Reply to comment

...I can't help but think about the way in which this narrative, despite being of a very fact-based report and tragically factual day, is *still* a constructed piece of non-fiction. Unsurprisingly there is no definition or justification given around terms like, oh, say, terrorist. Obviously the understanding and slant of those who craft the 9/11 report is clear and there is no need for the report to be an unbiased look at what terrorism is because its irrelevant to 9/11's direct issues and impact. That being said, it was hard for me to NOT read this as an anthropology major and say--"to these men, they are fighting for freedom and liberation and justice. What is the line where terrorism ends and freedom fighting begins? " How do we know what REAL terrorism is? Who decides that and how? Is our definition more important than a 'Muslim extremist' point of view?

Once again we learn that our version of 'real' and 'fact' is just that--one version. Ask someone else around the globe and from their perspective, we are the only things worth demolishing--not part of a country of superior infrastructure and institutional support. Because of this, when I read this report I understood it and the necessary angle it takes, but couldn't shake this question of cultural relativism, especially after our time working with the definitions of words and terms reference sources. We limit ourselves linguistically and culturally and each played and plays a huge role in the global order and potentiality for ongoing terrorist attacks on United States soil.