When are people going to wake up to the fact that Islam, yes, Islam itself, is a far greater threat to freedom on the globe than Comminism and Nazism ever were and even were those two combined?

It's definitely disquieting to think that a nominally American organization can simply phone up a few Saudi princes, and have limitless funds to sue their critics into silence. Not that I'm questioning their patriotism or anything...

Congratulations on the lizardlanche, btw...

1) Offense, 2) offense and 3) offense - together with uncompromising disavowals of self-reflection and self-criticism; a certain, qualitative mindlessness and inevitable, concomitant heartless and soulless qualities as well.

Such is the result of the jihadist/salafist outlook and such is the face both Islamicists and Islam in general has chosen, consciously and unconsciously, to offer the world. Committed salafists and jihadists comprise a decided minority within Islam, but the broad range of sympathizers and the additionally broad range of apathetic quietists - those who, due to intimidations and other motives, refuse to criticise and oppose the core militant groups - together represent a decided majority within Islam. It requires a critical self-blinded quality to imagine otherwise.

(On the other hand Chicago has won the NFC title, so at least for now all is well with the world.)

I wonder if there is going to be that big push by the Dhimmicrats for a ban on criticism of religion, especially Islam, of course.

The Muslims in America are pushing it hard, but look how far they have come in Europe. Europe is practically cowering in the corner.

Hey, is Jim Baker's law firm representing the ISB? I read they are representing the Saudis in the family lawsuit.

Charles, I was led to your site by the other Charles (at lgf). Wonderful site. Great gutsy post. I hope you keep holding these folks up to the spotlight of public scrutiny. I resent their arrogance. Also, I resent the Saudis and the free ride that the Bush White House is determined to give them -- despite the efforts that a NUMBER of PROMINENT Saudis are undertaking to UNDERMINE the allege war on terror (that is -- at best -- rather fainthearted, in my opinion). -- gunjam

michael b wrote:

1) Offense, 2) offense and 3) offense - together with uncompromising disavowals of self-reflection and self-criticism; a certain, qualitative mindlessness and inevitable, concomitant heartless and soulless qualities as well.

Such is the result of the jihadist/salafist outlook and such is the face both Islamicists and Islam in general has chosen, consciously and unconsciously, to offer the world. Committed salafists and jihadists comprise a decided minority within Islam, but the broad range of sympathizers and the additionally broad range of apathetic quietists - those who, due to intimidations and other motives, refuse to criticise and oppose the core militant groups - together represent a decided majority within Islam. It requires a critical self-blinded quality to imagine otherwise.

Superbly articulately and insightfully written paragraph.

I call it a steadfast resistance to the development of a conscience -- something that stands in stark contrast to the experience of many followers of Christianity and Judaism.

-- gunjam

And let us not forget the wonders of libel tourism.

I recall that Michael got fired in DC, too, because he called some of the local salafists "Islamofascists." Pissed off any number of people, but was right on the mark, of course!

Steadfast opposition to this crap is the only possible solution. They will bend every effort to bury us.

The appropriate response would be to counterclaim for abuse of process, the civil version of false arrest. You can go for the original petitioners, their attorneys, everybody on the attorneys' letterheads, the typists, everybody on the petitioners' letterheads and in their leadership -- in short, everyone who is in the enemy chain of command. You can, early on, get from the bad guys a complete list of their assets and addresses (in case you win and want to squeeze the bad guys). Such interesting information can then be posted on the Internet. If it is accurate, it might be quite informative. If not, it can get the bad guys in trouble with the court. Go for their kaffiyehs, fellas!

Only by allowing more free speech, together with intense public scrutiny, can Americans hope to shine a light upon Islamist efforts to foment internal separateness; and further, expose the singularity of their indivisible religious and political agenda which aims to subsume our Constitution and supplant our individual freedoms for a seventh (7th) century Islamic paradise.

While Bush is making noises against the Iranians, he thinks the Saudis can do no wrong. Meanwhile, it is the Saudis not the Iranians who are spending massive amounts or money in the US. Bush is even inviting the Saudis to send over more "students" to US universities. If the President thinks this is no problem why should we?

The thing about CAIR is that for such a well-oiled PR apparatus, they haven't been all that successful with their defamation suits, have they.

The score I am aware of so far is:

Andrew Whitehead of AntiCair:1 CAIR: 0 and Daniel Pipes: 1, CAIR: 0.

The six imams yanked from a flight story has been debunked.

The 40 tardy Hadj travellers -- compensated by North West Airlines for being kept off a plane for arriving too close to departure time.