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.
Synonyms: annihilation, assassination, bloodbath, bloodshed, butchery, carnage, decimation, extermination, genocide, internecion, murder, slaughter, slaying
http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=bloodbath
Please resort to using Google to find facts. I gave you a link when I sent you a PM, now use it.
I called you a genius in the PM.
You have not tried.
If you have tried you would have quoted what I said wrong and why it is wrong underneath the quote. You have yet done anything like that, all you are doing is waving the "you are wrong" flag in a continous loop without any evidence of where I am wrong.
Using the word bloodbath to describe 10K soldiers butcher nearly an entire civilian population in a city is wrong?
If it isn't a bloodbath then what is it?
Surely it may not be as bad as the massacre of the Jews of WW2 but nonetheless it's still a massacre that occured during WW1. It's only just 1 of the bloodbaths which have cocured.
You said that if 2 groups of soldiers are fighting it's not a bloodbath. I would like you to tell me if those innocent people were a group of soldiers.
If the people who were massacred were soldiers then I guess so were the Jews and in the end neither was a bloodbath. The massacre of the Jews was perfectly okay because they were armed combatants like the Belgian population who provided little or no resistance.
My beef is that you don't accept that there were massacres of civilian populations during WW1, you have said it yourself that WW1 was not a bloodbath.
Why is it so hard to accept civilians were butchered by the thousands during WW1?
You have yet to show me my mistake in my use of the word bloodbath.
Bloodshed is not the same as blood bath.
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 when I sent you a PM, now use it.
I called you a genius in the PM.
Optimisation/Cheating are not tied to each other synonymously.Well if you expand the definition enough of optimization, theres no way you could make a case for cheating.
You still have yet to point out my misuse of the word.if you cant see a difference than it isnt for a lack of trying from my part. Believe what you will.
You have not tried.
If you have tried you would have quoted what I said wrong and why it is wrong underneath the quote. You have yet done anything like that, all you are doing is waving the "you are wrong" flag in a continous loop without any evidence of where I am wrong.
Using the word bloodbath to describe 10K soldiers butcher nearly an entire civilian population in a city is wrong?
If it isn't a bloodbath then what is it?
Surely it may not be as bad as the massacre of the Jews of WW2 but nonetheless it's still a massacre that occured during WW1. It's only just 1 of the bloodbaths which have cocured.
You said that if 2 groups of soldiers are fighting it's not a bloodbath. I would like you to tell me if those innocent people were a group of soldiers.
If the people who were massacred were soldiers then I guess so were the Jews and in the end neither was a bloodbath. The massacre of the Jews was perfectly okay because they were armed combatants like the Belgian population who provided little or no resistance.
My beef is that you don't accept that there were massacres of civilian populations during WW1, you have said it yourself that WW1 was not a bloodbath.
Why is it so hard to accept civilians were butchered by the thousands during WW1?