It's a reproduced web page from an archive.
So no, it's not the genuine article.
It's a reproduced web page from an archive.
The olnly one we have access to.Which one? You claimed the one I linked to wasn't the correct one? Do you now accept it is in indeed the current Hamas 2017 charter?
Ok. You don't believe the 2017 charter I posted is the correct one, but you don't know what the correct one actually says.It's a reproduced web page from an archive.
So no, it's not the genuine article.
You don't know if the abstracts are real. You (claim you) haven't seen the original document.We can only guess from the abstracts that are available,
No, but access to the website is.Any access to Hamas publicised information is restricted:
We can't be sure it is accurate. that's right we can't be certain what the genuine one says. We're led to believe what i sayd from Israel and US versions.Ok. You don't believe the 2017 charter I posted is the correct one, but you don't know what the correct one actually says.
There is no point arguing for Hamas if you have no idea what their correct aims and objectives are in the first place..
It's not. You're seeing an archived version. Look at the link that you provided.No, but access to the website is.
Middle East Eye (MEE) is a London-based news website
MEE is edited by David Hearst, a former foreign leader writer for the British daily, The Guardian
Cyberattack
In April 2020, MEE was one of 20 websites targeted by hackers that cybersecurity experts, ESET, have linked to an Israeli surveillance company called Candiru. The website was impacted using a Watering hole attack which serves malicious code to certain visitors allowing the attackers to compromise their PCs.
The internet is awash with misinformation
It's the accuracy that is a problem.You don't know if the abstracts are real. You (claim you) haven't seen the original document.
Wikipedia links to the one I posted, which you don't believe either.The best we can hope for is the Wikipedia version
Fine. So you aren't certain what Hamas stand for.But we can't be certain that is accurate.
At least I do try to reference genuine and relaible sources.In all fairness Roy, you seem to be the main source.
Every version I have posted says the same thing. Exactly.It's the accuracy that is a problem.
At least I do try to reference genuine and relaible sources.
You tell outlandish lies with no supporting evidence whatsoever.
I've been looking back. I took your word for these two sources that you say you presented. I refuted them being being different sources.Wikipedia links to the one I posted, which you don't believe either.
As best as we can glean from the available sources at out disposal, and from our own personal experience, and from historical ocurences, and from reliable reporting, and from what we can consider to be logically possible and what is logically impossible, and from our own moral compass.Fine. So you aren't certain what Hamas stand for.