Response to Harrak

Submitted by Infidel (Canada), Jan 14, 2006 at 20:53

Daniel Pipes has a PhD in Middle East Studies and is recognized as an expert in Middle East affairs. But who are you?

Are you so important that because you don't have information that Najad mentioned his god and told his group that he saw a light that it could not have happened? Are we to assume that only information sanctioned or acknowledged by you is true?

Frankly, most of us don't really care if you found a trace of that information, for Daniel Pipes has proven to be a reliable source of information. So you accuse Daniel Pipes of quoting unreliable and unproven information, and then accuse Sharon and Bush of speaking or seeing Jesus. I too, surf the net for international information and I have never seen your absurd accusation that Sharon and Bush either saw or spoke to Jesus. Have you forgotten that Sharon is a Jew, and Jews have never nor do they now, acknowledge Jesus? Where is your evidence or proof? But then, how foolish of me to ask. I should know that when an Islamist makes a statement, it is true, but when a non Islamist makes a statement, he better provide a lot of evidence as corroboration and even then it is highly suspect.

You also state that: "it is again academically wrong to say that Ahmadinajad or any Mahdavi wants to confront America or the west". You also state that: "I am almost absolutely sure that Iran and any Shiite entity will never go to war". Are you implying that Iran is a peaceful country? If so, can you explain the eight year war with Iraq fought in the 1980's resulting in between 1 and 2 million deaths? Perhaps you can also explain why many of the suicidal insurgents that are active in Iraq come from the great and peaceful Iran. And while your at it, please explain why peaceful Ahmadinajad proclaims publicly that Israel should be wiped of the map.

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".