Hamas Manual On Urban Warfare

[Daniyel]

I think it is pretty easy to just print an original paper and scan it, I can speak Arabic, this is a very precise translation, but don't relay on my word, go translate that yourself.

 

[Daniyel]

Hold on.. he said its effective, so how come Israel deliberately targeting civilians when its actually effective? [MENTION=21837]P F Tinmore[/MENTION]

 

[I.P.Freely]

Wishing you a fine vacation Roudy. You are one fine man.

I am currently in Europe on vacation and have noticed how skewed the news is here. CNN's European news version is almost a copy of BBC. Most areas don't show FOX but have both CNN and NBC, if you can believe it.

Thanks. I noticed the Moooslems here in Italy aren't as cocky and arrogant as in UK and France. Italianos have very little patience for Islamist assholery here. Maybe that's why they banned Islam as an official religion in Italy. Praise to the Allah. LOL

Sorry if the UK moooslems scared you, you should have told me you were coming. I would love to meet you.

 

[I.P.Freely]

Very revealing, but of course this wouldn't be a video you're going to see being played on BBC or Al Jazeera, that's for sure.

I find al Jazeera America far less shrill and far more fair and balanced than MSNBC or CNN but I notice both have noticed their silliness and are slowly changing.

I am currently in Europe on vacation and have noticed how skewed the news is here. CNN's European news version is almost a copy of BBC. Most areas don't show FOX but have both CNN and NBC, if you can believe it.

Faux is available through sky and various other sat/nets.Its just no one much likes it loony right wing bias. School holidays? dont be a nerd, get of the computer and enjoy multi cultural Europe.

 

[Challenger]

I think it is pretty easy to just print an original paper and scan it, I can speak Arabic, this is a very precise translation, but don't relay on my word, go translate that yourself.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQ6S0-o3uFI

It's a 76 second sound bite which is essentialy meaningless as we have no idea of context; proves nothing.

 

[Challenger]

...Thanks. I noticed the Moooslems here in Italy aren't as cocky and arrogant as in UK and France. Italianos have very little patience for Islamist assholery here. Maybe that's why they banned Islam as an official religion in Italy. Praise to the Allah. LOL

Sorry if the UK moooslems scared you, you should have told me you were coming. I would love to meet you.

I've lived here in the UK all my life and have never met a "cocky and arrogant" Muslim. I think Rude-ee must have upset them...somehow.

Rude-ee is also wrong again as Italy has never banned Islam as an official religion as it never was one. Italy has been a secular state since 1948. It has however, dis-established the Roman Catholic religion as Italy's official religion and now has fredom of all religion written into the Italian constitution (articles 8, 19, 20).

Italy - Constitution

 

[Challenger]

....Faux is available through sky and various other sat/nets.Its just no one much likes it loony right wing bias. School holidays? dont be a nerd, get of the computer and enjoy multi cultural Europe.

He's probably too afraid of all those "Moooslim terrorists" that Europe is "infested" with, either that, or his parents won't let him out on his own...

 

[Challenger]

http://www.idfblog.com/blog/2014/08/04/captured-hamas-combat-manual-explains-benefits-human-shields/
There you can find the original one, IDF also found instructions notebooks on how to assemble a suicide belt and everything.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boAYuOgqzJQ]IDF Hamas Human Shield Manual a Sloppy Forgery - YouTube[/ame]

No surprise there. Usual IDF Hasbara BS. Did you know they once banned importation of paper and crayons into Gaza for "security reasons"?

 

[P F Tinmore]

http://www.idfblog.com/blog/2014/08/04/captured-hamas-combat-manual-explains-benefits-human-shields/
There you can find the original one, IDF also found instructions notebooks on how to assemble a suicide belt and everything.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boAYuOgqzJQ]IDF Hamas Human Shield Manual a Sloppy Forgery - YouTube[/ame]

No surprise there. Usual IDF Hasbara BS. Did you know they once banned importation of paper and crayons into Gaza for "security reasons"?

It is to keep Hamas paper airplanes with crayon bombs from attacking Israel.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

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

IDF Hamas Human Shield Manual a Sloppy Forgery - YouTube

Hahahaha did you even watch the video? That is the most pathetic attempt at trying to 'expose' something I've ever seen.

You pretty much believe anything as long as it's anti Israel

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

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

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

Hahahaha did you even watch the video? That is the most pathetic attempt at trying to 'expose' something I've ever seen.

You pretty much believe anything as long as it's anti Israel

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.

 

[Daniyel]

Feel free to elaborate with a long list through history to base your statement. [MENTION=21837]P F Tinmore[/MENTION]

 

[Phoenall]

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.

How about a link from a non partisan source that upholds your claim, or is this just something you have made up.

Far too many pallywood productions to prove that the Palestinians are the ones using dirty tricks.

 

[MJB12741]

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.

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.

 

[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.

Palestinians and their supporters have a long history of trying but failing miserably to try and disprove allegations against the Palestinians.
Your video is a perfect example. Nothing in there disproved that the IDF made it up.
If the info in that video was enough to prove that he IDF made up that document, the. Don't you think the IDF would have known that before?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Feel free to elaborate with a long list through history to base your statement. [MENTION=21837]P F Tinmore[/MENTION]

Sure, let's start at the beginning.

The "Arabs" lost the 1948 war.

 

[toastman]

Feel free to elaborate with a long list through history to base your statement. [MENTION=21837]P F Tinmore[/MENTION]

Sure, let's start at the beginning.

The "Arabs" lost the 1948 war.

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

 

[P F Tinmore]

Feel free to elaborate with a long list through history to base your statement. [MENTION=21837]P F Tinmore[/MENTION]

Sure, let's start at the beginning.

The "Arabs" lost the 1948 war.

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?

 

[toastman]

Sure, let's start at the beginning.

The "Arabs" lost the 1948 war.

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.

 

[MJB12741]

It's like if Israel ever needs more land let us all join together & pray the Arabs again unite to annihilate Israel.