For Noah and Michel and "the source behind the source"!

Submitted by dhimmi no more (United States), Feb 1, 2007 at 06:44

Hi Noah:

I never care to know who is really the Muslim that I'm chatting with. But Michel requested that i check about his name on the web. And I did. And surprise surprise: our dear Michel works for: Amir Technologies Labs.

Just google his name and you will find it.

Assuming that this is indeed our dear Michel he is working for Amir (how much more islamic can you get) Tech lab. Again that does not tell us that he is a Muslim but it would for sure raise red flags. But he was the one who requested that we google his name.

The issue here is his credibility. If he pretends to be something that he is not, there is no reason for us to believe anything he says.

Most of the people that post have no clue about the difference between:

1. Personal attacks.

2. Checking the source behind the source. In his case what brought him down is "the source behind the source" issue. He is Muslim and there is nothing wrong with that, but he claimed not to be and that was indeed his problem and I'm afarid to say that he dug his won grave.

I can very much post as an ex-Muslim after all my command of Arabic is very good, but I would not do such thing because it will destroy my credibility.

What is funny is what exposed him was my literary analysis of two of his posts.

There you go my friend.

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".