George Galloway 'beaten over Israel comments'

[fuji]

We have the AP, CBC, NDTV, Washington Post, the Finnish reporter all confirming that Hamas used civilians as human shields.

Not to mention that every one of those rockets was being fired at civilians.

 

[gryfin]

Wrong. It is an acknowledgement that Hamas used civilians as human shields. What the Carter Center is questioning is whether the use of civilians as human shields was widespread.

If the Carter Center spokesman had wanted to question whether or not it occurred, he would have said, "While Hamas may or may not have used civilians as human shields..."

What he said, "Yes, Hamas and others may have used civilians as human shields...", is an acknowledgement that the point being made by others -- that Hamas used human shields -- is correct.

You don't get to create your own grammatical rules. Your point was wrong. That is a statement of fact, not an opinion.

You are right on two counts. This is a statement of fact and I nor anyone else gets to make there own grammatical rules. Therefore, the Carter Center is stating as a matter of fact that there is no definitive proof that Hamas used human shields. If they had wanted to say that Hamas does, they would have said "Yes, Hamas and others have used human shields". But they didn't,....they said "may".

Try again.

 

[Moviefan-2]

You are right on two counts. This is a statement of fact and I nor anyone else gets to make there own grammatical rules. Therefore, the Carter Center is stating as a matter of fact that there is no definitive proof that Hamas used human shields. If they had wanted to say that Hamas does, they would have said "Yes, Hamas and others have used human shields". But they didn't,....they said "may".

Try again.

Wrong.

If the intent had been to establish doubt, the statement would have been something like this:

Hamas and others may or may not have used civilians as human shields. But even if they did, was that consistent and widespread?

That's not what was said. What was said was this:

“Yes, Hamas and others may have used civilians as human shields, but was that consistent and widespread?"

In the first part of the sentence, the word "may" is used as an acknowledgement that that part of the assertion is true, but the extrapolation that has followed -- that it was consistent and widespread -- may not be true.

It is not a debatable point. If you continue to disagree, we will have to conclude that you are not sufficiently fluent in the English language to participate in this discussion.

 

[fuji]

In other words all these groups are calling in formal investigations into war crimes by Hamas, which is something like calling an investigation to find it e whether fire is hot.

 

[groggy]

Wrong.

If the intent had been to establish doubt, the statement would have been something like this:

Hamas and others may or may not have used civilians as human shields. But even if they did, was that consistent and widespread?

That's not what was said. What was said was this:

“Yes, Hamas and others may have used civilians as human shields, but was that consistent and widespread?"

In the first part of the sentence, the word "may" is used as an acknowledgement that that part of the assertion is true, but the extrapolation that has followed -- that it was consistent and widespread -- may not be true.

It is not a debatable point. If you continue to disagree, we will have to conclude that you are not sufficiently fluent in the English language to participate in this discussion.

What it says is that there is no legit evidence to confirm it was a policy.
For instance, if I said 'moviefan may like to diddle little boys', does that mean that you're a paedophile or not?

 

[Moviefan-2]

For instance, if I said 'moviefan may like to diddle little boys', does that mean that you're a paedophile or not?

There are so many problems with that question, it's difficult to know where to begin.

I'll assume you understand that asserting something doesn't make it true. Therefore, you asserting that I'm a pedophile doesn't mean that I am.

However, in relation to the quote from the Carter Center representative, the question as you have asked it is misleading.

If you were to say: "Yes, MF-2 may like to diddle little boys, but he doesn't understand why that is wrong," you would most certainly be asserting that I am a pedophile.

Similarly, the Carter Center spokesman was acknowledging that Hamas and others used civilians as human shields. The question in his sentence pertained to whether or not the practice was consistent and widespread.

What is not in dispute is that the Carter Center acknowledges that human shields were used.

 

[groggy]

In other words all these groups are calling in formal investigations into war crimes by Hamas, which is something like calling an investigation to find it e whether fire is hot.

Glad to hear that you are supporting a call for the ICC to investigate both sides for possible war crimes, as I suggested.

 

[fuji]

I didn't say anything about the ICC. The Palestinian Authority should arrest the relevant Hamas officials and put them on trial for their crimes.

That would signal that the PA is serious about being a legitimate government.

 

[groggy]

I didn't say anything about the ICC. The Palestinian Authority should arrest the relevant Hamas officials and put them on trial for their crimes.

That would signal that the PA is serious about being a legitimate government.

Are you now so ridiculous as to claim that an investigation by the PA would be more legit then the ICC?

 

[fuji]

I am saying if the Palestinians want to have a state they have to grow up and start acting like one. The Palestinian Authority shouldn't need an outside court to babysit it. The PA should be able to create a fair court of its own and prosecute Hamas.

I guarantee you that arresting and prosecuting terrorists would do more to legitimize the Palestinian State than any UN recognition vote.

If the PA did that it would be seen around the world including in Israel as a serious, responsible government not only ready to do the job of governing, but really already doing it.

Want to delegitimize the occupation? Show that the Palestinians can keep their own house in order without it. If the PA arrests Meshaal and Deif and puts them on trial for war crimes then there is a strong argument that Israel should get out of the way and let them get on with things. On the other hand, so long as the PA obstructs efforts to bring these criminals to justice then there is a strong argument that Israel will have to do it.

 

[gryfin]

Wrong.

If the intent had been to establish doubt, the statement would have been something like this:

Hamas and others may or may not have used civilians as human shields. But even if they did, was that consistent and widespread?

That's not what was said. What was said was this:

“Yes, Hamas and others may have used civilians as human shields, but was that consistent and widespread?"

In the first part of the sentence, the word "may" is used as an acknowledgement that that part of the assertion is true, but the extrapolation that has followed -- that it was consistent and widespread -- may not be true.

It is not a debatable point. If you continue to disagree, we will have to conclude that you are not sufficiently fluent in the English language to participate in this discussion.

You are right. It's not a debatable point. The meaning of "may" is well codified. But why believe me? Let's turn to the dictionary:

"c —used to indicate possibility or probability <you may be right> <things you may need>"

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/may

Possibility..probability. Certainly not definitive.

I hope this little trip to the woodshed did not hurt too much.

 

[Moviefan-2]

You are right. It's not a debatable point. The meaning of "may" is well codified. But why believe me? Let's turn to the dictionary:

"c —used to indicate possibility or probability <you may be right> <things you may need>"

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/may

Possibility..probability. Certainly not definitive.

I hope this little trip to the woodshed did not hurt too much.

That's hilarious. Semi-literate Gryfin cut and paste from the Merriam-Webster dictionary -- but he copied the wrong part !

Here's the part that's relevant to the Carter Center quote, with the important word highlighted in bold and underlined:

"3 —used in auxiliary function expressing purpose or expectation <I laugh that I may not weep> or contingency <she'll do her duty come what may> or concession <he may be slow but he is thorough> or choice <the angler may catch them with a dip net, or he may cast a large, bare treble hook — Nelson Bryant>"

And just to help Gryfin out a little bit more, here's the definition of the word "concession":

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/concession

The Carter Center conceded that civilians were used as human shields. Your own dictionary link confirms it.

 

[groggy]

That's hilarious. Semi-literate Gryfin cut and paste from the Merriam-Webster dictionary -- but he copied the wrong part !

Here's the part that's relevant to the Carter Center quote, with the important word highlighted in bold and underlined:

"3 —used in auxiliary function expressing purpose or expectation <I laugh that I may not weep> or contingency <she'll do her duty come what may> or concession <he may be slow but he is thorough> or choice <the angler may catch them with a dip net, or he may cast a large, bare treble hook — Nelson Bryant>"

And just to help Gryfin out a little bit more, here's the definition of the word "concession":

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/concession

The Carter Center conceded that civilians were used as human shields. Your own dictionary link confirms it.

The quote is this:
"Yes, Hamas and others may have used civilians as human shields, but was that consistent and widespread?"

This is a question, not a statement.
As in
(Hamas 'might have' used civilian shields) but 'was there a consistent and widespread policy'?

Its not a statement of fact, its a question.

 

[gryfin]

That's hilarious. Semi-literate Gryfin cut and paste from the Merriam-Webster dictionary -- but he copied the wrong part !

Here's the part that's relevant to the Carter Center quote, with the important word highlighted in bold and underlined:

"3 —used in auxiliary function expressing purpose or expectation <I laugh that I may not weep> or contingency <she'll do her duty come what may> or concession <he may be slow but he is thorough> or choice <the angler may catch them with a dip net, or he may cast a large, bare treble hook — Nelson Bryant>"

And just to help Gryfin out a little bit more, here's the definition of the word "concession":

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/concession

The Carter Center conceded that civilians were used as human shields. Your own dictionary link confirms it.

Your eagerness is betraying you. Your chosen definition only speaks to "purpose and expectation". Nothing about the word "may" being an indication of anything definite. Keep searching.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Nothing about the word "may" being an indication of anything definite.

It is obvious that you don't know what the word "concession" means. Let me help you:

Definition of CONCESSION

1 a : the act or an instance of conceding (as by granting something as a right, accepting something as true, or acknowledging defeat)
b : the admitting of a point claimed in argument

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/concession

 

[Moviefan-2]

The quote is this:
"Yes, Hamas and others may have used civilians as human shields, but was that consistent and widespread?"
...
Its not a statement of fact, its a question.

I understand that, but Gryfin claimed that the use of the word "may" in the first part of the sentence was expressing doubt, when it was actually a concession that Hamas and others did use civilians as human shields.

The Carter Center guy has conceded that civilians were used as human shields. The question he posed is whether the practice was consistent and widespread.

Don't be confused by semi-literate Gryfin's misreading of the English language.

 

[groggy]

I understand that, but Gryfin claimed that the use of the word "may" in the first part of the sentence was expressing doubt, when it was actually a concession that Hamas and others did use civilians as human shields.

The concession is from 'didn't' to 'may', not 'may' have to 'did'.

It opens up the possibility that they 'may' have used human shields from an assumed position that they didn't, and then questions that even if they did, was there evidence that it was part of a program. And again, this is a question, not a statement of fact.

It says 'a' might have happened, and even assuming that 'a' happened doesn't mean that 'b' was a given.

You really have to be trying to twist words to turn that into an admission, its an admission only of the possibility, from complete denial.

 

[Gyaos]

You don't agree that racism and apartheid should be eradicated everywhere.

Obama is a top racist and an apartheid Zimbabwe. Impeach him and his racist wife out of the White House.

Gyaos.

 

[Moviefan-2]

The concession is from 'didn't' to 'may', not 'may' have to 'did'.

It opens up the possibility that they 'may' have used human shields from an assumed position that they didn't, and then questions that even if they did, was there evidence that it was part of a program. And again, this is a question, not a statement of fact.

It says 'a' might have happened, and even assuming that 'a' happened doesn't mean that 'b' was a given.

You really have to be trying to twist words to turn that into an admission, its an admission only of the possibility, from complete denial.

I'm not twisting words. I'm using proper English.

The word "may" is being used in that context as a concession, as was described in the Merriam-Webster definition provided by Gryfin.

Here is the definition of concession: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/concession

Concession means accepting the point -- in this case, it means the Carter Center accepts that civilians were used as human shields.

If the spokesman was only accepting the possibility, he would have said that -- eg., "while it may be possible that Hamas and others used civilians as human shields," etc.

That's not what he said. He said "Yes, Hamas and others may have used civilians as human shields, but...."

The word "may" is used to concede the point, not express uncertainty. And there is no uncertainty in the words that follow. He said "have used", not "have possibly used".

He wasn't conceding that it was possible. He was conceding that it happened.

What he was questioning was to what extent were civilians used as human shields. He was not questioning that such actions occurred. In fact, he conceded that was the case.

One wonders why anyone should pay attention to you or Gryfin, given that it's doubtful (if your posts are sincere) that either one of you could pass a high school English exam.

 

[gryfin]

It is obvious that you don't know what the word "concession" means. Let me help you:



http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/concession

It's even more obvious that you seem to have forgotten that the word "concession" is not part of the quote in any way. It's nowhere to be found. You must have known you get caught doing that.

Relying on that strategy reeks of desperation. It's virtually a tacit "concession."

Once you get back to the actual text, let me help you as well....the quote does not say "have used"' it says "may have used".