"Like Pipes, Schwartz is preaching a doctrine that is based on very limited fact. He proclaims that the Wahhabi movement has “violently attacked Jews, Christians, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, traditional Sunnis, Sufis and Shiites worldwide.""
The author appears to indicated that Schwartz' statement is not true. However, the "true fact" is not discussed within the article. So, what is the true fact?
The entire article is like that - it insinuates that Pipes and others are making false statements sugar-coated with a veneer of truth (apologies for the mixed metaphor), yet while it quotes those statements, it makes no attempt to provide any evidence of falsity. It is as if the article's intended audience intuitively "knows" what is supposed to be false about those statements, so it is not necessary for the author to actually state what is supposed to be false. That approach may serve as "discussion" or "criticism" in certain closed societies, but it falls flat anywhere where knowledge is enlightened by rational thought processes. It actually seems that the author is making Pipes' case for him.