Sources?

Submitted by Alex Johnston (Ireland), Jul 26, 2007 at 12:29

Mr. Pipes is remarkably free with words like 'preposterous'. He argues that Thomas' book is inaccurate largely on the grounds that it can't possibly be accurate, not on the grounds of much hard evidence (other than anecdotal evidence, and denials from people who could be expected to deny it anyway). He finishes off by throwing around words like 'conspiracist' and 'Nazi' as a way of scaring the reader away from the book, but surely he is not suggesting that Gordon Thomas is a neo-Nazi - is he? ...

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".