"The claim that the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were attacked because fundamentalists hate our prosperity and freedom is a ridiculous lie"

L. Neil Smith challenges the widely-circulated narrative that the September 11 attacks were primarily motivated by foreign terrorists’ hatred of American prosperity and freedom. By calling this notion a “ridiculous lie,” Smith suggests that such an explanation is not only oversimplified but also deliberately misleading. He implies that policymakers and media figures use the rhetoric of “they hate our freedom” to avoid discussing more complex, potentially uncomfortable factors that contributed to the attacks.

The assertion that fundamentalists hate the United States for its success projects an image of America as an innocent victim, targeted solely for its virtues. This perspective conveniently sidesteps any critical reflection on U.S. foreign policy, military interventions, or the nation’s long-standing involvement in the political and economic affairs of the Middle East. By reducing the motivations of the attackers to envy or irrational hostility toward American values, leaders can unite the public against a perceived existential threat, fostering patriotism and deflecting scrutiny from their own actions at home and abroad.

Smith’s accusation of lying carries further weight because it implicates those in power in manipulating public opinion for political purposes. It suggests that presenting the attacks as unfathomable acts of evil spurred by resentment against democracy and wealth is not just mistaken, but intentionally deceptive. This deception, by obscuring the real roots of conflict, such as grievances over American military bases, sanctions, or support for certain regimes, prevents any meaningful debate on how to address security in a way that promotes lasting peace.

By rejecting the “they hate us for our freedom” argument, Smith invites the reader to question official narratives and to consider deeper, more nuanced explanations. Acknowledging the complexity of international relations and the consequences of past actions does not excuse violence, but it is necessary for honest analysis and effective policy-making. Smith’s words serve as a call to intellectual rigor, skepticism, and the pursuit of truth over comforting myths.