You Americans better make Bush win this election

[duncan36]

I thought Europeans would have more sense than to worship at the altar of materialism, apparently not. Having lived in America for 20 years I can tell you materialism is a dead end road.
Its amazing that over the past 15 since Europe has pursued pure materialism how much its denegrated in just that short of a time.
These are very worrying times we live in.

 

[London Geezer]

Epic, whatever you call it, war, battles, terrorism, the fact still remains that millions and millions of people died in each of the WWs, both civilians and military, and not considering them blood baths is quite ridiculous.

Arg, your not using the term correctly. Yes the holocaust was a blood bath. But how can you claim that well equiped soldiers killing themselves in a battlefield a blood bath is beyond me. Thats my point, the term is being misused.

later,
epic

There's loads of bombs, blood, loads of it, and body parts flying around. I think i'm using the term correctly. Are you? What would you call it? Justified blood bath as opposed to Civilians blood bath? Whatever the victimes, it's still a blood bath.
Not sure why we r discussing on the meaning of blood bath and on the correct use of the word to be sure.

 

[epicstruggle]

Epic, whatever you call it, war, battles, terrorism, the fact still remains that millions and millions of people died in each of the WWs, both civilians and military, and not considering them blood baths is quite ridiculous.

Arg, your not using the term correctly. Yes the holocaust was a blood bath. But how can you claim that well equiped soldiers killing themselves in a battlefield a blood bath is beyond me. Thats my point, the term is being misused.

later,
epic

There's loads of bombs, blood, loads of it, and body parts flying around. I think i'm using the term correctly.

Actually, you are not.

Are you?

Yes, I am.

What would you call it?

War.

Justified blood bath as opposed to Civilians blood bath?

Have you just gone mad. In war people die. If the other side has as many troops as you and they have similar equipment, then how can you call it a blood bath if one side looses. Its not like we had 0 casualties and all of their guys died. Now in regards to killing of civilians by the military, that would be regarded as a blood bath.

Whatever the victimes, it's still a blood bath.
Not sure why we r discussing on the meaning of blood bath and on the correct use of the word to be sure.

Because if you cant use the correct words to express your message, than you cannot convey a clear picture. When you incorrectly use words to add "color/feelings" for your argumnent, it makes you look like a fool.

Here is an example of a blood bath:
The holocaust. Why? They(jews) had no weapons to fight back against the germans/nazis. You see?

Here is an example where it isnt a blood bath:
WW1. Why? Both sides really had about the same(roughly) level of experience/troops/equipment. The US joining did tip the balance, but its not like they didnt have weapons to fight back. Look soldiers died, but thats the hazard in being a soldier.

later,
epic

 

[London Geezer]

First of all, I wasn't the one who mentioned "blood bath" on here! It was KILER.

Anyway, yeah i see your point, i see how you calculate the difference in margin of strength of the opposing sides to then determine whether it can be called "blood bath" or not, take the derivative then you get the ratio of bloodbathness in relation to the litres of blood versed per hour, where a ratio of 1 means it is not a blood bath, any value >1 IS a blood bath, and any value <1 means you have missed some variables along the way.

In my head, whether military or civilians, whether par on capabilities or not, when loads of people die in one place in one instance IS a blood bath.

Sept 11 was a blood bath as much as the holocaust as much as any big battle where many people were mutilated and killed in one place in a very short period of time.

So there.

Does the dictionary give the definition you are giving? If it does, cool by me, i don't really use the term in my everyday life anyway so i might be excused if my opinion of the term is slightly different from yours.

WW2 was a "series" of blood baths put together...

Gosh this forum really should be called the "Semantic Arguing Forum"

 

[K.I.L.E.R]

Indiscriminate killing and mass murder (bloodbath) happens in just about every war if not every war.

Post WW1 did have instances where mass graves were dug up.

In the Iraq and Bosnia war there are mass graves. In all the wars I mentioned a bloodbath occured.

Kirkuk: Kurdish officials report discovery of 2,000 bodies
Muhammad Sakran: Reports say more than 1,000 bodies found
Babylon: Children's bones reportedly among remains found
Al-Mahawil: Up to 15,000 bodies feared buried
Najaf: 72 bodies found
Basra: Grave believed to contain about 150 Shia Muslims
Abul Khasib: 40 bodies reportedly found

Is that not a bloodbath? Most of those people were most likely tortured and killed in very painful ways for amusement by Saddam's troops.

It's not me who's using the word "bloodbath" the wrong way, it's just that you fail to do any research on the matter.

www.google.com

Because if you cant use the correct words to express your message, than you cannot convey a clear picture. When you incorrectly use words to add "color/feelings" for your argumnent, it makes you look like a fool.

The media do that all the time, yet you have no problem using material from the media to back up what you are saying. Doesn't that make you look like a bigger fool?

WW1. Why? Both sides really had about the same(roughly) level of experience/troops/equipment. The US joining did tip the balance, but its not like they didnt have weapons to fight back. Look soldiers died, but thats the hazard in being a soldier.

The Allied story says that somewhere in the vicinity of 10,000 German troops marched into the city in broad daylight on August 25, 1914, meeting with little or no Belgian resistance. These German troops were apparently retreating in the wake of a valiant Belgian counterattack and hoped to regroup in the city that evening. A week later, the Germans decided to viciously loot and burn the city and to kill most of the civilian population, presumably in retribution for their military defeat.

Almost all of the men and a substantial amount of women, children and animals were slaughtered at the hands of the ruthless Germans. The Germans apparently had a particular affinity for Belgian clergy, who they specifically hunted down, tortured, and murdered.

They [the Germans] committed violent crimes against the civil population which they believed to be reprisals against civilian sniper fire (which, in fact, had not been there) which have been largely, if not totally, imagined by the troops themselves. What can be shown is that the troops, soldiers themselves, and to some degrees, the officers, sincerely believed that there had been such actions. And, that created this kind of hysteria which then led to quite a substantial amount of atrocities against the Belgian population.

Did the women, children, men and animals have anything to fight the Germans?
Brooms don't count, nor do toys.

I'm sick of having to go and do your research for you ES. From now on do your own damn research.

http://etext.virginia.edu/journals/EH/EH39/menich39.html
http://www.pbs.org/greatwar/interviews/mom3.html

If it's okay with you ES, can we please get back on topic?

 

[epicstruggle]

Sigh. Kiler, you completly miss the point of our discussion, and have now resorted to complain/argue about completly different things. Where have i inserted media claims in this discussion.

You are incorrectly missing the definition of that phrase. If 1,000 soldiers kill thousands of unarmed civilians, they this is a blood bath. HOWEVER if 1,000 soldiers fight with 1,000 opposing soldiers(who are similarly equiped), then this is not a blood if they all kill each other. DO YOU GET IT! You are now looking like a fool, just admit you made a mistake. There is no way you can argue that everytime some one dies its a blood bath. Actually better yet, let just drop it.

later,
epic

 

[London Geezer]

If 1,000 soldiers kill thousands of unarmed civilians, they this is a blood bath. HOWEVER if 1,000 soldiers fight with 1,000 opposing soldiers(who are similarly equiped), then this is not a blood if they all kill each other. DO YOU GET IT! You are now looking like a fool, just admit you made a mistake.
later,
epic

What dictionary says that? Really, i'm curious.
To me, 1000 soldiers killed by 1000 soldiers IS a blood bath.

But yeah, let's just drop this, it's getting ridiculous.

 

[notAFanB]

ES let's just try and at least pin down the semantics of the word before these long posts.

Savage, indiscriminate killing; a massacre.

I take it (and correct me if I'm wrong here) you focused on the indiscriminate part for your interpretation, however I ask you when is the whole killing fields Not indiscriminate?

in war? civies and solder die in droves. Focus on the enemy? well yes.

when the enemy kills an bunch of civies is it unfocused? or are their targets merely different from yours?

what about suicide bombings? indiscrimnate enough? or actually rather focused?

 

[London Geezer]

The formula is up there, i worked it out...

the difference in margin of strength of the opposing sides to then determine whether it can be called "blood bath" or not, take the derivative then you get the ratio of bloodbathness in relation to the litres of blood versed per hour, where a ratio of 1 means it is not a blood bath, any value >1 IS a blood bath, and any value <1 means you have missed some variables along the way

 

[K.I.L.E.R]

What did you think I just pointed out to you?
WW1 was a bloodbath. So was WW2. I am not the one who is missing the point. Reread my post.

"Where have i inserted media claims in this discussion."

It was a generalisation for crying out loud. Do you think while you read? (rhetorical question, you obviously would answer it if I don't tell you)

"You are incorrectly missing the definition of that phrase."

How so? By saying WW1 was a bloodbath and showing you links to how nearly an entire population was massacred? How was my use of the word incorrect? You keep running hoops around this.

"HOWEVER if 1,000 soldiers fight with 1,000 opposing soldiers(who are similarly equiped), then this is not a blood if they all kill each other."

The Allied story says that somewhere in the vicinity of 10,000 German troops marched into the city.

10K vs unnarmed civilian population isn't a bloodbath?

"DO YOU GET IT! You are now looking like a fool, just admit you made a mistake."

What mistake? You have yet to point my mistake out. If a large amount of a civilian population is whiped out isn't that a bloodbath? (another rhetorical question) You said it yourself. So how can I be wrong if I'm using your own argument against you?

"There is no way you can argue that everytime some one dies its a blood bath."

Some thousand innocents die and it isn't a bloodbath? See the population at the time of WW1 killings which I pointed out above, again refer to my last post. I'm not doing anymore research for you. Do it yourself.

I showed you links, read them. You obviously have only skimmed through them, if even that.

"Actually better yet, let just drop it."

Why? Because you fail to grasp the fact that you made a mistake when you said there was no massacre committed during WW1 among other wars?

Quote where I was wrong. Please. I obviously can't see it, so point it out.

Sigh. Kiler, you completly miss the point of our discussion, and have now resorted to complain/argue about completly different things. Where have i inserted media claims in this discussion.

You are incorrectly missing the definition of that phrase. If 1,000 soldiers kill thousands of unarmed civilians, they this is a blood bath. HOWEVER if 1,000 soldiers fight with 1,000 opposing soldiers(who are similarly equiped), then this is not a blood if they all kill each other. DO YOU GET IT! You are now looking like a fool, just admit you made a mistake. There is no way you can argue that everytime some one dies its a blood bath. Actually better yet, let just drop it.

later,
epic

 

[K.I.L.E.R]

You want to play games ES, here you go:

Bloodbath

Savage, indiscriminate killing; a massacre.

Let's do some linking.

bloodshed

\Blood"shed`\, n. [Blood + shed] The shedding or spilling of blood; slaughter; the act of shedding human blood, or taking life, as in war, riot, or murder.

slaugh·ter ( P ) Pronunciation Key (slôtr)
n.

1. The killing of animals especially for food.
2. The killing of a large number of people; a massacre:

But doesn't a bloodbath have no relation to war?

Bloodshed -> Slaughter -> Massacre -> Bloodbath.

 

[London Geezer]

\Blood"shed`\, n. [Blood + shed] The shedding or spilling of blood; slaughter; the act of shedding human blood, or taking life, as in war, riot, or murder.

Errrrrrrr.......... Case is closed.............

 

[akira888]

I thought Europeans would have more sense than to worship at the altar of materialism, apparently not. Having lived in America for 20 years I can tell you materialism is a dead end road.
Its amazing that over the past 15 since Europe has pursued pure materialism how much its denegrated in just that short of a time.
These are very worrying times we live in.

But being an aficionado of 200-300 quid devices whose sole purpose is to put pretty pictures up on a screen doesn't constitute "materialism?"

 

[epicstruggle]

You want to play games ES, here you go:

Bloodbath

Savage, indiscriminate killing; a massacre.

Let's do some linking.

bloodshed

\Blood"shed`\, n. [Blood + shed] The shedding or spilling of blood; slaughter; the act of shedding human blood, or taking life, as in war, riot, or murder.

slaugh·ter ( P ) Pronunciation Key (slôtr)
n.

1. The killing of animals especially for food.
2. The killing of a large number of people; a massacre:

But doesn't a bloodbath have no relation to war?

Bloodshed -> Slaughter -> Massacre -> Bloodbath.

Bloodshed is not the same as blood bath. You can actually read the definition of blood bath and yet refuse to see it. Wow. You just need to read the definitions to see the difference. The fact that you can link 2 words by using their definitions/synonyms does not make them the same.

Also please refrain from sending me PMs, where you resort to calling me names.

later,
epic

 

[epicstruggle]

ES let's just try and at least pin down the semantics of the word before these long posts.

Savage, indiscriminate killing; a massacre.

I take it (and correct me if I'm wrong here) you focused on the indiscriminate part for your interpretation, however I ask you when is the whole killing fields Not indiscriminate?

in war? civies and solder die in droves. Focus on the enemy? well yes.

when the enemy kills an bunch of civies is it unfocused? or are their targets merely different from yours?

what about suicide bombings? indiscrimnate enough? or actually rather focused?

Ahh, you do see my point then and the dilema. If 2 groups of soldiers are fighting each other on the battle field(no civis in sight), what are their expectations?? A big tickle fight?No. But that they may die?Yes.

Now if the battle spills over from the battle field to a city where mass civilians are killed(unintendadly(sp?)), then I would agree that the killing of civilians was a blood bath.

Im not sure how you would categorize suicide bombings. Thats an interesting case. Ill have to think about it.

later,
epic

 

[epicstruggle]

Why am I making a big deal over the definition/use of a word? Look at another example of where the meaning of a word/phrase has caused much grief: The whole Nvidia driver cheat/optimization debate. Some people clearly feel that nv cheated and others believe that they were optimizations that caused unintended consequences(lowered graphics). Well if you expand the definition enough of optimization, theres no way you could make a case for cheating. So a clear boundry of both words are necessary.

Ok i dont plan on posting anymore in this thread. if you cant see a difference than it isnt for a lack of trying from my part. Believe what you will.

later,
epic

 

[K.I.L.E.R]

The main point still stands. I have proven there were bloodbaths in WW1 among other wars. You have yet to disprove this.

You have yet to show me my mistake in my use of the word bloodbath.

Bloodshed is not the same as blood bath.

Look for yourself.

Synonyms: annihilation, assassination, bloodbath, bloodshed, butchery, carnage, decimation, extermination, genocide, internecion, murder, slaughter, slaying

Synonyms

# A word having the same or nearly the same meaning as another word or other words in a language.
# A word or an expression that serves as a figurative or symbolic substitute for another.

http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=bloodbath

Also please refrain from sending me PMs, where you resort to calling me names.

Please resort to using Google to find facts. I gave you a link to it, now use it.

My only beef is that you don't accept WW1 had any bloodbaths.
I pointed out only 1 massacre (just 1, there are many more that involve the deaths of thousands of innocent lives) and you still say I'm wrong and you deny it as a massacre.
Maybe the killing of Jews during WW2 wasn't a massacre either.

 

[K.I.L.E.R]

Damn connection.

 

[K.I.L.E.R]

Damn connection.

 

[K.I.L.E.R]

Damn connection.