See - another lie debunked -Soldier believed captured by Hamas killed in action, says Israeli army
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/02/israel-rejects-talks-gaza-attacks-end<snip>
Israel has said they have scientific evidence that Hadar Goldin, the soldier feared abducted by Hamas on Friday in an ambush that shattered a humanitarian ceasefire, was killed in action during the attack.
The announcement, by Israel's chief military rabbi, came just hours after prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu indicated that Israel's military operation was coming to an end.
------------------------
How many more Palestinians were killed based on this lie?
= new reply since forum marked as read
Primary meaning of "lie": a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth
Primary meaning of "falsehood": a false statement
They overlap in that both indicate falsehood. Some make no distinction. This is a useful one, and typically the meanings merge not because people don't make the distinction but because they don't want to (but often hope that the listener infers that intent is claimed), which reflects prejudgement or ill-will. OR intent can't be present because it's an inanimate object doing the "lying". If a dictionary doesn't include a lot of examples, contexts, and explanations--pocket dictionaries, for instance--then they list them as synonyms. But as I was taught long ago, English has one true synonym, and it's for a species of wort that grows in Northern England. Two adjacent villages had different names for the same species of wort. When the villages merged through population growth, both words were kept but had the same connotations, so people who used such words used either in all the same contexts. (Which is probably to say, "Very rarely," considering most people in larger towns very rarely have the inclination to hold forth on regional varieties of worts.)
Primary meaning of "believe": to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so.
Notice that to say that somebody believes what he says and is lying is either a self-denying utterance ("You are telling me something you actually believe to be true in order to get me to accept something as true that you actually think is false"
or you're simply applying ill-will/prejudgement or somehow saying that the belief itself is a lie. (I guess that's stage versus individual level predication, but that's moving past a DU post. Just a tad.)
If the first, it's simple incoherence.
If the second, then there's no point arguing because you've already decided on what the truth is, and facts, meanings, and the like don't matter.
If the third, then it's neutral, but the text isn't very cohesive.
