Oppression after 9/11 is the main focus of her argumentation in which she claims that the federal government has made enemies of the state as jihadists/ islamic extremist is imaginative. rather , she explains “the war on terror in federal policies include Arab Christians , Iranian Jews, Latinos/as, women and queer people illustrating that the dominant discourse on isma and muslim is not only valuable but arbitrary and fictional”(Naber, 277). Through examining both the cultural racial and national racist Nader provides foundational evidence that the backlash of 9/11 begins rhetorical and ends real world. For example, the muslim woman wearing a hijab in Texas who gets yelled at by young men passing her that she is a terrorist or told by her government employer that she cannot wear her hijab due to its relation to islam but her christian counterparts are permitted to done crosses critical interpersonal violence occurs. Those words uttered by the young men and her workplaces rules around religious symbols that are unfairly enforced soon turned to action: she is forced to take off her hijab and assimilate to the expectation of both patriarchal and western society. RAWA discusses the need for Afghan revolution rather than U.S military intervention because the Afghan people would be best suited due to their direct geopolitical location. Naber would interpret this as true for not just the reason of efficiency but for ethicalness. If the United States is simply interested in purporting imaginative stereotypes than how would they ethically be able to solve the issue of Taliban violence. Additionally, Naber would also likely comment on RAWA’s insinuation that the rhetoric of U.S foreign policy as harmful and reductive by confirming it through her studies that showed “The War on Terror” creates categories that are irrelevant due to their fictional nature. So her expansion would be that on top of