I agree that people with whom I exchanged ideas on this subject on this forum have been civil, but I also did not respond to posts I viewed excessively ideological to avoid useless confrontations. You did not mention the "stick" element of my strategy, that most people on this list would oppose, I reckon, for various reasons. But I guess that is a legitimate point of disagrement.
What I found distrubing is the general tenor of responses to 9-11 on the Left, that includes this list as well as other fora - that can be characterised as using 9-11 as an opportunity to voice their old grievances against the US policies, or even try to exonerate - if not the perpetrators - then at least some of their supporters and sympathizers. I find that in a very poor taste. Even the Bushies abstained from using 9-11 as platform to lash out at liberal policies in general and Clinton in particular (a few rightwing nuts notwithstanding).
You may disagree with me, but in my book public discourse boils down to making sound judgments while avoiding poor ones. Not every claim is legitimate or justified, not every opinion "true," not everything is a trope or a narrative, not everything is relative, some claims are objectively more important than other, and there are right and wrong times, places, and ways to make claims. The trick is to know the difference. My concern is that the people whose ideas I am otherwise inclined to accept, often seem unable or unwilling to see or make that distiction.
wojtek