(November 14, 2015 at 10:39 pm)Aractus Wrote:

(November 14, 2015 at 7:52 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: I'll answer your post fully when I get home tonight, but until then, I'll just point out that you're supporting a present -tense claim with old history.

I know that our recent history has been plagued by shitty foreign policy. But your claim needs to be supported with comparative data.

Otherwise, it's simply shoddy thinking ... business as usual for you, as I've come to learn.

In the End of Year Survey 2013 (by Worldwide Independent Network of Market Research & Gallup), respondents from 65 countries considered the USA as the greatest threat to world peace, ahead of Pakistan and China -link.

Ad populum.

Two billion plus Christians in the world, and yet you're an atheist.

Well you can prove anything with statistics alone, and you asked for "numbers".

(November 15, 2015 at 12:21 am)Aractus Wrote: Well you can prove anything with statistics alone, and you asked for "numbers".

I didn't think I had to qualify that request with the word "meaningful", but it seems that I do. Plumping an opinion poll as support for your claim makes me wonder how much, or rather, how little support for it you really have.

Quote: The so called "Sichelschnitt" certainly sruvived contact. It worked even better than Manstein had expected.

Perhaps the Allies simply worked worse than expected? 

As for Dunkirk there are lots of contradictory explanations about that from Hitler's own WWI recollection that the terrain in the area was unsuitable for tank warfare to the very probable suggestion that the idea originated with Von Rundstedt and not Hitler.  German infantry divisions largely had horse-drawn artillery and did not move anywhere near as fast as the panzer divisions.  Re-grouping the panzers for a drive against France while giving the infantry time to move up their heavy guns does make some sense.   Add in Goering's bullshit about the Luftwaffe's ability to prevent an evacuation  and you end up with a situation of counting your chickens before the eggs hatch.

(November 15, 2015 at 1:14 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(November 15, 2015 at 12:21 am)Aractus Wrote: Well you can prove anything with statistics alone, and you asked for "numbers".

I didn't think I had to qualify that request with the word "meaningful", but it seems that I do. Plumping an opinion poll as support for your claim makes me wonder how much, or rather, how little support for it you really have.

This wasn't an "opinion poll" - it was a survey across 65 different countries. It's done annually, but the questions change year-to-year and in 2013 they asked what country was the biggest threat to world peace.

This is some amazing discussion of history. My only concern is that a new war is going to break out over whether or not to we should theoretically kill baby Hitler.

You mean baby Obama or baby Bush?

(November 15, 2015 at 3:05 am)Aractus Wrote:

(November 15, 2015 at 1:14 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: I didn't think I had to qualify that request with the word "meaningful", but it seems that I do. Plumping an opinion poll as support for your claim makes me wonder how much, or rather, how little support for it you really have.

This wasn't an "opinion poll" - it was a survey across 65 different countries.

I'm sorry, would you spell out the difference between an opinion poll and a survey?

And more to the point, would you explain why popular opinion is a meaningful metric for this discussion?

I am asking you to back up your claim that "The biggest terrorist state in the world today is the USA, and second biggest is Israel." I asked you for numbers. I didn't ask you for opinion polls. Present terror actions perpetrated listed by state, so that we can judge for ourselves the veracity of your statement.

Quit shilly-shallying. You only make yourself look ever more the dipshit, and that's a hole you don't want to dig into any more than you already have, pal.


So: meaningful numbers. Terrorist attacks, by country for the last few years. Get to work; chop, chop.

Or, you could do the intellectually honest thing and admit that you were talking out of your ass.

I am not holding my breath for that last bit, to be honest. It seems to be beyond your ken.

Opinion polls don't span the globe, they take opinion in one place. I've already given you examples of why the USA is a terrorist state and needs to be disposed, it's up to you to provide counter evidence. If you want a Formal Debate just say so, but otherwise bring your evidence to the table.

(November 15, 2015 at 5:29 am)Aractus Wrote: Opinion polls don't span the globe, they take opinion in one place. I've already given you examples of why the USA is a terrorist state and needs to be disposed, it's up to you to provide counter evidence. If you want a Formal Debate just say so, but otherwise bring your evidence to the table.

When we go all Zephaniah I'm sure that we can find Australia.