Because of filth like CAIR and this Omar T. Mohammedi, it will eventually end up being the people of this country who address these Islamists accordingly.

I believe that this entire Flying Imam situation was a set-up. The airline did the correct thing by removing them. In the courtroom, the burden of proof is on these Mohammedans.

Were they damaged? Injured? No...Just embarrassed.

How they could be embarrassed and humiliated is anyone's guess. In just seeing their angry mugs, if they can take looking at them in the mirror every day, then they can stand just about anything.

Let the discovery process begin.

Posted by: DCWatson at March 13, 2007 3:28 PM

US Air does not have the resources to investigate fraud and criminal conspiracy. That is a law enforcement issue. There should be a federal investigation of this matter and CAIR. As Senator Chuck Schumer has noted, "CAIR has known terrorist connections". This sinister and criminal organization needs to be investigated. I'm sure the FBI has plenty of video and audio re this group that would send a chill through any normal person.

US Air should not have to endure this attack. Atta and Co. will be repeated if these criminals are not put in jail. This is a conspiracy using "civil rights" as a pretext. This is a criminal matter, not a civil matter.

Posted by: Frank at March 13, 2007 3:34 PM

Infidel Air, pigskin seatcovers and pork rinds as snacks.

Until then, US Air is my Airline.

Posted by: walterc at March 13, 2007 3:36 PM

Goons.

Posted by: Stand fast in the liberty at March 13, 2007 3:45 PM

I hope the rest of the country can see through these big crybabies as easily as I can. This is a joke, anyone with a brain knows the Flying Imams were a set-up. Although I'm sure Nancy Pelosi will have to spout something against the airline like a good dhimmi

Posted by: kelisw at March 13, 2007 3:51 PM

The Phoenix Jihadis will be forced to fly Southwest if they boycott US Air/America West.

This will make it much more difficult to pre-plan seating like they are used to doing.

DC Watson, I agree. Let the Koran be put on trial. Pretty soon they will have to swear AGAINST the Koran rather than hope to swear on it!

-XRDC

Posted by: XRDC at March 13, 2007 3:52 PM

all airline seats s/b recovered with pigskin leather...

Posted by: exsgtbrown at March 13, 2007 4:07 PM

Mr. Omar points out 'this is not the first case against a U.S. airline'. This being the case someone should track, post and publish these past cases and news ones as they arise.

Things like:

Who is the legal firm?
Which airline?
Names of the plaintiffs?
Plaintiffs nationality, association, and organizations they are affiliated with?
Plaintiffs friends?
Writings and public statements by the plaintiffs?
Did the airline settle?
Is the settlement public?
Where did the money go?
Is the airline counter suing?

We all believe there will be more of these suits, and Omar even states that fact.

We need to have the information to support the airlines, and view trends of the plaintiffs.

We also need to view the trends of the airlines to know which ones fight for their and our rights and which ones are Dhimmis. That way we can support or boycott with out wallet.

All airlines should report the suits so that CAIR and the Plaintiffs are under the microscope and not getting lost/paid through the judicial system.

Posted by: alaskan1000 at March 13, 2007 4:09 PM

Someone yesterday posted contact info on US Air - I forget whom.

I took a few mintues this morning to send off a letter (snail mail) to US Air offering words of support.

Actually, it was a plea to the corporate leaders of US Air not to cave into the extortion by the imams. I noted in my letter that while US Air must be aware of the bottom line because they owe a duty of financial accountability to their shareholders, they owe a duty to provide safe passage to their customers.

Based upon what I know of the Flying Imams, I believe a jury would find that the employees of US Air were prudent and reasonable in removing the imams from the plane. I asked US Air to stand behind the actions of their employees.

It would be cheaper to "settle" this case. That is what the imams are banking on. US Air should dig in their heels. Cost of litigation be damned. Their shareholders will not find fault with this.

I think the incident was staged. Proving it is another thing. But a bright attorney should be able to at least construct a theory upon which a counterclaim could be brought in federal court. does intentional infliction of emotional distress exist on the federal "civil" level? I doubt it, but it's worth a look. Certainly conspiracy to committ fraud should exist.

US Air needs our support. They are fighting this one on all of our behalf.

Posted by: omvi at March 13, 2007 4:13 PM

Such a suit, and any others like it, even if unsuccessful, will tend to keep employees of airlines -- such as those who on 9/11/2001 had their suspicions but, at the gates, nonetheless didn't dare act on them for fear of -- of exactly this kind of thing.

There has to be a climate in which any fear, any suspicion, of passengers, because of their behavior or something else can be reported, or can trigger some action. Obviously any sign of that passenger being a Muslim, should of course make that passenger subject to special, heightened scrutiny, and only a fool or a madman could think otherwise. If this requires special legislation, in order to reassure the flying public, then so be it.

This nonsense has to be done away with. It cannot be encouraged.

Posted by: Hugh at March 13, 2007 4:19 PM

I'm sure these jokers have never flown again. So much stress and all.

I would think that US Airways was confident enough in their witness statements to deny them another flight.

How many witnesses can US Airways produce to show that the Imans behavior was sufficent to make the passengers feel their life, and safety were in doubt?

The whole case reads like a typicle Muslim said, Infidel said affair.

Posted by: flowerknife_us at March 13, 2007 4:20 PM

When are we going to stop treating the cult of Islam as a respectable world religion?

It lost the right to be designated a "religion" long ago. Any normal understanding of religion includes the expectation that it promotes love and understanding among the peoples of the world, and condemns hatred, bigotry and violence in it's members, and rewards them in the after-life for the good they did in this life, and punishes them for evil they did.

Islam has turned the whole concept of religion as a force for good in the world up-side-down: evil is good and good is evil.

When Al Capone engineered the St. Valintines day massacre, no one said it was the work of extremists, and other Mafioso were "moderates" because they weren't all in the same garage at the same time.

The Mafia code for those present and those absent was the same for both. They were all criminals because their allegence was to the same code, and all had the potential for committing the same horrendous crimes.

Not all Mafia members will massacre people in a garage in Chicago, Just as not all Muslims will fly planes into buildings in New York city, but each group shares with its members a code that promotes and justifies those kinds of activities.

Neither group promotes peace or moderation.

History and common sense dictates that the F.B.I, and other law enforcement agencies, should view Islamic organizations in the same light as the Mafia.

Islam is not a religion by any normal understaing of what constitutes a "religion."

Posted by: rational at March 13, 2007 4:30 PM

This is part of the Islamization of the USA. This law firm will use our legal system much as the ACLU has and will be paid for their services from the pockets of the losing defendants. They will bring the suit under the various Civil Rights Acts passed by our Congress in the past. Two or so subsequent Federal statutes provide for payment of Plaintiff's legal fees from the pockets of the losing Defendants just as happened up the road here in Dover, PA. In time criticism of Islam will be hate speech.

Hang on!

This crap will go on as long as Americans have no backbone.

Posted by: Crusader at March 13, 2007 4:44 PM

This is classic LAWFARE

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&aq=t&ie=UTF-8&rls=SUNA,SUNA:2006-47,SUNA:en&q=lAwfare

Posted by: apostate_islam at March 13, 2007 4:55 PM

Hugh-

You are a sane man. This is very dangerous and it has to be stopped. Atta and Co. could have sued if they had been stopped on 911. It was only yesterday that it was almost as easy to get on a plane (prior to 911-for Muslims, for anyone) as it is to get in a car and go anyplace. Muslims have brought us the Airport Police State. These bastards are going to bring us to a general police state if they are not jailed or placed in mental hospitals. Maybe they want a general police state. They (CAIR, Flying phonies)are not normal. I really think these people are disturbed, out of touch with reality.

Posted by: Frank at March 13, 2007 5:00 PM

Final thought

I think many Muslims have a deep hate for freedom and want to make all places what they have made of airports. I think there is a resentment of freedom in this belief-system and that they secretly enjoy the seeing our loss of freedom at the airports. They will push us to a police state if they are not stopped.

Posted by: Frank at March 13, 2007 5:06 PM

some solutions:
-ban muslims from flying
-muslims create their own airlines - which will then be easier to track while airborne and take down when its planes start deviating off flight route - say- towards buildings

Posted by: TINBH at March 13, 2007 5:10 PM

WOW What a new angle, because of the increased security, Jihadists now have a somewhat tougher time
just walking into a airport and hijack a plane...SO we play this litigation game to free up our comrades
in bombs against the great satan!!!

Time to deploy the bomb sniffing swine!!!

Posted by: SoteriA at March 13, 2007 5:14 PM

why is D'Nesh getting his way?

INDONESIA: PLAYBOY EDITOR FACES TWO-YEAR JAIL TERM

Posted by: akak at March 13, 2007 5:15 PM

oops

^^^^ http://www.adnki.com/index_2Level_English.php?cat=CultureAndMedia&loid=8.0.394591892&par=0

Posted by: akak at March 13, 2007 5:16 PM

It would certainly appear that the imam community in America is unfamiliar with the legal term ¨frivolous lawsuits." But frivolous lawsuits are indeed what these people are up to.

The American public CAN take care of that. It won't require a great number of people with backbone to see to it that these putrid imam folk are legally blocked from ever again clogging the US legal system with bogus clains for what amounts to a bogus charge.

These imams have no more respect for western democratic laws than they have for human liFe--which isn't saying much.

Posted by: pythagoras at March 13, 2007 5:18 PM

more let's just all get along news:

Tehran, 13 March (AKI) - Iranian authorities have banned the magazine Salam Jonoub (Good morning south) and arrested its editor in chief Mohammad Bagher Abbasi in Bushehr, where Iran's nuclear power plant is based. A court ordered that the magazine be closed on Monday and charged its editor in chief with "discrediting the government." Abbasi had presented his candidature for the 2004 parliamentary elections to Iran's watchdog, the Guardians' Council, in a reformist list but had not been allowed to run.

Another journalist just arrested by authorities is Iranian Kurd Mansour Tifouri.

Reports on Monday said Iranian authorities have also closed Kurdish weekly Payame Kord (Kurdish message) and accused the magazine's editor in chief Ardeshir Sadreddini of publishing false and biased news. Sadreddini, who was released on bail, has received death threats from a militant group called Young Revolutionaries who have accused him of "betraying the Islamic revolution" in articles published by the magazine, "offending religion" and "cooperating with non governmental organizations" - approximately the same charges pressed by magistrates who banned the weekly.

Posted by: akak at March 13, 2007 5:19 PM

Frank wrote:

"They (CAIR, Flying phonies)are not normal. I really think these people are disturbed, out of touch with reality."

I strongly disagree. They are only too sane. What they are doing is waging just another variety of asymmetric warfare, different from that conducted on the battlefield, but potentially as effective. They are using our strengths -- our fundamental rights, judicial system and general suspicion of heavy-handed governmental action -- to weaken us by, at best, getting special legislation outlawing religious or ethnic profiling, or, at worst, tying up our courts and corporations and gaining some sympathy for their self-inflicted plight from those on the left inclined toward the view that the US has it in for any non-white, non-Christian people.

Posted by: sheik yer booty at March 13, 2007 5:19 PM

A clear case of intimidation to me: these b*****s are going after the airline, the captain, the air crew, the passengers, and the police, for sensible security measures in the light of known threats from Islamic terrorists on aeroplanes. I thought from the beginning that this was a set up: they behaved deliberatly suspiciously so they would cause a scene which they could then complain about.

To rephrase point 122 of the suit: "The PLAINTIFFS actions were intentional, malicious, wilful, wanton and callous, and showed reckless disregard for the PUBLIC'S civil and constitutional rights".

Posted by: Paul at March 13, 2007 5:27 PM

So Eliison is in on this?

Posted by: akak at March 13, 2007 5:30 PM

Why is there no counter suit -now in progress- such as "We The People (millions of non-pc minded, non-dhimmi types) versus c.a.i.r., its wahhabi supporters, their proxies - the 'flying imams', any and all other supporters (financial and otherwise), and any organization (NGO and or US govt or Republican or Democrat, federal, state, municipal, etc.) for wilful endangerment of US national as well as personal citizens' security". Otherwise - the only provision -authorizing the right to self-defense (and collective security)-anywhere in US law and constitution - is the Second Amendment by and for We The People.

Posted by: TINBH at March 13, 2007 5:48 PM

US Air does not have the resources to investigate fraud and criminal conspiracy. That is a law enforcement issue.

l disagree, if anticair can fight islamist appologists, so can USAir. All the airlines should be supporting USAir, as they will be next.

Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at March 13, 2007 5:50 PM

On Mohammedi's website, there is a pic of what appears to be the Empire State Building.

Why wouldn't he use a pic of the WTC twin towers?

Oops, that's right, his co-religionists knocked them down 6 years ago by first slashing the throats of female flight attendants, then hijacking airliners and using them as missles.

No one who ends up serving as a juror in this case if it goes to court should ever forget that.

No matter what these Imams want to cry about, nothing, not even all of CAIR's whiney posturing, will ever change the fact that it was Islam and Mohammedans that brought about the 9/11 attacks on this nation.

Posted by: DCWatson at March 13, 2007 6:10 PM

Crusader:
This crap will go on as long as Americans have no backbone.

===

I disagree. Americans have _PLENTY_ of backbone.

But this twilight shadowy situation will continue as long as America is confused about who the enemy is. And Americans are confused, particularly the leaders. Rapid _CONVINCING_ education needs to happen. _ALL_ Americans needs to know what we know here in JW/DW. Convincing them of what we know is imperative and urgent.

It occurs to me (and it should have occured sometime ago), that I think Muslims in the West are getting training (in Mosques). They are getting training in psychological warfare, disception, media handling, propaganda.
To date, we know a number of techniques (and Robert recently exposed one more). I am reasonably certain that Tariq Ramadan, d'Souza, CAIR representatives _ARE_ getting media training (mostly presentation propaganda techniques).

1. Claims of "Islamophobia", a newly coined word, designed to shut down pertinent questions on Islam.

2. Claims of "remarks taken out context", when someone has inadvertently exposed some unpleasant truth of Islam. Standard politician ploy.

3. Quotes from earlier parts of the Quran (more peaceful) that any Islamic scholar would say has been abrogated by later claimed revelations.

4. "Tu Quoque" claims.
Irrelevent claims that the questions do some such practice too - so share the blame, you are as equally guilty.

5. "You dont know Arabic..."
and therefore you have misunderstood the Quran, the Hadith collections, Sira.

6. "You are ignorant"
Used when an element of Islam has _MULTIPLE_ meanings (maybe one major and minor meaning). The Muslims will claim that it _ONLY_ has one of the meanings (and they certainly can back their case up with verses).
Case in point is : Jihad
It can mean "inner jihad"
But overwhelmingly, it means the "jihad" we know, external and Islamic texts do support that.
Robert recently said words on this as to whether "gates were Closed".

============

Now last century, America got used to exposing Communist propagnda - so we are back in the same saddle, same war, just _DIFFERENT_ enemy this time, but with _SAME_ totalitarian objective.

Posted by: UK Infidel Lover at March 13, 2007 6:18 PM

"many Muslims have a deep hate for freedom..."

Perhaps that should be the new definition for Islamic Freedom Fighters.

-XRDC

Posted by: XRDC at March 13, 2007 7:02 PM

speaking of discrimination and muslim/c.a.i.r. hypocricy...

"CBN News, March 13, 2007; ...

CBN News tried to cover a press conference announcing the lawsuit (regarding flying imams).

But our camera crew was turned away when they tried to enter the headquarters of CAIR ...
It was the third time in three years that CBN News has been denied entry to a CAIR event. ..."

http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/119087.aspx

Posted by: TINBH at March 13, 2007 7:03 PM

To rephrase point 122 of the suit: "The PLAINTIFFS actions were intentional, malicious, wilful, wanton and callous, and showed reckless disregard for the PUBLIC'S civil and constitutional rights".

Posted by: Paul

So you are saying that the airline is the plaintiff? Or is that what the lying emams are saying? I am confused? Who's on first?

Posted by: Allahfanculo at March 13, 2007 7:24 PM

"Flying imams"....sounds like a circus act.

Posted by: champ at March 13, 2007 7:56 PM

WHAT AN INCREDIBLE IRONY, the same ideology that these Imans practice has given people all over the world such unfortunate inconveniences, not to mention the billions of dollars in cost to support the TSA and airline security operations; these same people are the ones who may sue because they were inconvenienced.

Before any accepted judge allows such a case to go forward he should be well versed on all the guidlines that were put fourth by homeland security to the airlines,TSA agents and the FBI.

The airline and the captain of that US Airways plane was fully responcible for all the passengers and crew on that flight and he has the absolute duty and authroity to act in their interests and make decisions that protect them no matter what.

For the captain as well the crew of that airline or any airline to ignore their responsibility because of the fear of a lawsuit would be a crime.

Posted by: Mackie at March 13, 2007 9:46 PM

Did anyone notice the poll next to the article? 82% of respondants said they thought it was BS. Only 6 or so % thought is was warranted. cair is going to regret this.

Posted by: nyone at March 13, 2007 9:53 PM

Re: ZenaWarriorPrincess at March 13, 2007 05:50 PM

I see your point of view but stick with mine. Anticare is not in business to make a profit. It does not depend on the selling of a product or a service. It's a political-educational organization that depends on donations. The same with JihadWatch. On the other hand, US Air is in the business of providing a service and its purpose is to turn a profit.

JW and AntiCare does what they do and US Air does what it does. The government does what it does.

When faced with possible criminal conduct (frauds, shakedowns, threats, etc.) neither a business nor a political-organization has the resources or permission to investigate, arrest, and prosecute crime. As Lincoln said "the role of government is to do that which any individual or group of citizens cannot practically do for themselves". We cannot all be building private roads, putting up stop signs, traffic lights or be investigating and prosecuting crimes such shakedowns and fraud.

I think this flying phonies issue should be extensively investigated by the FBI (at least) as a possible conspiracy to extort money from US Air. US Air should be out of the picture at this point. This is a law enforcement matter. I think an appropriate and extensive FBI investigation of this matter will lead to indictments, the prosecution and probably the conviction of CAIR and the Flying Phonies for numerous violations of the law.

The public has to support US Air by word and travel deed. But the public must demand that the FBI extensively investigate this matter. US Air should be left to do what it does and the FBI should do what it is supposed to do, is given the resources to do by the public.

Anyway, that's how I see the issue Zena.

Posted by: Frank at March 13, 2007 9:56 PM

Hey big guy (DC Watson)

"On Mohammedi's website, there is a pic of what appears to be the Empire State Building."

No big deal of course, however the building on Muslim attorney Omar T. Mohammedi website is New Yorks Woolworth Bldg. in which his offices are located.

Posted by: Mackie at March 13, 2007 10:21 PM

I e-mailed Doug Parker, CEO of US Airways, expressing words of support and concern for the unenviable months to come, earlier this afternoon.

I might suggest that everyone else here, if you can, do the same.

Posted by: awake at March 13, 2007 10:44 PM

Damn; Fordham University (Catholic) disappoints again.

Isn't there something in the Bible to the effect that "as ye sow, so shall ye reap"?

Posted by: Vee at March 13, 2007 10:46 PM

Hi All,

Gee, I thought we were at war, and the actions of the six imams in harassing the passengers should be interpreted as aiding and abeting the enemy. The government should court-marital these imams, and let them stay in the brig for the duration of the conflict. So what if this is called "the long war" for good reason.

Let's do a thought experiment, and suppose the 6 imams pulled a similar stunt in mainland China. What punishment do you think they would receive?

The enitre situation is outrageous.

Magooey

Posted by: magooey at March 13, 2007 10:56 PM

I can see a bumper sticker on Ibrahim Hooper's car...

"Tell me the truth about Islam... I need the money!"

Posted by: The Resistance at March 13, 2007 10:58 PM

Christian Democrats recieve death threats
By Peter Jean and Drew Cratchley
13mar07

NSW Christian Democratic Party leader Reverend Fred Nile said today he had received death threats over his call for a moratorium on Islamic immigration to Australia.

Mr Nile, who is recontesting his upper house seat at the March 24 state election, on Saturday called for a 10-year ban on Islamic immigration.

He wants the immigration department to give preference to persecuted Christians while studies on the impact of Islamic immigration are carried out during the moratorium.

Mr Nile has previously called for a ban on the wearing of full-face scarves in NSW.

Today, he said he and another Christian Democratic Party (CDP) candidate had received death threats in recent days.

On Friday, a man had telephoned Allan Lotfizadeh, the CDP candidate for the western Sydney electorate of Auburn, and said: "You Christian pig. You are dead", Mr Nile said.

Yesterday, Mr Nile said, a man approached a CDP election worker at Granville and asked her where he (Mr Nile) lived, and what he had against Muslims.

She had then said: "Tell Fred Nile I am going to act out my faith on him".

Mr Nile said he believed the threats were linked to his statements on Islamic immigration and full-face scarves.

"I think, if they're talking about the Muslim issue it's related to the Muslim issue," he said.

Mr Nile said the threats, which have been reported to police, highlighted the need for the immigration moratorium.

"The reason why I called for the moratorium is because of what's happening in France and Holland where the Muslim minority are becoming militant," he said.

Prominent Muslim community leader Keysar Trad condemned the threats against Mr Nile.

"Anybody who thinks of making death threats should cease and desist and anybody who knows anybody who's making threats should call the police," he said.

Mr Trad said many members of the Islamic community had been the victims of threats and verbal or physical abuse.

"Now he (Mr Nile) has an idea what it's like for us," Mr Trad said.

A split appeared to emerge in the CDP over the immigration issue today, with Mr Nile's fellow upper house MP Gordon Moyes indicating he had reservations about the policy.

"In the Christian Democratic Party we are instructed to vote on issues according to our conscience and therefore we can have different points of view on some issues," Dr Moyes said.

"I have some differences with Fred on this matter but Fred is the one standing for election so I'm not getting into that debate."

Upper house MPs are elected for eight-year terms and Dr Moyes is not due to face the voters again until 2011.

Last month, former broadcaster Maxine McKew, who is seeking Labor preselection for Prime Minister John Howard's seat of Bennelong for this year's federal election, reported she'd received death threats.

I know this is a bit off topic but i was just trying to wrap my brain around the comment by Gordon Moyes the upper house MP.He stated he had resevations about the policy. He stated he wasn't up for re election so he wasn't going to het into the debate. WHATEVER!

Personaly i wonder if Fred Nile would like to come to the U.S. and bring that immigration policy here? Any U.S. politicians taking notice?

HELLO....is there anyone home?

Also there is the true face of islam in this article can you find it?

Also there is the common islam is the victim in this article,can you find it also?

And all that jazz.

Posted by: Dar al-harb at March 13, 2007 11:04 PM

Thanks for the correction, Mackie. Looks like I had better brush up on my sight seeing. haaaa

Posted by: DCWatson at March 13, 2007 11:28 PM

Dar al-harb we see it! We see the true face of Islam in that article. We see who the victim is. Unfortunately here, human nature takes its toll! It blinds the eyes of most people in our western countries.We a small minority group will be sayinr "I told you so".

Posted by: The Resistance at March 13, 2007 11:52 PM

Oops, correction:
Dar al-harb we see it! We see the true face of Islam in that article. We see who the victim is. Unfortunately here, human nature takes its toll! It blinds the eyes of most people in our western countries.We a small minority group will be saying "I told you so".

Posted by: The Resistance at March 13, 2007 11:53 PM

http://www.motionbox.com/video/player/7998dcb11919f6

Posted by: DCWatson at March 14, 2007 12:21 AM

Im delighted to say that my airline captain friend says there are now thousands of pilots "packing" heat, including himself, and soon to be on international flights also.

The flying Imammys should know this fact for all future flights should they get a little out of hand.

Posted by: guide inside at March 14, 2007 12:39 AM

Maybe there was a 12th Hidden Flying Imam.

To echo another poster, I resent the police state of our airports because of these people, and I demand my gov't do something about it.

Posted by: Bingo at March 14, 2007 3:45 AM

"When Al Capone engineered the St. Valintines day massacre, no one said it was the work of extremists, and other Mafioso were "moderates" because they weren't all in the same garage at the same time."
@rational
Very good post, indeed. I agree that islam shouldn't be allowed to flow freely under the safe umbrella of religious freedom.
It has too little in common with what a religion essentially should be about, which are love and peace and nonviolent means to achieve these goals.
Looking at Mohammed's life e.g. you can see some frightening similarities to what we'd call a mobster's definition. Which absolutely cannot be said of neither Jesus or Buddha. The fact that Mohammed to the day is regarded as the perfect man isn't encouraging neither.

As you point out - muslims share the same codex and up to now there has for example been virtually no declaration from a reknown islamic authority that Bin Laden is not muslim. At least I haven't heard about. (I wonder - if his actions were so contrary to islam's teachings, so un-islamic, how can he still be considered a pious muslim?? That famous islamic dualism?).

With regards to their preferred treatment in the west I also wonder whether it's easier to get a government's job being a muslim or a member of scientology (or similar). I don't share Tom Cruise's belief yet I never heard of him approving violence or denigrating others with regards to his belief. And yet I'm pretty sure that if you should share Bin Laden's belief you'll be preferred to a scientologist when applying for a government's job. Just wonder why..

Posted by: flibustier at March 14, 2007 7:34 AM