Shaun’s posts are one form of expression, and our response to them is another. I’m not sure why you feel you’d characterize comments that are critical of his style as “attacks”.

It doesn’t seem like a very sound way to either judge a site or to pass one’s time. What is the purpose of this concentrated attention?
What is the pleasure?

I’d really like to know.

The topic was Ahnadimehad’s proposed visit to the 9/11 sute,

Displeasure about the way the post was written has been amply expressed. Now it’s beginning to look like the post is just an excuse for a larger agenda.

Some posts just won’t reflect your views. Express your opinion and get over it, is my acvice.

I thave a very negaive reaction when some people wantt to create political wars instead on engaging in debate about the topic at hand.
I also have a very negative reaction when people gang up on someone. I don’t like bullying in private life,I don;t like it on blog sites, and I dont’t like it in politics. My impression (not backed by scientific evidence or a timely link, true) is that what is happening here is political bullying.

The post itself didn’t have that much substance and was provocative in its question “Why are we freaked out”. Sorry if you think that we got off track in the discussion, but it’s puzzling why you blame the commenters rather than looking at how the post itself was constructed.

Yours is an argument for the sake of an argument, IMHO.

Are you proposing that bands of commenters haunt other bloggers, picking apart posts they don’t like, sentence by senence, in attempts to discredit them, so that their own view of the world will prevail?

As I said on MVDG, if you are interested in rational debate, half of the battle is in how you respond to provocation.(I have to work on that myself). Attakcing like a pack of wolves or gnawing on something that irritiates you, like a dog with a bone, is not conducive to that end. Instead, it invites rertibution. The gang has made its point, now move on (sorry, another provocation, there).

Just as a reminder, one of the reasons some commenters became so agitated on this site was the posting of some very procative opinions by conservatives, including insults to whole groups of people.

It happens. Stick to the topc of the post. Go on to other things. Worse things can happen than reading an article you don;t likfe.

I haven’t kept up with the various 9/11 groups. I know there are several, Perhaps the reason there is nothing major in local mews (I haven’t heard anything) is that some of them have become a bit of a nuisance re building on the site, wanting to have last say on every detail. At other times, I’ve heard very intelligent and well reasoned statements form them. Honestly, I can’t be sure now which group the ‘them’ was.
Still, like every other group, they have a right to voice their views, no matter who they are.

So, how do you think Ahmadimejad should be received? (Just kidding, I’ve already gone on to other things.)

I really haven’t kept up with 9/11 families or widows. I only know there is more thant one group and that they are not in accord. I haven’t heard anything on local news, but perhaps their internet postings explains that.

I’m not sure why Shaun took offense at Simon asking for the link, unless it was because the way Simon asked it. However, you’d think that Shaun might also note that the way he writes his posts similarly provokes emotional responses from his readers, so if he’d prefer cooler headed responses then he ought to change his writing style and if his desire is to provoke heated exchanges then he shouldn’t complain when that’s exactly what he gets.

Anyone not hyperventilating on the ‘get Shaun’ brigade would realize that this should have read:
“even IF Iran……..” If you read Shaun’S posts, you know that strong opinions or not, he is extemely well aware of FACTS.

The subject here is not the author of the post, but the reaction to the proposed visit. Living in NY, I know that the 9/11 widows are not shy about issuing statements if they are unanimously of one view. I have heard no statement from them regarding the visit, so that speaks volumes. Had they been upset, we would have heard about it, believe me.

The fact that crtics can’t stay on the topic of the post instead of creating sideline outrage shows does not speak well for the critics IMHO.

Iran attacked the US on 9/11?

I was going to set that aside, but sure, that’s another unsourced assertion with no link or any other kind of citation. Pure ipse dixit.

Iran attacked the US on 9/11?

Actually, according to a recent poll, 33% of Americans continue to believe that Saddam Hussein was personally involved with the 9/11 attacks.

But make no mistake. Once we go to war with Iran, that same 33% will insist that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was personally involved with the 9/11 attacks.

What makes Ahmadinejad different than leaders of surrounding countries, is that he has had the nerve to begin a program to develop nuclear weapons, and has proudly announced it to the world. The key is to make this a nonissue for him at home, by allowing the visit, but without any fanfare that would pump up his status.

Can you just imagine being Ahmedinejad, coming to America hoping and expecting large crowds of protesters and then once your tour begins there’s absolutely not one single protester arund to give you the coverage you expected. What a let down (for Ahmedinejad)! And I think that’s how his visit should be treated.

As far as him being one of the most dangerous men on Earth: you’re right on that point. His comments about wiping out the Jewish race just make me cringe and want to run for the hills.

I fear that Bush and Ahmedinejad will get into a nuclear war because neither has the sense to back down (and Iran may not have nuclear weapons but they might be able to drag other countries in, i..e N. Korea). We all know how Bush likes to act tough and throw bombs (or whatever) around without thinking, and I’m afraid that Ahmedinejad borders on suicidal. The two of them at odds with each other are an absolute menace to us all.

Wow! What intelligence! What persuasive argumentation!

Here we are talking about one of the most dangerous men on earth, and instead of discussing the various ways it would be best to reactt to his visit, we address each other with slurs – on one accasion, in baby languate. At least I’m grateful no one responded with ‘goo goo ga ga”.

What’s really sad is that everyone actually agrees about Ahmedimedjan: no one likes him. We deal with that by attacking each other?

Obviously, we don’t need a war in distant Iraq to make us crazy. Anyone having a different viewpoint is cause for verbal riots. Talk about eating one’s own! It is one of the ways the Bin Ladens and Ahmedimejhads win, by destroying who we are, or courld be, at out best.

Geiroge Sorwell’s ‘ourtrage kabuki’ link is most apt.