Latest Breaking News

Last edited Sun Mar 16, 2025, 08:43 PM - Edit history (1)

You may not be used to being checked, but what I found was that the evidence for your claim is inconclusive. I still can't believe that you checked all the 200,000 plus entries matching the search criteria, but it was a formality that I left for you to explore. I am not sure what "helpfully marked with a line for you" means - all of the entries are helpfully marked with a line, and I didn't find it particularly helpful for me. If you mean a vertical line to the left of the name, you might find it helpful for you to read what it signifies: "Matching previous names". And the second entry that you found particularly helpful, having only one entry before it, signifies that the #1 and the #2 on the list are a match. I know you didn't look past the first page because the second page also contains an entry marked with an identical line, just for me.

But no need to elaborate on this any further - you might not be particularly surprised if I told you that this is just a distraction, and that I have a bigger point to make: we know that IDF identified the terrorists rather quickly and precisely, one of them being a terrorist that was previously released in a hostage exchange despite being convicted of a double murder, an inconvenient fact which proves the statements by Qasim Rashid Ahmad, Hazem Qassem and yourself to be demonstrably false. And IDF has yet to be proven wrong when they identify their targets with published verifiable names and ranks, as is the case in question.

We also know that just about every thug with an iphone and a loud mouth ( matching AK47 optional) turns out to be a journalist in Gaza. On closer examination, they also turn out to be on Hamas payroll with remarkable consistency.

As far as Mr Hazem Qassem, he may be a spokesman for Palestinian Journalists Syndicate, or for Hamas, or for Khaled Mashaal, or whoever else appoints him a spokesman. That doesn't mean he is not speaking on behalf of the terrorists being represented by Al Khair as their employees, no membership dues expected. Speaking on someone's behalf doesn't require any bona fides beyond speaking in their support and/or in their interest.

And it goes without saying that I didn't expect you to add anything more than you already said many times before, absent of any deviation from your predictable and well rehearsed narrative, as usual.