Below is the exchange between Tom Murphy and Norma Sherry

Dear Ms. Sherry:

I read your article "Never Again... Not Hitler, Not Mel Gibson" and I found this paragraph very troubling: "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."

But I am not sure which definition of the word "retribution" you are using. I take the word's meaning to be either "Something justly deserved or a suitable action" or "something in retaliation or reaction to." Unfortunately either definition used in your paragraph results in a very offensive claim.

I hope you are not making an outrageous insinuation that people are actually making the argument that the 9/11 attacks were justified. Doing so is a method of slandering those that dare speak the truth about the motives for the 9/11 attacks. I have not seen an article anywhere that has made the claim that 9/11 was just, besides of course statements from al-queda members. It is simply not true that "rumors abounded" about 9/11 being "just," I hope you aren't trying to say this. If you have actually read an article that makes the claim that 9/11 was justified I would like to see it.

And I hope you are not making the outrageous claim that the 9/11 attacks had nothing to do with a reaction to Israeli polices.

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."

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 change your article so it reflects the facts. I have also written an article about Bush's 9/11 lie: Bush lied about 9/11 terrorists' motives

Tom Murphy

Norma Sherry responded:

Dear Mr. Murphy:

Apparently, you missed the definition for retribution: Something given or demanded in repayment, especially punishment.

This is not my contention, sir. Nor do I believe that 911 had anything to do with Israel. But I am certain you are well aware of these same rumors of which I wrote.

I agree that we have sitting president that is a liar. I vehemently disagree with your bias against the State of Israel. Don't misunderstand that to mean that I see no wrong with many policies of its political decision-makers. But Jews were not mysteriously missing from work on that day, nor is Israel, or the policies of Israel, responsible for the horrors of 911.

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".

Norma Sherry

I wrote back:

Dear Ms. Sherry:

Do I have this right? You are actually denying that the motives for the 9/11 attacks include anger at Israeli policies and US support of them? You are actually denying that Bush's explanation about why we were attacked was a lie? And the facts I went to the trouble of laying out you ignore?

And let me get this straight: When you see wrongs with many policies of Israel's political decision-makers you don't have a "bias against the State of Israel," yet if I see wrongs I have a "bias"? What did I write specifically that you claim shows a "bias?"

Frankly I find your e-mail insulting. Your last sentence reveals that you are not sincere: "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"."

You are out of control and offensive. No position? I made it crystal clear that Bush lied to America about the 9/11 motives and then I presented the facts about what the motives really were.

Since you have been made aware of the evidence of the motives for the 9/11 attacks I conclude you are intentionally deceiving the American public about why we are in harm's way. I have presented the facts and you make no reference to them and instead insist on your lie. I prove the truth of my statements with the facts but you ignore them. My position is that the American people do not deserve to be lied to. You are lying to the people about why we are being targeted. You are feeding the American people lies in order to serve a foreign country's agenda.

Tom Murphy