undermines efforts to inform the public about basic facts they deserve to know about matters of life and death. What Ms. Sherry is doing is as ugly as someone writing that we need a "chance to rid us of the bothersome, loathsome Jew." She is smearing innocent people with that same ugliness and stigmatizing them as anti-Semites. This undermines decent truthful Americans from reaching out to fellow citizens to protect our rights. It intimidates people and reinforces lies that do indeed serve the agenda of a foreign country.
<< You are welcome to submit a piece on how Israel's policies (and the neocon support of zionism) may have brought about 9/11, but I'm certainly not going to ask Ms. Sherry to rewrite a piece on antisemitism to focus on the cause of 9/11 for you. >>
I am not asking you to have her focus on the cause of 9/11. I am asking you and her to stop spreading vicious slander against those that speak the truth.
<< Quite frankly, (and I speak as a member of the jewish community) you are coming off just as some in the jewish community do, trying to hijack the issue for your own cause. >>
How do you think you and Norma Sherry are coming off? Some people my get the impression that you and Ms. Sherry are just jerking me around by pretending not to understand basic things and are using seriously dangerous and offensive tactics. This isn't "my cause," the people should not be lied to and no one should be labeling people offensive terms for standing up for the truth.
<< Not everything is about anti-semitism, and not everything is about 9/11. >>
Yet this is about anti-Semitism begin used as an underhanded smear tactic to suppress facts about 9/11. The issue I raise is about the cause of truth and acting honorably and respecting other people. The right thing to do is not to spread dangerous lies. Why don't you contact Ms. Sherry and ask her is she is labeling people who say Israel is one of the motives for 9/11 as anti-Semites? Then remove the sentence that makes that connection. I noticed too that she has deemed words like anti-Zionism as "derogatory terms." She is out of control.
Sincerely,
Tom Murphy
P.S. I would like to write an article about the efforts to get the truth out. In the very short time I have been doing this it has already turned very ugly and dangerous. When I was talking to three people who referred to themselves as "we" when talking about Israel one of them lit a book of matches and threw it at my face. I don't deserve to be attacked for speaking the truth. What you and Ms. Sherry are doing makes my job and others even harder and more dangerous. That is why it is important not to have Ms. Sherry spreading such inflammatory falsehoods.

ThomasMC writes:

You know, when I disagree with something I read, I take the normal responsible adult way of dealing with it. I write a piece representing my view, and ask that it be published. I don't go off on a crusade against the writer as you have. And now you are attacking me for not taking your side. I'm having a very hard time taking you seriously at this point. Perhaps you need professional help, you appear to be out of control. You certainly aren't acting in a manner I would consider "normal".

Good bye. I've blocked your email address, so don't bother writing back.