George Galloway 'beaten over Israel comments'

[fuji]

Groggy your lies in support of terrorism are pathetic and vile. There are no military targets anywhere near where most of those rockets were fired.

Your pathetic denials of the news about Hamas firing from hotels just shows you to be a crazy fanatic who cannot admit the truth.

Hamas did confirm that it was a Hamas operation, you are just blatantly lying, MULTIPLE Hamas leaders confirmed it.

The Hamas death squads didn't kill the Israeli villagers only because they were shot before they got there.

Hiding rockets in a school is a crime whether or not the school is operating.

And clearly they DID NOT have trials, that dragged people or and shot them on the spot.

 

[gryfin]

Unreal. Now, you want us to believe you don't know what the word "or" means.

Take another look at the definition. The third listing is citing examples where "may" is being used in an auxiliary function.

It does not say that all of the examples pertain to purpose and expectation. That is only the case for the first example. That is why the word "or" appears in front of the words contingency, concession, and choice.

Those are other examples of "may" being used in an auxiliary function. They are not examples of purpose and expectation.

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

You obviously don't know what you're talking about and it sure looks like you are borderline illiterate. Certainly, you could not pass a high school English exam.

The bigger question remains: Why should anyone care about your views on the Middle East when it is quite clear that anything more challenging than The Cat in the Hat is beyond your reading abilities?

What's unreal is your incessant jumping around the fact that the quote is interrogative. It's asking a question. As such it is not stating a conclusion. This is consistent with the use of the verb "may" as a possibility or probability which the question seeks to address. You are pretending you have a declarative sentence when you don't. You have a question.

 

[basketcase]

...

In this last round of slaughter though, it appears they mostly abided by the Geneva Conventions, other then the use of missiles that can't be aimed. ....

That is thousands of counts of war crimes right there. Add in the 700 or so fired from civilian areas, storing weapons in civilian structures, turning a hospital into a military HQ, summary executions...

 

[basketcase]

... they are still a war crime because you can't aim them, but its not terrorism...

Holy fuck. Gryf actually suggested something Hamas did was bad (though he tried to brush it off). For the sake of the Palestinians, I hope grog isn't acting as their lawyer.

 

[gryfin]

That is thousands of counts of war crimes right there. Add in the 700 or so fired from civilian areas, storing weapons in civilian structures, turning a hospital into a military HQ, summary executions...

You forgot to mention in your attempt at balance, the following figures:

Israel dropped 8,000 bombs on Gaza
Israel fired 60,000 tank shells into Gaza

http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=722484

 

[fuji]

You forgot to mention in your attempt at balance, the following figures:

Israel dropped 8,000 bombs on Gaza
Israel fired 60,000 tank shells into Gaza

http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=722484

None of which intentionally targeted civilians. It's the bit about targeting civilians being illegal and immoral that makes Hamas the bad guys and IDF the good guys.

 

[Moviefan-2]

What's unreal is your incessant jumping around the fact that the quote is interrogative. It's asking a question. As such it is not stating a conclusion. This is consistent with the use of the verb "may" as a possibility or probability which the question seeks to address. You are pretending you have a declarative sentence when you don't. You have a question.

Your incorrect conclusion about how "may" was used in the sentence has been addressed numerous times. Furthermore, your ignorance is now compounded by the fact that you apparently didn't know that a question can have a declarative statement within the sentence (have you never seen a political debate?).

Worst of all, you are throwing around words and terms that you clearly don't understand.

 

[Moviefan-2]

The sane world will be happy that international law can be applied to both sides.
But you won't be, will you?

You missed the point. Terrorist organizations such as Hamas don't have moral grounds to be complaining about war crimes.

 

[gryfin]

Your incorrect conclusion about how "may" was used in the sentence has been addressed numerous times. Furthermore, your ignorance is now compounded by the fact that you apparently didn't know that a question can have a declarative statement within the sentence (have you never seen a political debate?).

Worst of all, you are throwing around words and terms that you clearly don't understand.

Actually your misunderstanding of the verb "may" has been addressed many times. But you've run out of road since the quote in question is a question itself. You allusion to political debate is comically worthless. This a quote from a non governmental human rights organization.

And, as for political debates, I've heard all kinds of fractured grammar in the frenzied attempt to make points with the content of the question rather than waiting for the contents of the answer.

 

[Moviefan-2]

But you've run out of road since the quote in question is a question itself.

I'll give it one last try. If this doesn't work, I'll just have to accept that you have certain limitations when it comes to reading and writing.

Consider the following:

Yes, Gryfin may be a semi-literate buffoon who couldn't pass a high school English exam, but why must we assume that also applies to Groggy?

That is a question. But the first part of the sentence is a declarative statement. The word "may" is being used to concede the point, not to express doubt (believe me, there is no doubt about the point being made in the first part of the sentence).

Do you finally understand?

 

[fuji]

He understands perfectly. His Internet Jihad class has taught him to debate minutia like grammar, minute clarifications, etc., whenever there is a debate he cannot win. That way it looks like there are two sides being argued when in fact he has no arguments at all.

He would rather debate grammar than allow the focus to return to the actual war crimes committed by Hamas.

 

[Moviefan-2]

He understands perfectly. His Internet Jihad class has taught him to debate minutia like grammar, minute clarifications, etc., whenever there is a debate he cannot win. That way it looks like there are two sides being argued when in fact he has no arguments at all.

He would rather debate grammar than allow the focus to return to the actual war crimes committed by Hamas.

He's probably feeling betrayed. To him, it probably looks like Jimmy Carter and the Carter Center have been manipulated by the Zionists.

 

[groggy]

You missed the point. Terrorist organizations such as Hamas don't have moral grounds to be complaining about war crimes.

Is that why you think Israel doesn't complain about war crimes?

 

[groggy]

That is a question. But the first part of the sentence is a declarative statement. The word "may" is being used to concede the point, not to express doubt (believe me, there is no doubt about the point being made in the first part of the sentence).

Do you finally understand?

And this is your strongest case against Hamas?
No wonder you guys are so deathly afraid of the ICC coming and looking at both sides.

 

[basketcase]

Is that why you think Israel doesn't complain about war crimes?

Could the rational reason be that Israel and the world know the war crimes Hamas et al commit and don't need to convince anyone?

 

[basketcase]

And this is your strongest case against Hamas?
No wonder you guys are so deathly afraid of the ICC coming and looking at both sides.

You keep talking about this but why has the PA chosen not to file anything with the ICC?

 

[fuji]

You keep talking about this but why has the PA chosen not to file anything with the ICC?

My guess is that if they do, they won't sign the papers necessary to give the ICC retroactive jurisdiction because the entire Palestinian side, including Abbas, was terrorist at some point.

They will only sign on when they think they can avoid further infractions. Fatah may be able to commit to that, but I doubt Hamas can. Hamas is inherently terrorist and would have to reinvent itself to cease terrorism.

 

[Moviefan-2]

And this is your strongest case against Hamas?

Take another look at Post #155. It was Gryfin who started this debate, not me.

As for the ICC, I'm not a lawyer, but it strikes me that if the ICC were to weigh in on Israel's efforts to defend itself from terrorist attacks, it would be recognizing Hamas' terrorist activities as a legitimate form of warfare.

I don't think I'm "deathly afraid" of that possibility but I do think it would be a huge mistake. My understanding is the ICC generally doesn't have the authority to investigate terrorism.

 

[groggy]

My guess is that if they do, they won't sign the papers necessary to give the ICC retroactive jurisdiction because the entire Palestinian side, including Abbas, was terrorist at some point.

They will only sign on when they think they can avoid further infractions. Fatah may be able to commit to that, but I doubt Hamas can. Hamas is inherently terrorist and would have to reinvent itself to cease terrorism.

Right now Abbas is holding from filing and allowing elections because after this round of slaughter he lost popularity and Hamas won.
The ICC is his last card, once he plays that he's got nothing left.

Abbas doesn't want to hold elections and lose, so he's trying to use his ICC threat to restart more doomed talks, to at least keep him in power. And of course the US is threatening to cancel all funding should the PA go to the ICC.

Hamas keeps calling for the resumption of unity talks, an election and going to the ICC.
Fortunately for Israel, Abbas is an idiot more interested in his own power then the Palestinian struggle for rights and peace.

"The PA can go to the ICC in one day," said Shawan Jabarin, the director of Ramallah-based human rights group al-Haq. "Abbas, who has been turned this into a political issue, is balking."
Many factors are working against setting off a war crimes investigation at the ICC, not least the international community's apparent opposition to the move. "It is the PA's trump card because the Israelis and the Americans have said it is a red line," said Diana Buttu, a lawyer and former adviser to the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO).
"When this red line is crossed, then the US said it won't give money to the PA. That's what we call blackmail. But at what point will Abu Mazen [Abbas] say this is a trump card but we will use it?"

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/analysis-pa-balking-war-crimes-probe-095853485.html#QbXm52a

 

[fuji]

Right now Abbas is holding from filing and allowing elections because after this round of slaughter he lost popularity and Hamas won.

In other words the Palestinians are once again turning their backs on moderation, peace, and negotiation and once again choosing aggression, atrocity, and war crime.

It becomes clearer and clearer that you openly support a terrorist organization. I hope the government investigates you to find out whether you have ever contributed funds to a terrorist group or otherwise violated Canada's anti terrorism laws