Jihad needs scientists

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 17:12:32 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 16:00:32 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
John Larkin wrote:

I read about a recent experiment that was done in the UK. In response
to advertised job openings, good but fake resumes were invented and
sent in, with the only difference that some had English-sounding names
and some had Muslim-sounding names. The response ratio was about 5:1.

I suspect this is another urban myth actually. A similar thing was *really*
done with different ages in fact.

It's in here...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Muslim#Islamophobia_in_Europe

" he asks whether Muslims will be the victims of the next pogroms "

See my post on this point.

That's why I laugh when American try lecturing us about being blind to the danger
from Islam. Do you guys seriously think we'd ever let them get the upper hand ?

Graham

Upper hand? What does Europe plan to do about the exponents of
population growth, negative for the traditional population and
positive for Islamic immigrants?

John

 

[N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)]

Dear Homer J Simpson:

"Homer J Simpson" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:m3kUg.45502$bf5.5820@edtnps90...

"Ken Smith" <kensmith@green.rahul.net> wrote in message
news:efsi7m$e0d$2@blue.rahul.net...

I think if the US said it supported him, he'd be out by
sunset.
Only by having the US to blame and scare his population
with does he maintain his position of power. Illegitimate
governments have often used an external threat as a way
to rally the populace behind themselves.

Maybe we could get Bush to walk hand-in-hand with him.

I'm pretty sure US presidents (or at least cabinet flunkies) had
been seen walking hand-in-hand with Saddam. Not sure "reverse
psychology" works all that well...

David A. Smith

 

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 23:38:54 GMT, "Homer J Simpson"
<nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:no33i2566o90atlu6iu6dnvkmiufdfcv0c@4ax.com...

You think they are guilty of criminal acts because they do not
publicly condemn Muslim terrorism? That's a novel interpretation of
law. Can we find you guilty of not condemming, well, everything that's
illegal? Better start condemming... you have a lot of catching up to
do.

Isn't that now US law? If you fail to tell about a crime, even if you don't
know anything, you are guilty of something.

What could you possibly tell if you don't know anything?

If you fail to confess, even if
you believe you are not guilty, you are now guilty of that.

Of not knowing anything? We don't have enough prisons!

More and more like the Soviets every day!

Don't get your panties in a bunch.

John

 

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 23:38:55 GMT, "Homer J Simpson"
<nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:hu33i2tqjfg6nfvg8d5o1krhaq0lr1umhi@4ax.com...

The issue is whether non-US-citizens have Constitutional rights when
they are not physically in the USA, or whether US citizens have such
rights when captured in a foreign country while fighting against our
military.

The US believes that US law applies everywhere in the world, but US
constitutional rights don't apply to anyone who isn't the 'right sort of
person'.

Preposterous.

John

 

"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote in
message newsckUg.1491$v43.1158@fed1read02...

Dear Homer J Simpson:

"Homer J Simpson" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:m3kUg.45502$bf5.5820@edtnps90...

"Ken Smith" <kensmith@green.rahul.net> wrote in message
news:efsi7m$e0d$2@blue.rahul.net...

I think if the US said it supported him, he'd be out by sunset.
Only by having the US to blame and scare his population
with does he maintain his position of power. Illegitimate
governments have often used an external threat as a way
to rally the populace behind themselves.

Maybe we could get Bush to walk hand-in-hand with him.

I'm pretty sure US presidents (or at least cabinet flunkies) had been seen
walking hand-in-hand with Saddam. Not sure "reverse psychology" works all
that well...

Several reasons that I suspect the comparison is not very instructive.
Saddam's regime was secular, whereas Ahmadinejad's is a Muslim regime. It's
easy for Ahmadinejad to point to the US and say "See the infidels that wish
to attack us?", and it's difficult to credibly associate him with a
non-Muslim western regime. Plus, I think the US did have a lot of support
originally from the Iraqi populace. Due to our activities in Iraq, I don't
think the same can now be said of Iran. Plus, by contrast, to my knowledge,
Ahmadinejad hasn't made the mistake of genocide like Saddam did, he's just
not very popular.

Eric Lucas

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

John Fields wrote:

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 21:46:18 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:



"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:

T Wake wrote:

Or "If we give you this money will you promise to use it to buy weapons and
fight [Insert Disliked Government of the Day] and promise never to fight
us - unless you really have to?"

Can you [or anyone] remind me why the Irish Republican terrorist
organisations received so much in the way of donations from concerned,
caring, American private citizens? I've never been all that sure myself.

I get of hearing this. They collected money in areas with high Irish
American population, and the average American heard nothing about it,
till the "TV news Exposé". If the average American had know about it
and had agreed with it, there would have been more than enough money
flowing into their coffers for them to have won. The ones who did
donate were people who came to the US to get away from the British, and
wanted to help those left behind, right or wrong.

So you're happy to admit to a desire to sponsor terrorism ?

---
What's that all about?

All he wrote, it seemed to me, was a narrative.

Ignore the donkey behind the curtain.


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

 

[John Fields]

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 00:05:51 GMT, mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:

In article <v673i2dusng3t5a82qt9hm7n8ve5p4t7ua@4ax.com>, John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> writes:
On Mon, 2 Oct 2006 19:59:42 +0100, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:


"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:3kh2i2p1qoa888afm2l1ksq3j2qcvcfvrl@4ax.com...
---
So what? With world domonation as its goal, one would expect it
would strike world-wide, as the opportunity arose.


Whose goal? "It" isn't really appropriate to define the long term aims of a
disparate group of organisations. Are "they" trying to dominate the world or
destroy western society or convert every one or...

---
"It" being radical Islam, the goal, in my opinion, would be to
convert everyone to Islam and have them be subject to control by
Muslim jurists, the goal being total world domination by Islam.

Refusal to convert would result in death.

No, not quite. True about the part of world domination, not about the
other one. Islam recognizes two categories of non-believers. One is
"polytheists" for whom, indeed, the accepted options are conversion or
death. The other is "Um al_Kitab", meaning "Nations of the Book",
which includes Christians and Jews. These may be allowed to live
without converting but only as "dhimmi" (you may check on this term).
Meaning, second class subjects, possessing the (limited) rights
granted them by their Muslim rulers, with the stipulation that said
rights may be withdrawn at the whim of the rulers.

---
How pleasant to read a scholar! Thank you.

Two small comments, if I may; the first being that I believe "Um
al_Kitab" means "People of the Book", and the second being that I
don't believe _radical_ Islam would have any qualms about
dispatching non-converts whether they were people of the book or
not.

What do you think?


--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

 

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 16:55:57 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 10:13:41 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
In article <4520C734.BF44F5D0@hotmail.com>, Eeyore writes:

There is no such thing as a coherent 'Islamic terrorist' movement, much as the USA would like to have >you
believe it. Much Islamic terrorism isn't even targeted at the West.

There wasn't such thing as a coherent "Axis" in 1939-40. There were
three separate nations, pursuing separate goals, often in
non-coordinated fashion, at times even in a way which was detrimental
to the other Axis members goals.

Your fixation with the history of WW2 is idiotic.

Is ignorance better?

It simply has zero relevance to the issue at hand. Mind you, just to put your fevered American minds at rest,
should European Islam be stupid enough to get 'nasty' expect another 'Kristallnacht' with Muslims being
progromised.

I bet you're looking forward to that, boxcars and death camps. Does
"get nasty" include acquiring political power?

John

 

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:2kj3i2du8jqbhpcei9mh1469dmncvt7bck@4ax.com...

and the second being that I
don't believe _radical_ Islam would have any qualms about
dispatching non-converts whether they were people of the book or
not.

What do you think?

_Radical_ Islam has shown no qualms whatsoever about dispatching other
*Muslims*, if it suits their ends. Well more than half of the victims of
the insurgency in Iraq have been Iraqi (presumably Muslim) citizens.

Eric Lucas

 

[Homer J Simpson]

<lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:y3kUg.19044$Ij.9984@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...

Sadly, not long enough, but we have made strides. As those who grew up,
for example, when it was tacitly OK to blow up a church, die off,
gradually this type of behavior becomes less and less acceptable. It will
be a *long* road, however, since there are so many other, more endemic,
ways in which racism expresses itself. Attitudes change slowly, it's
human nature.

And yet ....

Three Girls Killed in Pennsylvania School Shooting

A gunman has shot and killed three girls in a small Amish school in the
eastern U.S. state of Pennsylvania.

Police say seven other people were injured Monday morning, some seriously,
before the gunman took his own life. A police official described the crime
scene as "horrendous." He said the gunman walked into the school, sent the
boys and some females outside, then tied up and shot the girls.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:frj3i2t27h6hne47s8dci72qf1o4e7v4tj@4ax.com...

If you fail to confess, even if
you believe you are not guilty, you are now guilty of that.

Don't get your panties in a bunch.

Tell it to Martha Stewart. If the government lies to you you get to go to
war.

If you lie to the government you get to go to prison.

It was not always like that.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:r0k3i2515kq9t03o9l9bqe9mdberpp4jlj@4ax.com...

The US believes that US law applies everywhere in the world, but US
constitutional rights don't apply to anyone who isn't the 'right sort of
person'.

Preposterous.

But still true.

 

[Ken Smith]

In article <kefUg.29$45.67@news.uchicago.edu>,
<mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote:

In article <efr7vg$sb7$2@blue.rahul.net>, kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken
Smith) writes:
In article <2p1Ug.16$45.152@news.uchicago.edu>,
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote:
[....]
Well, here is at least one thing you can say for Al Queda. They are
quite honest, no pretending.


Maybe, they are just more effective liars. If you haven't caught them in
a lie, it doesn't mean there weren't lies they got away with.

Oh, I'm sure there were some, but these are what is called "tactical
lies". With regard to principal matters, i.e. their goals, they're
quite forthcoming.

.... or perhaps they have just gotten away with the big lies. :>


[...]

They can get lots of cannonfodder from the Muslim world
may be the reason they try to appear Islamist. It may really be about
power and control.

One doesn't contradict the other one. People may be driven by the
desire for power and control *and* to really, truly believe in what
they're doing (to the point of willing to die for it), at the same time.

Actually it is often a closely coupled set of ideas. People who are
certain that their way is the only right way often think it is a cruel
trick of fait when they lack the power to implement their ideas. They are
also often very surprised at the results when and if they do get power.

If the King of country A sees the King of country B as universally evil he
may invade on the theory of doing good or the people of country B.
Unfortunately for him, the people of country B may see the King of country
A as the evil one and fight back.

[...]

reckoning came, many of them preferred to kill themselves rather than
live in a world where their ideals have been defeated. Goebbels and
his wife poisoned themselves and all their kids as well. If that's
not an act of a true believer, I don't know what is.

We may not really know their motives. They may have thought that they
would get about the same treatment as they had applied to the Jews. This
for many would be a reason to take the easy way out.


--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

 

[John Fields]

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 00:38:14 GMT, <lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:4193i25jnfriiu1rskbtn7rdpdk6c38c8m@4ax.com...
On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 20:04:16 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

And you claim to be human.

Which is the bigger stretch?

John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

Given your repeatedly hurling insults at people, I think a far bigger
stretch is you applying the adjective "Professional" to yourself. I've not
seen such unprofessional behavior from somebody who goes out of their way to
label themselves a "professional" in a long time. There's a big difference
between having a healthy disagreement that leads to mature discussion and
deeper understanding, and name-calling.

---
The "professional" thing refers to what I do for a living. I'm a
circuit designer, I get paid for it (except around here, where
everything I do is pro bono and I advertise here, but just a
little, with my .sig and a real email address and link.

As for the rest of it, it's USENET, so as far as I'm concerned it's
pretty much a donnybrook where anything goes and there are no rules.
Probably the last place on Earth where that's true and you can call
a spade a spade without having to confront an armada of lawyers.

I'm writing from sci.electronics.design, where we have a lot of
world-class talent, so we attract a lot of world-class egos who
fancy themselves to be fast-draw McGraw.

Our job is to shoot them down before they convince themselves that
they're 'Q' and really hurt themselves or someone else, so the
insults are designed to cut through the bullshit and give them a
glimpse of the real world. Or, maybe, _this_ world.

In any case, no one wants to let go of their firmly held beliefs, no
matter how stupid (just threw that in for shock value) they may be,
so here we are.



--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

 

In article <efsj98$e0d$3@blue.rahul.net>, kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) writes:

In article <kefUg.29$45.67@news.uchicago.edu>,
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote:
In article <efr7vg$sb7$2@blue.rahul.net>, kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken
Smith) writes:
In article <2p1Ug.16$45.152@news.uchicago.edu>,
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote:
[....]
Well, here is at least one thing you can say for Al Queda. They are
quite honest, no pretending.


Maybe, they are just more effective liars. If you haven't caught them in
a lie, it doesn't mean there weren't lies they got away with.

Oh, I'm sure there were some, but these are what is called "tactical
lies". With regard to principal matters, i.e. their goals, they're
quite forthcoming.

... or perhaps they have just gotten away with the big lies. :

Time will tell, if nothing else.

[...]
They can get lots of cannonfodder from the Muslim world
may be the reason they try to appear Islamist. It may really be about
power and control.

One doesn't contradict the other one. People may be driven by the
desire for power and control *and* to really, truly believe in what
they're doing (to the point of willing to die for it), at the same time.

Actually it is often a closely coupled set of ideas. People who are
certain that their way is the only right way often think it is a cruel
trick of fait when they lack the power to implement their ideas.

And, the very belief that their way is the only right way fosters a
desire to seize power and control, so as to be able to implement "this
which is right".

They are
also often very surprised at the results when and if they do get power.

Yes, for sure.

If the King of country A sees the King of country B as universally evil he
may invade on the theory of doing good or the people of country B.
Unfortunately for him, the people of country B may see the King of country
A as the evil one and fight back.

[...]
reckoning came, many of them preferred to kill themselves rather than
live in a world where their ideals have been defeated. Goebbels and
his wife poisoned themselves and all their kids as well. If that's
not an act of a true believer, I don't know what is.

We may not really know their motives. They may have thought that they
would get about the same treatment as they had applied to the Jews. This
for many would be a reason to take the easy way out.

We never really know for sure anybody's motives, can only formulate

best guesses consistent with the available evidence.

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"

 

[John Fields]

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 00:39:12 GMT, <lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:qe93i2dnmiundq4k31gg07iq01e7mvfggj@4ax.com...

Blow me.

John Fields
"Professional" Circuit Designer

Case in point.

---
Stick around for a while and watch for the ramifications.

Or maybe Schroedinger rules...


--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

 

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:d5l3i2trj8i6k1l80sr6151mtncu6efrqv@4ax.com...

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 00:38:14 GMT, <lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:


"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:4193i25jnfriiu1rskbtn7rdpdk6c38c8m@4ax.com...
On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 20:04:16 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

And you claim to be human.

Which is the bigger stretch?

John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

Given your repeatedly hurling insults at people, I think a far bigger
stretch is you applying the adjective "Professional" to yourself. I've
not
seen such unprofessional behavior from somebody who goes out of their way
to
label themselves a "professional" in a long time. There's a big
difference
between having a healthy disagreement that leads to mature discussion and
deeper understanding, and name-calling.

---
The "professional" thing refers to what I do for a living. I'm a
circuit designer, I get paid for it (except around here, where
everything I do is pro bono and I advertise here, but just a
little, with my .sig and a real email address and link.

As for the rest of it, it's USENET, so as far as I'm concerned it's
pretty much a donnybrook where anything goes and there are no rules.
Probably the last place on Earth where that's true and you can call
a spade a spade without having to confront an armada of lawyers.

I'm writing from sci.electronics.design, where we have a lot of
world-class talent, so we attract a lot of world-class egos who
fancy themselves to be fast-draw McGraw.

Our job is to shoot them down before they convince themselves that
they're 'Q' and really hurt themselves or someone else, so the
insults are designed to cut through the bullshit and give them a
glimpse of the real world. Or, maybe, _this_ world.

In any case, no one wants to let go of their firmly held beliefs, no
matter how stupid (just threw that in for shock value) they may be,
so here we are.

John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

Please do remember that it's possible to do all that and still *act* civil,
i.e., like a professional.

Eric Lucas

 

In article <2kj3i2du8jqbhpcei9mh1469dmncvt7bck@4ax.com>, John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> writes:

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 00:05:51 GMT, mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:

In article <v673i2dusng3t5a82qt9hm7n8ve5p4t7ua@4ax.com>, John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> writes:
On Mon, 2 Oct 2006 19:59:42 +0100, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:


"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:3kh2i2p1qoa888afm2l1ksq3j2qcvcfvrl@4ax.com...
---
So what? With world domonation as its goal, one would expect it
would strike world-wide, as the opportunity arose.


Whose goal? "It" isn't really appropriate to define the long term aims of a
disparate group of organisations. Are "they" trying to dominate the world or
destroy western society or convert every one or...

---
"It" being radical Islam, the goal, in my opinion, would be to
convert everyone to Islam and have them be subject to control by
Muslim jurists, the goal being total world domination by Islam.

Refusal to convert would result in death.

No, not quite. True about the part of world domination, not about the
other one. Islam recognizes two categories of non-believers. One is
"polytheists" for whom, indeed, the accepted options are conversion or
death. The other is "Um al_Kitab", meaning "Nations of the Book",
which includes Christians and Jews. These may be allowed to live
without converting but only as "dhimmi" (you may check on this term).
Meaning, second class subjects, possessing the (limited) rights
granted them by their Muslim rulers, with the stipulation that said
rights may be withdrawn at the whim of the rulers.

---
How pleasant to read a scholar! Thank you.

Two small comments, if I may; the first being that I believe "Um
al_Kitab" means "People of the Book", and the second being that I
don't believe _radical_ Islam would have any qualms about
dispatching non-converts whether they were people of the book or
not.

What do you think?

Yes, I agree. "People" is really the more appropriate translation of

"Um". In fact I think that Islam doesn't even really recognize the
concept of "nation". As for the second, again, yes. There is no
stipulation, to my knowledge, that "Um al-Kitab" must be allowed to
live (without converting), only that they may be allowed to live (with
the decision left to those in power).

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"

 

"Homer J Simpson" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:wLkUg.45507$bf5.39513@edtnps90...

lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:y3kUg.19044$Ij.9984@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...

Sadly, not long enough, but we have made strides. As those who grew up,
for example, when it was tacitly OK to blow up a church, die off,
gradually this type of behavior becomes less and less acceptable. It
will be a *long* road, however, since there are so many other, more
endemic, ways in which racism expresses itself. Attitudes change slowly,
it's human nature.

And yet ....

Three Girls Killed in Pennsylvania School Shooting

A gunman has shot and killed three girls in a small Amish school in the
eastern U.S. state of Pennsylvania.

Police say seven other people were injured Monday morning, some seriously,
before the gunman took his own life. A police official described the crime
scene as "horrendous." He said the gunman walked into the school, sent the
boys and some females outside, then tied up and shot the girls.

And this has exactly what to do with a conversation on racism? It's not
even religion-ism--it was someone extracting revenge on a community for a
20-year-old wrong. Please get the facts before you spout off.

Eric Lucas

 

[N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)]

Dear lucasea:

<lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
newskkUg.19045$Ij.3426@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...

"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com
wrote in message newsckUg.1491$v43.1158@fed1read02...
Dear Homer J Simpson:

"Homer J Simpson" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:m3kUg.45502$bf5.5820@edtnps90...

"Ken Smith" <kensmith@green.rahul.net> wrote in message
news:efsi7m$e0d$2@blue.rahul.net...

I think if the US said it supported him, he'd be out by
sunset.
Only by having the US to blame and scare his population
with does he maintain his position of power. Illegitimate
governments have often used an external threat as a way
to rally the populace behind themselves.

Maybe we could get Bush to walk hand-in-hand with him.

I'm pretty sure US presidents (or at least cabinet flunkies)
had been seen walking hand-in-hand with Saddam. Not
sure "reverse psychology" works all that well...

Several reasons that I suspect the comparison is not very
instructive. Saddam's regime was secular, whereas
Ahmadinejad's is a Muslim regime.

Saddam was Sunni (and Baathist). Sunni communities thrived under
Saddam. Shia and Kurdish communities were largely targets of his
pogroms. Saddam wasn't "secular". Notice how the Shia and the
Sunni spend a lot of energy (and lives) "getting even" now.

It's easy for Ahmadinejad to point to the US and say "See
the infidels that wish to attack us?", and it's difficult to
credibly associate him with a non-Muslim western regime.

Much as the difficulty we had with communism in the 60s.

Plus, I think the US did have a lot of support originally
from the Iraqi populace. Due to our activities in Iraq, I
don't think the same can now be said of Iran.

We originally "pumped up" Saddam, simply to counter Iran's
infuence in the area. (You may recall the hostage crisis...)
The enemy of my enemy...

Plus, by contrast, to my knowledge, Ahmadinejad hasn't
made the mistake of genocide like Saddam did, he's just not
very popular.

Give us time. We'll screw that up too. I hope I'm wrong. But I
don't think parading a US government official to make goody-goody
noises with Ahmadinejad will shorten Ahmadinejad's political
career.

David A. Smith