Proof of nothing.
Islamic terrorists using human shields is a tactic that dates back to muhammud (swish).
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Who cares? The tunnels are used for terror.The tunnels were not connected to the Al Shifa hospital!
Washington post says the IOF lied!
View attachment 876720
the article posted by the OLD PUSS---is meaningless-----"shows no evidence" does not exclude the LIKELY POSSIBILITY that there is extensive evidence---just not revealed in a shortWho cares? The tunnels are used for terror.
you are not familiar with islamo-nazi propaganda----for utterly transparent shit mouthI honestly do not understand absurd lies like this are allowed to be published.
No, I am familiar with it. I just do not understand why some platforms allow it.you are not familiar with islamo-nazi propaganda----for utterly transparent shit mouth
lies----visit a mosque on friday
oh---ok we get a refresher course hereNo, I am familiar with it. I just do not understand why some platforms allow it.
The tunnels were not connected to the Al Shifa hospital!
Washington post says the IOF lied!
View attachment 876720
But the evidence presented by the Israeli government falls short of showing that Hamas had been using the hospital as a command and control center, according to a Washington Post analysis of open-source visuals, satellite imagery and all of the publicly released IDF materials.
The munitions in question are PAC-2 and PAC-3 interceptors. The former are designed to destroy some types of ballistic missiles by exploding nearby, and the latter are hit-to-kill munitions that take direct aim at missiles and aircraft and pack a larger explosive punch.
all true-----and keep in mind----it is THE WASHINGTON POST------For those who doYou are aware, are you not, that posting just an image of an article without posting a link to the entire article is essentially bullshit, right?
But because you were too lazy to do so, here is a link to the article itself.
Oh, and the article itself is almost nonsensical.
OK, now wait a minute. They attacked the hospitals, and used them in the attack to move between the buildings. Yet, the tunnels were not connected to the hospital or any other buildings?
Yea, that "article" already sounds like a big steaming pile of coprolite. But here, what can we learn about those who wrote it? Any obvious bias in their previous writings?
Well, we can start with Louisa Loveluck, their Bureau chief in Baghdad. And it is rather, interesting. Almost every single article she has posted has a strong slant against Israel, and attacking nations outside the Middle East. Attacking Twitter, attacking the US, attacking Greece, it just goes on and on and on. Even trying to link the deaths of flooding in Libya and deaths after an Earthquake in Morocco on the West. So yeah, enough said about her. Nothing she writes should be considered as anything but propaganda.
Evan Hill is not much better. Among his reports are that Ukraine was preparing to attack Russia when the war broke out, but at least his reports tend to be a bit more balanced. Of course, his role seems to primarily be as a researcher and he does not seem to be an actual "reporter" per se.
Ahhh, Jonathan Baran. A... video reporter and editor covering technology, business and culture? That is his own description, but that is interesting. However, after going back for over three years of articles he posted there, every single one of them is about technology and business. Until December when he posted not one but two articles way outside of his normal area of reporting?
Now we come to the final one, and oh boy! Ellen Nakashima claims to be a "National Security Expert", and one of the first articles I read from her told me all I needed to know about what she actually knows about the topic.
And that is completely contradictory and nonsensical. How can a kinetic kill weapon "pack a larger explosive punch" than one that actually uses an explosive warhead? That completely contradicts itself and is nonsensical. That tells me she is writing for sensationalism and does not really care about accuracy at all. And they try to infer some kind of three way trade deal between Japan, the US and Ukraine, but never actually give any evidence of such. Just speculation that has no real basis in anything.
And I looked through more of her articles, and found the exact same thing. Lots of innuendo, generalizations, and damned few actual facts. And that was the only article I was able to read before the pay wall slammed down. But I saw so many others that made me laugh. Like the claim that the Marine Corps is about to create a new Infantry Regiment and base them on Okinawa. That was a year ago, and quite obviously that never happened. So needless to say, I question her writings as well. Especially as she seems to be their expert on China and Russia, not the Middle East.
So in the end, what do we have? The main author has a strong Anti-Israel leaning in her articles, and most of the rest have never reported on such issues before and never in that area. So over-all, an article that should not be taken very seriously without verification.
correct----but not for MRI----just groggy is not good----groggy moves aroundI am anesthetized for my colonoscopy. You're groggy but awake for yours?