"Attempts to Rewrite of 9/11" Topic

So so very Orwellian!

What if no one had exposed their attempts? Of course, they attempt to walk it back when caught! But how much longer before memories are diminished and more generations without exposure grow up? 🤔

They may fail this time…. But they will keep trying and will eventually, unfortunately, probably succeed .

Oh and..

Yes, the CBC is heavily supported by Canadian taxpayer money. As Canada's national public broadcaster, CBC/Radio-Canada relies on the federal government for the vast majority of its operational budget

The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) faced severe international backlash and subsequently reversed an internal policy directive that instructed its journalists not to refer to the September 11, 2001, attacks as "terrorist attacks". The controversy erupted right before the 25th anniversary of 9/11, when a leaked memo from Basem Boshra, CBC's senior director of journalistic standards, revealed instructions to label the events as "passenger jet crashes" instead of terrorist acts in the broadcaster's own voice. Following intense criticism from U.S. and Canadian political figures, including the FBI Director and Canada's Conservative Party, the CBC retracted the guidance and created an official exception for 9/11.

Details of the Policy and Controversy
The internal memo was first leaked and reported by The Toronto Sun. The directive explicitly told staff to avoid using the words "terrorist" or "terrorism" when describing the 9/11 attacks unless they were directly quoting an official source.
* The CBC's Original Stance: The broadcaster defended its actions by citing a long-standing policy shared by other global outlets, like the Associated Press. The policy dictates that terms like "terrorism" are politically and emotionally charged, and avoiding them helps maintain journalistic neutrality.
* The Backlash: Critics—including U.S. House Republicans, Canadian Member of Parliament Rachael Thomas, and FBI Director Kash Patel—fiercely condemned the memo. They accused the network of trying to "rewrite history," "sanitize" an atrocity, and disrespect the victims, families, and first responders of the tragedy. Critics also pointed out the hypocrisy, noting that the Canadian government explicitly recognizes Al-Qaeda as a terrorist entity responsible for the attacks.
* The Reversal: Late Friday afternoon on August 28, 2026, Basem Boshra published a statement announcing that the CBC would walk back the policy specifically for 9/11. He noted that the strict wording of the internal language policy had unfortunately become an "impediment to clarity and public understanding". Moving forward, CBC journalists are permitted to directly refer to 9/11 as a terrorist attack.
This incident follows previous friction over the network's vocabulary; the CBC faced similar scrutiny after an internal email from October 2023 instructed reporters not to use the word "terrorist" to describe Hamas militants without attribution.

CAIR recently trying the same thing.. until exposed.

Remember, like CBC, CAIR receives taxpayer money.

CAIR receives millions of dollars in taxpayer money through federal and state government grants. [1, 2]
While the national organization is primarily funded by private donations, its regional chapters—most notably CAIR-California (CAIR-CA)—have received substantial taxpayer-funded government sub-grants. [1, 2]

Yes, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) faced intense public scrutiny for a 9/11 curriculum recommendation that critics argued downplayed the terrorist nature of the attacks. [1, 2]
In August 2026, CAIR National released its 2026–2027 Back-to-School Resource Guide. Critics and watchdog groups quickly pointed out that the guide directed K-12 educators to a 9/11 curriculum—developed by CAIR-New Jersey and Teaching While Muslim—that avoided describing the hijackers as terrorists and instead focused overwhelmingly on the post-9/11 Global War on Terror and domestic anti-Muslim discrimination. [1, 2]
The curriculum drew even sharper backlash because an earlier version recommended Osama bin Laden's "Letter to America" as a primary source resource for high school students. [1, 2]

Yes, that argument was central to the curriculum CAIR promoted, which fueled the intense backlash against their recent K-12 guide. [1, 2]
The lesson plans explicitly linked the September 11 attacks to U.S. foreign policy, specifically pointing to American backing of Israel. The lesson materials—developed by CAIR-New Jersey and the group Teaching While Muslim—directed educators to teach students that the 9/11 hijackers were motivated primarily by U.S. interventionism in the Middle East and the American government's financial and military support for Israel. [1, 2]

The Specific Accusations and Materials
Critics and investigators stated that CAIR's curriculum shifted the moral responsibility of the attacks away from the Al-Qaeda terrorists and framed the event as a direct consequence of American-Israeli relations. The controversy compounded due to two primary features of the curriculum: [1]
* Shifting the Focus to Israel: Critics argued the guide used the history of 9/11 to introduce anti-Israel narratives into K-12 classrooms under the guise of teaching the "root causes" of the tragedy. [1, 2]
* The Osama bin Laden Connection: The curriculum drew even sharper criticism because it directed high school students to Osama bin Laden's "Letter to America". In that letter, bin Laden explicitly cited U.S. support for Israel as one of his primary justifications for murdering American civilians. Watchdog groups argued that by including the text without proper critical context, the curriculum effectively legitimized bin Laden's grievances and anti-Israel justifications. [1]

..
Other examples

The push to reshape the public memory, institutional terminology, and academic history of the September 11 attacks extends beyond the recent controversies involving the CBC and CAIR. Over the years, several other high-profile instances have occurred in international education, mainstream publishing, and global media, sparked by attempts to downplay the terrorism aspect or shift the blame to Western foreign policy: [1, 2]

1. The Hodder Education Textbook Controversy (UK)
In 2020, a prominent British educational publisher, Hodder Education, faced intense international condemnation over a history textbook aimed at students aged 11 to 13. [1]
* The "Rewrite": Under a section titled "Muslim Mistrust of the West," the textbook explicitly prompted middle school students with the question: "How could it be argued that the creation of Israel was a long-term cause of the 9/11 attacks?" [1]
* The Fallout: Watchdog groups and the Board of Deputies of British Jewry fiercely condemned the prompt. They noted that it directly introduced a warped version of history and fed into anti-Semitic conspiracy theories regarding Jewish or Israeli culpability for the attack. Hodder Education issued a public apology, officially withdrew the textbook from sale, and committed to scrubbing the text. [1]

2. The Ellipses CIA Conspiracy Insertion (France)
Also in 2020, French publisher Ellipses was forced to issue an emergency correction for a high school history textbook that validated fringe internet conspiracy theories. [1]
* The "Rewrite": The textbook, designed to prepare students for university-level tracking, featured a line claiming that the 9/11 attacks were "orchestrated by the CIA (secret services) to impose American influence on the Middle East?" [1]
* The Fallout: The text was flagged by the French watchdog site Conspiracy Watch, sparking an uproar over how an objective text could print an unverified internet myth as fact. Ellipses blamed the error on an individual author, publicly apologized, and added an immediate digital and physical correction to erase the phrase, stating that unfounded conspiracy could never be presented as objective truth. [1]

3. Media Network Language Shifts (BBC & Associated Press)
While the CBC's internal memo caused a unique uproar, it pulled back the curtain on a broader, decades-long language shift across corporate mainstream media outlets attempting to filter out terms like "terrorist". [1, 2]
* The "Rewrite": Media networks like the BBC and the Associated Press (AP) have institutionalized language stylebooks that strictly advise journalists against using the words "terrorist" or "terrorism" in their own reporting voice. They argue the terms are "politicized and emotionally charged". [1, 2, 3, 4]
* The Fallout: Critics and media watchdogs note that systematically replacing the word "terrorist" with terms like "militants," "attackers," or—in the case of the CBC memo—"passenger jet crashes" works to sanitize the nature of the atrocities over time, separating the acts from the ideological groups that perpetrated them. [1, 2, 3]

4. The Erasure of 9/11 from K-12 Classrooms
A subtler but widespread form of rewriting the narrative has come through the institutional omission of 9/11 in modern high school curriculums. [1, 2]
* The "Rewrite": Academic studies led by education experts have revealed that as the generation who lived through the event ages out, many state history curricula treat 9/11 as a passive footnote. Because the topic is deemed "politically sensitive" or "too recent," teachers frequently skip the background context of Islamic extremism altogether, summarizing the event simply as "the bombing of the Twin Towers" or focusing strictly on post-9/11 domestic surveillance. [1, 2, 3, 4]
* The Fallout: This lack of structural historical framework has left a vacuum for younger generations, leading to a documented surge of students pulling their history from viral social media trends—such as the late 2023 phenomenon where TikTok users actively praised Osama bin Laden's justification for the attacks. [1]

…

Examples by politicians

Yes, multiple politicians and political figures have made comments that critics argue rewrite the narrative of 9/11. These figures generally fall into two categories: those who attribute the attacks to "blowback" from U.S. foreign policy (echoing the CAIR framing), and those pushing fringe conspiracy theories. [1, 2, 3, 4]
Notable examples include:

1. Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN)
In 2019, Congresswoman Ilhan Omar faced intense national backlash for how she described the September 11 attacks during a speech to the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). [1]
* The Comment: Discussing the post-9/11 landscape for Muslim Americans, Omar stated that CAIR was founded because "some people did something and that all of us were starting to lose access to our civil liberties." [1]
* The Backlash: Critics across the political spectrum—including survivors, first responders, and Donald Trump—accused her of minimizing the atrocity by referring to Al-Qaeda terrorists as merely "some people" and the mass murder as "something." Omar defended her comments, stating she was speaking contextually about the collective punishment Muslim Americans faced after the attacks. [1]

2. Former Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-GA)
Former Democratic Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney has repeatedly promoted theories that shift the blame away from Islamic terrorists. [1]
* The Sentiment: Shortly after the attacks, McKinney infamously suggested that the Bush administration had advance warning of 9/11 but allowed it to happen to financially benefit defense contractors. Years later, she drew widespread condemnation for promoting anti-Semitic and anti-Israel conspiracy theories that alleged Israel's intelligence services were the true orchestrators behind the tragedy. [1, 2, 3]

3. Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI)
From the other side of the political aisle, Senator Ron Johnson drew strong condemnation from members of his own party for attempting to legitimize "9/11 Truther" theories. [1]
* The Comment: In April 2025, Johnson stated in an interview that he wanted to hold formal congressional hearings on "what actually happened on 9/11," claiming the government had covered up key facts. He explicitly echoed fringe theories by claiming that World Trade Center Building 7 was brought down via a "controlled demolition." [1, 2]
* The Backlash: Lawmakers, including New York Republican Rep. Mike Lawler, publicly rebuked Johnson, demanding he "stop peddling conspiracy theories about the worst terrorist attack in our nation's history." [1]

4. Political Commentators & Streamers (Hasan Piker Controversy)
Though not politicians themselves, political commentators heavily tied to major campaigns have faced scrutiny for identical rhetoric. [1, 2]
* The Sentiment: In August 2026, during a highly competitive U.S. Senate primary race in Michigan, Democratic candidate Abdul El-Sayed faced intense pressure from opponents and lawmakers like Senator Ted Cruz over his close campaign ties to far-left streamer Hasan Piker. Piker had previously generated outrage by explicitly stating that "America deserved 9/11." [1, 2, 3]
* The Justification: Piker later walked back the word "deserved," but defended the underlying concept—mirroring CAIR's educational materials—by arguing that 9/11 was a direct "boomerang effect" caused by destructive U.S. foreign policy and military interventionism in the Middle East. [1, 2]
*

Just a few of the links

Subject: CBC tells staff to avoid calling 9/11 a terrorist attack | The Jerusalem Post

link

Subject: Warren Kinsella on X: "The story is in @TheTorontoSun." / X

link

Subject: CBC tells staff not to call 9/11 a 'terrorist attack' – Yahoo News Canada

link

Trump called antifa a domestic terrorist organization.

World War II was fundamentally a global conflict between democratic nations and fascist totalitarian regimes.

So the democratic states fighting Japan, Italy and Germany are now considered terorist organizations

And your point? 🤔

Those attacking the towers, the Pentagon and attempting another before foiled by the brave passengers on board, were not terrorists?

If yes, please give us an explanation of why they were not.

If you agree they were, then why post at all? 🤔