I was going to clean up that bit of Elephant dung, but you were quicker with the shovel . Thanks. ;) As to the other pile .... put it this way E-man : even a guy that was happy to kill certain people in Iraq thinks that our great adventure in Afghanistan is a mistake. Just an expansion of those who are seeing it that way. Not some ironic/inconsistent transformation of us far-left-kooks.

Re exacebating the problem, guess who's training and arming the "insurgents" ? We are!(in part) . Also, the the whole we'll-stand down-as-they-stand-up wish/hope/plan seems a mirage. This from Ann Jones (& @sig): http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175116/ann_jones_us_or_them_in_afghanistan_

(h/t Chris Floyd)

A modest suggestion(@sig) to the Sulzbergers, or whoever is making the decisions @ NYT. Essentially the same positions, but vastly more entertaining, and without the (attempted) pretense of reason and respectability. (ps. Watchout for that Islamic penetration.Never know where it's coming from.;)

...the wingnut gets it ~180 wrong .

(h/t JoshPa's link)

The following is in Benedict's notes from the address in question.

Controversy VII, 2 c: Khoury, pp. 142-143; Förstel, vol. I, VII. Dialog 1.5, pp. 240-241. In the Muslim world, this quotation has unfortunately been taken as an expression of my personal position, thus arousing understandable indignation. I hope that the reader of my text can see immediately that this sentence does not express my personal view of the Qur’an, for which I have the respect due to the holy book of a great religion. In quoting the text of the Emperor Manuel II, I intended solely to draw out the essential relationship between faith and reason. On this point I am in agreement with Manuel II, but without endorsing his polemic.

[4] Controversy VII, 3 b–c: Khoury, pp. 144-145; Förstel vol. I, VII. Dialog 1.6, pp. 240-243.

[5] It was purely for the sake of this statement that I quoted the dialogue between Manuel and his Persian interlocutor. In this statement the theme of my subsequent reflections emerges.

In that speech (last year), referenced above, I took it that Benedict was also making the point that despite Manuel & the Persian's irreconcilable religious differences, and the dim view they took of the other religion, they maintained a civil, perhaps even friendly relationship. He was making the point that dialogue (between religions) is possible, and preferable to the clash-of-civilizaions-type apocalyptics promoted by the Ross Douthats of the world.

How about an orphan tax?

Dennis Loo's latest post(@sig), about Iraqi orphans (4.5M !?), and a conversation about one of our recent Predator episodes has me (once again) wondering how to get through the WaPoo-ish CW, and have what we're doing register in the minds of the apathetic middle. (& others?)

The conversation, with a neighbor mentioning our one of latest take-out of "militants" :

Him: :Got some more of 'em!"Militants" .?Which ones? Who are they? They(whoever "they" are) keep reporting militants killed. I know they're not all the same.Know which ones it was this time?

Me:Militants? Whoever gets in the way of our bombs becomes a militant. Wonder what the real numbers are this time?

Him: :I know , I know ! You always say that! It's a war. People get killed. It worked with Hiroshima didn't it? I don't want to hear it!

( He'a former FOX/Billo devotee, who has become disgusted with them & the GOP. Even so, gets all his knews from cable TV, and buys into most of the assumptions.Even defends Obama when I criticize him. ????)

So...., how to get people to think about what we do , and care? That's where the orphan tax comes in . (I know - it's not enough, financially or politically, but maybe it'd help .)

It would be some small amount, ( $5?,$10?,$20?) assesed to everyone, children included, no exceptions. It would have to be paid in person.( @ any federal building? any government facility, at any level?) It couldn't be combined with any other business. Hacve to pay it separately. Children ? Parents could pay for them, but the kids would have to show up too. The fund would be dedicated to helping all the orphans we've created. Probably best disbursed by NGOs. That would eliminate arguments about corrupt governments & the UN. Do others besides orphans deserve some recompense? Yeah, but let the war cheerleaders try to argue against helping orphans . Inconvenient, annoying, and maybe even a hardship for some (taking the kids along)? Yes, but that's the point. I know it'd be all but impossible pass, but I'd like to see somebody try.

I wonder if Alan Grayson's up for another round? ;)

Mark, I haven't a clue who the MEK are, though I see from a one-minute Google search that they're against the Iranian regime.

-- JonathanInTelAviv

A bit more to it than that . The MEK (Mujhadin el Khalq) are/were Iranian exiles, operating out of Iraq. They have made various attacks in Iran. They were the one terrorist organization that Saddam supported directly.

Remember FlightsSuitBoy's carrier landing? Along with the photo-op he gave a rousing (if yu buy all the history-ignoring patriotic bs) anti-terrorism speech. That afternoon , we signed a non-aggression pact with the MEK. When the Iranians screamed "Hypocrisy" , we backed out of it officially, but essentially lived up to the deal. Iran offered to turn over some actual AQ members in exchange for some MEK. We turned down their offer . So.... we looked the other way, and allowed a terrorist group that repeatedly attacked Iran, to operate in territory that we ostensibly controlled, even at the expense of getting hold of actual enemies of the US. Don't know why the Iranians can't just let it go, and look forward , and not dwell on the past.

^ h/t Chris Floyd