Of course, this short story can be said to belong to the "historical fiction" category in many respects, at the same time, it is focalised through the consciousness and perceptions of the protagonist, Muhammad Atta (interestingly, the initials MA can stand for both Atta and Amis). The debate as to whether it is ethically correct to fictionalise historical events of such horror and magnitude has been one of the most debated points in contemporary criticism (at least from Adorno about the impossibility to write poetry after Auschwitz). However, what fiction can do is enter a character's consciouness (something such a medium as film cannot do). By choosing to put the reader into Atta's shoes, and by resorting to details relying on the sphere of the lower body, Amis clearly debunks the figure of the stern terrorist, and this is part of his satirical purpose. At the same time, he shows the possibility of some common humanity in the man, the better to condemn his inhumanity. I think the short story has to be seen from the angle of satire, really.