Hamas Manual On Urban Warfare

[P F Tinmore]

Of course they lost. Not only did they fail their intentions, but they managed to lose land for the Palestinians too
Pretty pathetic considering it was 5 Arab Armies supported by several others versus one army that was barely put together.

1948 Arab?Israeli War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Result Israeli victory; Palestinian Arab defeat; Arab League strategic failure;[1] Armistice Agreements

What did Lebanon lose?

What did Syria lose?

What did Jordan lose?

What did Egypt lose?

You're doing it again. When someone proves you wrong about something, you start to ask stupid and irrelevant questions.

They lost the war. Just like they lost in 1967 and 1973.

Israel claims that it was attacked by five Arab countries (Iraq was under Jordanian command) and they lost.

So:

What did Lebanon lose?

What did Syria lose?

What did Jordan lose?

What did Egypt lose?

 

[MJB12741]

Hmmm, still no reply to back up his statement that "Israel has a history of faking things to slime Palestinians." Gosh I wonder why there is no reply. Boy, that's a tough question, huh?

How do ya like that? Israel has a history of faking things to slime Palestinians. I didn't know that. Will you be so kind Tinmore as to educate us with specific examples? And then we can do specific examples of Palestinians faking things to slime Israel. Fair enough?

P F Tinmore, et al,

You simply cannot make that level of a determination based on these images. The quality is not good enough.


(COMMENT)

First, you cannot tell if the staples are in the document, or removed. You see an imprint of stapling, but the coloration of the imprints suggests the staples were removed and the shadowing appears.

If you zoom in on the image of the first staple mark, you will notice that the accent bar intersects the imprint of the staple. I say imprint, because where they intersect forms a box much like a number sign "#" with a definite square in the center. If the staple was still in the cover, you would not see the two vertical lines go through the staple imprint.​

Second, you cannot tell if the document was in a pressed glass evidence case, or merely laid on the glass as is. Usually exhibits are encased; you simply cannot tell in this case due to the resolution. However, if the document was encased, it would flatten the creases and the text would be straight.

Third you cannot evaluated the exact cause of the damage in the right-upper-right side of the document. That is, you don't know if the actually captured document was an original print, or a photocopy of a damaged print to start with (which is very probably given the images we see). Many such documents found in counterinsurgency operations are copies of copies.

The vertical shadow to the left of the staples, which runs vertically down the length of the page, is NOT a fold mark. It is usually an image outcome of a dirty print roller (many of you may have experienced that on your own printers, but it is very common among heavily used printers and copiers). This suggests that it is not an original but a copy (how many generations we do not know).​

Immediately to the right of the first and second staple imprint, there is an obvious "blacker-than-black" elongated/stretched right triangle that runs from the upper righthand corner to just below the second staple imprint. This does not appear to be a fold that would alter the image of the paper. If you look immediately to the right of the second staple imprint, you will see a "white shadow" running through the black zone diagonally from left to right. This actually shows that there is paper still there and a definite edge of the paper. Again, this indicates that it was a copy, and highly suggests there was excess ink on the roller.​

----------------------------------------------------------------​

What you do see that is different is:

The first image has evidence of staples imprints, the second image has none. There are a number of ways to account for this, but it is an anomaly seen at this resolution. One way, of course, is that the second image was not a page stapled together with the cover. We simply do not have enough information on how the evidence was collected. It could be the case that both images were found on a computer as individually scanned documents. We just don't know.

The first image appears to be very centered; not unusual for document covers. The second image is, more than noticeably, off the horizontal center, but on vertical center. Again, this could be accounted for in a number of different ways, but more often then not, suggests that the document was a copy of a copy that was at some point scanned.

----------------------------------------------------------------​

The suggestion that it is an IDF forgery is unfounded. There are anomalies, yes, but we simply do not have enough information on where and how the documents were found, and what processing they underwent before they were scanned and presented on the IDF Website. The amateur sleuths and conspiracy theorist are always in abundance to challenge anything and everything to fit their agenda. But I'm hear to tell you, that based on that presentation, I am not convinced. While the presentation was interesting, any real squint or Question Documents professional would blow him out of the water.

There is simply insufficient information to suggest that the material is anything other than what it is represented to be.

Most Respectfully,
R

Indeed, it looks like a toss up.

But it follows Israel's history of faking things to slime the Palestinians.

 

[P F Tinmore]

What did Lebanon lose?

What did Syria lose?

What did Jordan lose?

What did Egypt lose?

You're doing it again. When someone proves you wrong about something, you start to ask stupid and irrelevant questions.

They lost the war. Just like they lost in 1967 and 1973.

Israel claims that it was attacked by five Arab countries (Iraq was under Jordanian command) and they lost.

So:

What did Lebanon lose?

What did Syria lose?

What did Jordan lose?

What did Egypt lose?

Cat got your tongue?

 

[Daniyel]

You're doing it again. When someone proves you wrong about something, you start to ask stupid and irrelevant questions.

They lost the war. Just like they lost in 1967 and 1973.

Israel claims that it was attacked by five Arab countries (Iraq was under Jordanian command) and they lost.

So:

What did Lebanon lose?

What did Syria lose?

What did Jordan lose?

What did Egypt lose?

Cat got your tongue?

You are such a negative person.
Syria/Lebanon lost a great ally and fell in to chaos.
Egypt in the middle, now in a peace-treaty with Israel.
Jordan were wise or lucky to see it in time when Black September happened, now in peace-treaty with Israel and Military/Intelligence co-op with Israel.
With the "great gift" from Syria (ISIS) and Lebanon (Hezbullah) - Israel will help Jordan fight ISIS/Hezbullah if they ever reach the Jordanian borders.
Lebanon were once flourishing but now under control of terrorism..look what they got..and consider ISIS nearby the borders as warning...

But lets ask what GOOD they contributed to humanity instead!
1.Nothing.

 

[toastman]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You simply cannot make that level of a determination based on these images. The quality is not good enough.

I have experience in Photoshop, Do you?

That video makes sense.

(COMMENT)

First, you cannot tell if the staples are in the document, or removed. You see an imprint of stapling, but the coloration of the imprints suggests the staples were removed and the shadowing appears.

If you zoom in on the image of the first staple mark, you will notice that the accent bar intersects the imprint of the staple. I say imprint, because where they intersect forms a box much like a number sign "#" with a definite square in the center. If the staple was still in the cover, you would not see the two vertical lines go through the staple imprint.​

Second, you cannot tell if the document was in a pressed glass evidence case, or merely laid on the glass as is. Usually exhibits are encased; you simply cannot tell in this case due to the resolution. However, if the document was encased, it would flatten the creases and the text would be straight.

Third you cannot evaluated the exact cause of the damage in the right-upper-right side of the document. That is, you don't know if the actually captured document was an original print, or a photocopy of a damaged print to start with (which is very probably given the images we see). Many such documents found in counterinsurgency operations are copies of copies.

The vertical shadow to the left of the staples, which runs vertically down the length of the page, is NOT a fold mark. It is usually an image outcome of a dirty print roller (many of you may have experienced that on your own printers, but it is very common among heavily used printers and copiers). This suggests that it is not an original but a copy (how many generations we do not know).​

Immediately to the right of the first and second staple imprint, there is an obvious "blacker-than-black" elongated/stretched right triangle that runs from the upper righthand corner to just below the second staple imprint. This does not appear to be a fold that would alter the image of the paper. If you look immediately to the right of the second staple imprint, you will see a "white shadow" running through the black zone diagonally from left to right. This actually shows that there is paper still there and a definite edge of the paper. Again, this indicates that it was a copy, and highly suggests there was excess ink on the roller.​

----------------------------------------------------------------​

What you do see that is different is:

The first image has evidence of staples imprints, the second image has none. There are a number of ways to account for this, but it is an anomaly seen at this resolution. One way, of course, is that the second image was not a page stapled together with the cover. We simply do not have enough information on how the evidence was collected. It could be the case that both images were found on a computer as individually scanned documents. We just don't know.

The first image appears to be very centered; not unusual for document covers. The second image is, more than noticeably, off the horizontal center, but on vertical center. Again, this could be accounted for in a number of different ways, but more often then not, suggests that the document was a copy of a copy that was at some point scanned.

----------------------------------------------------------------​

The suggestion that it is an IDF forgery is unfounded. There are anomalies, yes, but we simply do not have enough information on where and how the documents were found, and what processing they underwent before they were scanned and presented on the IDF Website. The amateur sleuths and conspiracy theorist are always in abundance to challenge anything and everything to fit their agenda. But I'm hear to tell you, that based on that presentation, I am not convinced. While the presentation was interesting, any real squint or Question Documents professional would blow him out of the water.

There is simply insufficient information to suggest that the material is anything other than what it is represented to be.

Most Respectfully,
R

Indeed, it looks like a toss up.

But it follows Israel's history of faking things to slime the Palestinians.

You have things twisted again. It is the Palestinians who lie and fabricate stories to slime Israel.

 

[Indeependent]

What did Lebanon lose?

What did Syria lose?

What did Jordan lose?

What did Egypt lose?

You're doing it again. When someone proves you wrong about something, you start to ask stupid and irrelevant questions.

They lost the war. Just like they lost in 1967 and 1973.

Israel claims that it was attacked by five Arab countries (Iraq was under Jordanian command) and they lost.

So:

What did Lebanon lose?

What did Syria lose?

What did Jordan lose?

What did Egypt lose?

Their pride.
Their facade that they were great warriors.
Their ability to seduce women without abusing them.
Must suck in a Muslim country to not be able to win a war.

 

[Vikrant]

You're doing it again. When someone proves you wrong about something, you start to ask stupid and irrelevant questions.

They lost the war. Just like they lost in 1967 and 1973.

Israel claims that it was attacked by five Arab countries (Iraq was under Jordanian command) and they lost.

So:

What did Lebanon lose?

What did Syria lose?

What did Jordan lose?

What did Egypt lose?

Their pride.
Their facade that they were great warriors.
Their ability to seduce women without abusing them.
Must suck in a Muslim country to not be able to win a war.

If a Jewish woman has to pick between you and a Muslim man, she is definitely going to pick the Muslim man - without a doubt. It is what it is.

 

[Picaro]

They lost the war. Just like they lost in 1967 and 1973.

Let's not leave out the 1935 'Revolt', wherein a significant number of Syrians had to be imported to provide an 'indigenous Palestinian militia' because there were far too few 'indigenous' palestinians who would actually fight for their 'freedom from Jewish oppression and stuff', and the 'Revolt' promptly disintegrated as the various 'freedom fighters' wandered off on looting sprees and random murders of civilians, including of Arabs. Even their British sympathizers were embarrassed for them and their fecklessness. PRetty hilarious dark comedy, given all the Arab posturing over being mighty 'warriors for Allah' for centuries.

 

[MJB12741]

Maybe the Palestinians should end their hostilities & thank Israel for being the only country in the Middle East to ever make peace offerings to them, build a security fence & grant them their own land which no surrounding Arab country ever did for them knowing the Palestinians best.

They lost the war. Just like they lost in 1967 and 1973.

Let's not leave out the 1935 'Revolt', wherein a significant number of Syrians had to be imported to provide an 'indigenous Palestinian militia' because there were far too few 'indigenous' palestinians who would actually fight for their 'freedom from Jewish oppression and stuff', and the 'Revolt' promptly disintegrated as the various 'freedom fighters' wandered off on looting sprees and random murders of civilians, including of Arabs. Even their British sympathizers were embarrassed for them and their fecklessness. PRetty hilarious dark comedy, given all the Arab posturing over being mighty 'warriors for Allah' for centuries.