- GOP hopes taking shutdown off the table with budget deal will pay dividends
- Chinese Death Star: The moon cited as the perfect launch pad for ballistic missiles
- Help wanted: Homeland Security plagued by vacancies at the top
- We are not amused: Queen’s protection officers warned to keep ‘sticky fingers’ off the royal cashews
- Unleash the crossbows: Gov. Scott Walker creates new hunting season
- Bubonic plague kills 20 in Madagascar
- G-20 diplomats fell for hacker attack promising nude photos of former French first lady Carla Bruni
- Minnesota guardsman charged with stealing private soldier data for fake IDs
- Florida appeals court rules universities can’t regulate guns
- Vladimir Putin defends Russian conservative values
By Mangosuthu Buthelezi
Memories of a long brotherhood tempered in common struggle
Independent voices from the The Washington Times Communities
Topic - Daniel Pipes
In a commentary piece ("Cyprus rides a troubled sea of oil and gas opportunity," Nov. 6), Daniel Pipes conjures up a fantasy that Greek Cyprus is about to be invaded, either by Turkish soldiers or Syrian refugees, or both, without offering even a scintilla of evidence.
Congratulations to Daniel Pipes for his timely and serious, if occasionally satirical, call to resettle Muslim refugees from Syria in Islamic nations ("A common culture for refugees," Commentary, Sept. 25). Mr. Pipes' satire exposes the canard of the rationale for Syrian-refugee resettlement in Western countries with Judeo-Christian traditions: Why would a believer in the Islamic ideology consent to resettlement in a Western nation? Our culture accepts the use of alcohol and pork products by unveiled, "liberated" women who may be attired in miniskirts or less. Why not settle instead in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait or even Indonesia or Kenya, where the refugees have much more in common with the natives, likely including some degree of enthusiasm for Shariah law?
Daniel Pipes should be congratulated for his clear exposition of the desirability of a dictator over a radical Islamist in the Middle East and in particular, Egypt ("Islamists are worse than dictators," Commentary, Tuesday). While Hosni Mubarak, Mohammed Morsi's predecessor, was a dictator, he was a pragmatic president sensitive to international opinion and aid from the United States. Though Mr. Mubarak was certainly not liberal, under him, the Coptic Christian population was protected from militant Islamists, and the military was able to act as a counterbalance in extreme cases.
Unlike Daniel Pipes, I couldn't care less whether President Obama is Christian, Muslim, Jewish or Hindu ("Obama: 'My Muslim faith,'" Commentary, Wednesday). My major concern is whether his religion governs his actions in domestic and foreign policy. Undoubtedly the president's pronounced hostility toward Israel and its leaders does not prove that Mr. Obama is a Muslim, nor does it disprove that contention.
Editor's Note: In this final segment of a five-part series, Middle East and Islam specialist Daniel Pipes looks at Barack Obama's possible religious syncretism and then draws conclusions from the information presented in this series.
Editor's Note: In this fourth of a five-part series, Middle East and Islam specialist Daniel Pipes focuses on perceptions that Barack Obama is a Muslim, first by those close to him, then by Muslims and finally by the American public.
Editor's Note: In this third of a five-part series, Middle East and Islam specialist Daniel Pipes continues his documentation of Barack Obama's close ties to the Islamic religion, focusing here on statements he made as an adult.
Editor's Note: In this second of a five-part series, Middle East and Islam specialist Daniel Pipes documents evidence from Barack Obama's childhood years that points to his Muslim identity.
Editor's Note: In this first of a five-part series, Middle East and Islam specialist Daniel Pipes begins his inquiry into Barack Obama's early Muslim connections by noting the president's autobiographical inaccuracies.
The July 26 letter "Cyprus is not Gaza," by the representative of the so-called Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC), which attempts to criticize Daniel Pipes' well-written, factual July 19 Opinion column, "Turkey in Cyprus vs. Israel in Gaza," is quite futile. Despite what the letter writer thinks of the comparisons, the facts relating to Turkey's invasion and occupation in Cyprus are indisputable.
Hilmi Akil's Monday letter to the editor, "Cyprus is not Gaza," is a shameful attempt to falsely distance the Turkish government from responsibility for May's Gaza flotilla incidents. Of the dozens of boats that set sail for Gaza, it was only on the Mavi Marmara ferry - organized by Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan's terrorist-classified IHH charities - that violence occurred.
Daniel Pipes is wrong to draw a parallel between Cyprus and Israel ("Turkey in Cyprus vs. Israel in Gaza," Opinion, Tuesday). He apparently is cross with Turkey over the flotilla incident and is reaching for what he believes will hurt that country most, as Cyprus is a national issue all Turks feel strongly about.
Black vs. brown