Are Singaporean conscripts too soft?
-
I'll have to agree with Shotgun, this debate will head nowhere because it is apparent the two of us deal with the same facts and data differently. This has become mostly an issue of semantics, thought somehow thanks to your constant evasion of some rather pertinent questions. It seems that you are just interested in taking about raw numbers, but not what they really mean so it has become apparent that such a person cannot be convinced of his folly otherwise, not anymore then a madman can be convinced that he is not a basketball and the world are not the same because they are both round. As such, I also find it rather amusing to leave you to your folly.
Just that I have to add that your approach is quite contary to how most historians view the whole issue of WW2.
So really, it's up to you to keep to your revisionist style of dealing with historicial data, but I think I'll keep to the tried and tested method, thank you very much. -
same can be said about you thankyou. minus the insult.
anyway this is a typical kiasu debate..or court proceeding....whatever. Both side dont want to loose.
You can attack the way i see historical data and call it semantic or what ever but you are also the one who said 5.5 milion german soldier died in ww2... and when i point that its actually 5.9 million AXIS soldier you evade the point and attacked me the other way. -
Just that I have to add that your approach is quite contary to how most historians view the whole issue of WW2.
read previous postbut I think I'll keep to the tried and tested method, thank you very much.
i know, its easy to copy and paste. Ill say thats up to you. -
Yawn... your latest posts do little to justify your position.
Next. -
neither did you
-
Well I hate to turn this into a finger point match... but who is the one who decided to dispense with proper historic method, as well as gotten brickbats from people outside of the debate for his rather innovate ways of regarding the evidence, lost it and started thinking anybody who didn't agree with him had to be his opponent's mother, dissappeared, and then resorted to hit and run posting ala. Glock?
Hmm... let's see... that would be...
you.
You just don't get it do you, even if you manage to draw this down to the level of semantics, unfortunately the inferiority of your position is still gapingly obvious, no matter how hard you deny it. People just see through that too easily.
So you can carry on your charade as much as you want, but more or less IÂ’ve checked you off my list of crackpots to debunk until you actually come up with something worth looking at.
Either then that I'm afraid you are only sia swaying yourself with your antics in here. -
lol you are funny dino.
a person who is loosing usually attack the opponent personality, his character or his method. This is a classic freudan defence. I ve already point out your mistake regarding the number of german soldier death.
mmm what you did is acumulating and summarising that all axis are german hence the announcement that 5.5 million german military death. well you method in historical data were flawless.....wuuuhuuuu.
about the mother thing, i didnt start it, you did....you said my mother somekind of whore? and regardless of how i defended my mother it makes no different? mmm you really choose your methaphore very politely.
also i would never insulting other froumner like you if having different opinion. you just make me sick.
oh that japanese nick name kinda cute. how convenient the moment you logoff he came in and tell me im a fool? is that what you mean by 2:1 ratio in attacking? -
Yawn... can you come up with something more creative, if you intend to smoke your way out.
It would indeed be better for you if I had been truly insulting you... unfortunately they were not insults, but rather piercing observations on your character. Facts that you are confirming with each suceeding post.
And of course, the classic clone defence- please review the other guy once again to see if he really is a clone or an individual.
LOL, I think you are the one in denial here.
As it stands, the massive inferiority of your stance in here is but blatantly obvious for all to see, in fact I do intend to see how far you want to take it to it's illogical conclusion. Prehaps your next defence might be that everyone who disagrees with you is a clone of me.
Think about it, who is the one who truly loses by Carrying on in this line of argument...
Hmm...
It's you. -
Yawn... can you come up with something more creative, if you intend to smoke your way out.
smoke my way out? i dont need too. Probably you need to smoke your way out.It would indeed be better for you if I had been truly insulting you...
you ALREADY insult me by calling me fool and saying my mother as a whore.unfortunately they were not insults, but rather piercing observations on your character. Facts that you are confirming with each suceeding post.
contradicting and futher more makes you look less credible.And of course, the classic clone defence- please review the other guy once again to see if he really is a clone or an individual.
only you can answer that.
LOL, I think you are the one in denial here.As it stands, the massive inferiority of your stance in here is but blatantly obvious for all to see, in fact I do intend to see how far you want to take it to it's illogical conclusion. Prehaps your next defence might be that everyone who disagrees with you is a clone of me.
you mean 5.5 million german death is logic? why cant you admit that you were wrong?Think about it, who is the one who truly loses by Carrying on in this line of argument...
nope its you. lol
Hmm...
It's you. -
It's a mystery to everyone but yourself why you just really have to test system.
Who insulted your mother? I do not remember doing that, so please quote the offending statment you said I made. Could you not have in the heat of the moment misunderstood what I was actually meaning?
Given your poor track record of written english and comprehension, along with hypersensitivity... this would not be surprising.you mean 5.5 million german death is logic? why cant you admit that you were wrong?
I was hoping you actually bothered to do some homework before I have to humiliate you.
What's so not logic about this? Do you need me to break this down for you?
German Military strength and losses:
Army
Served: 13,600,000
Killed/Missing: 4,202,000
Air Force
Served: 2,500,000
Killed/Missing: 433,000
Navy
Served: 1,200,000
Killed/Missing: 138,000
Waffen SS
Served: 900,000
Killed/Missing: 314,000
Volkssturm and Police
Killed/Missing: 231,000
Soviet citizens in German military service: 215,000
Did I come up with the number myself out of thin air? At the very least if you want to fault somebody, please go here and make some noise, where the numbers come from.
If you disagree with the numbers, at the very least present some evidence why you think the numbers are incorrect, as opposed to screaming your head off like a baby that they are illogical simply because they do not agree with you.
Since you like numbers so much, let's look at the different LOWER estimates from various sources
HarperCollins: 2,850,000
Ellis: 3,250,000
Compton's: 3,250,000
Info. Please: 3,250,000
Clodfelter: 3,250,000
Britannica: 3,500,000
Small & Singer: 3,500,000
Encarta: 3,500,000
Keegan: 4,000,000
Kinder: 4,000,000
Urlanis: 4,500,000
Eckhardt: 4,750,000
Even the lower estimates run in the 3-4 millions, with the highest one by Eckhardt just 750,000 behind the 5.5 total countÂ… and they often leave out several things in their various counts.
Note the lower estimates often do not include those who were MIA and never accounted for, which add over 1 mil to the stated numbers. And of course, if you break it down further to those who were taken out of action and DOW later, the numbers rise even more. Also, some leave out the German irregulars and other units out of the equation.
That said, if one wants to make any argument and expect it to stand, one does not take the estimates that favours him the most (as you have been studiously trying to do), and go for the most unfavourable numbers as well.
That said, even if your numbers were accepted as an argument, they do not even generate the sufficent kill ratios to justify your own flawed argument. The most laughable
So who's in denial here? only you can answer that.
Of course I can answer that what, I know full well that I am not using sockpuppets and clones in hereÂ… and unless you actually have any actual hard evidence to back your accusation up, I suggest you can this line of argument before you embarrass yourself even further.
But given you like to interpret events in any way that is favourable to yourself, is it any surprise that you would resort to accusing people of using clones without proper proof?
As I said, you are only sia swaying yourself in here. -
Flee to where?Originally posted by kwlee:i think a large amount of the population would flee the country when a war breaks out.
How to flee? By air , land or sea?
Pls enlighten me. -
If you disagree with the numbers, at the very least present some evidence why you think the numbers are incorrect, as opposed to screaming your head off like a baby that they are illogical simply because they do not agree with you.
i already did. read my earlier post.Axis ww2 casualties
If anyone read my post they would know i never once 'screaming my head off'. But you did, most of the time.
Country Military casualties Civilian casualties
Germany 3.250.000 3.810.000
Austria 230.000 80.000
Italy 330.000 85.000
Rumania 200.000 465.000
Hungary 120.000 280.000
Bulgaria 10.000 7.000
Finland 90.000 n/a
Japan 1.700.000 360.000
total : 5,930,000 soldier (lol the german suffered 5.5 million death? are u sure its not 5.5 milligram of garam? from your mommy cook book?)
British Empire and Commonwealth 452.000 60.000
France 250.000 360.000
USA 295.000 ---
Soviet Union 13.600.000 7.700.000
Belgium 10.000 90.000
Holland 10.000 190.000
Norway 10.000 n/a
Poland 120.000 5.300.000
Greece 20.000 80.000
Yugoslavia 300.000 1.300.000
Checoslovaquia 20.000 330.000
China 3.500.000 10.000.000
total : 18,587,000 soldierI could deny that your mother is a good person despite all the prove you try to bring up because naturally, you are her child wat so you would defend her character.
who wrote this? your clone? -
After all your quoted, so what's so illogical about my number?
Isn't the problem down to the fact that our sources disagree?
Hence if you want to judge if one number is illogical or not it must be based on the merit of how they were calculated as to if they happen to agree or disagree with your own pet number.
If not, it would be easily for a Radical Japan Nationalist to deny any other higher number on the people killed as illogical simply because it does not tally with the estimate they happen to have.
That said, if you really think your number is the true and holy one, you can always raise the issue in the talk page of the article from which I choose to quote my number.
I am sure you will recieve a speedy reply from many different sources. AFAIK, the number stands after having passed through several reviews.
If my number is really illogical, prove it so on it's own merit and not simply because it happens to disagree with you.I could deny that your mother is a good person despite all the prove you try to bring up because naturally, you are her child wat so you would defend her character.
First things first, if you intend to carrying on with the accusation (or even implying) that people are using clones, please provide proper proof before shooting your mouth off. It is not a very difficult thing to do to ask the mods to obtain the IPs of both posters and see if they are a clone. In any case there is a policy against clones in here (instant ban) so you better get your facts right before you make any loose accusation.
who wrote this? your clone?
This is a matter of basic principle, not to mention you could actually get into real trouble with the law for slander if you have accused somebody of something they were not guilty of.
And yes, these legal laws reach in cyberspace as well- as some people who have been pulled out of here for some questioning on their reckless actions in would quickly tell you. By all means get into heated debates but never cross the law in what you doÂ… right now what you are doing is drawing closer to the lineÂ… so I leave it up to you to decide if you intend to imply that I am breaking the rules in this forum by using clones.
This is a friendly reminder, just in case any of us get into trouble over stupid things we say.
Anyway back to the topic of if I had insulted your mother:
Wah lau, if you can think that qualifies as an insult on your mother, you are either two things or both. You could be:
a) Extremely poor in comprehending written English
b) Unreasonably hypersensitive
How in the world does that quote, taken in its proper context, even qualifies as an insult?
Notice I was drawing up an hypothetical example on the limits of absolute deniability in any argument by using the example of me supposing that your mother is not a good person and rejecting all possible evidence you bring up to the contrary, no matter how convincing, simply because you are naturally biased to think favorably of your mother. I drew this example to illustrate the parallels between your early refusal to account for of any allied accounting of WW2 simply because they were the victors and (by your logic) cannot be trusted to give a proper account.
In any case, at the very least you could notice this very vital word that I made in the quote:I COULD deny that your mother is a good person despite all the prove you try to bring up because naturally, you are her child wat so you would defend her character.
Notice the use of the world “COULD”.
How on earth you can draw up the conclusion that I was actually making an actual insult on your mother is a mystery, which I think can be boiled down to poor comprehension of English or hypersensitivityÂ… or perhaps the inability to see the difference between hypothetical examples and statements made on reality.
I hope that answers your questions.
Hence now it seems that you have actually invoked my motherÂ’s name in an actual, intended, mocking way based on no good justification to begin with.
I demand an apology. -
After all your quoted, so what's so illogical about my number?
so thats it.
Isn't the problem down to the fact that our sources disagree?That said, if you really think your number is the true and holy one, you can always raise the issue in the talk page of the article from which I choose to quote my number.
a talk page? u mean another forum? u take a casualties estimate from a forum?
I am sure you will recieve a speedy reply from many different sources. AFAIK, the number stands after having passed through several reviews.
If my number is really illogical, prove it so on it's own merit and not simply because it happens to disagree with you.First things first, if you intend to carrying on with the accusation (or even implying) that people are using clones, please provide proper proof before shooting your mouth off. It is not a very difficult thing to do to ask the mods to obtain the IPs of both posters and see if they are a clone. In any case there is a policy against clones in here (instant ban) so you better get your facts right before you make any loose accusation.
what to do? i cant prove it anyway.This is a matter of basic principle, not to mention you could actually get into real trouble with the law for slander if you have accused somebody of something they were not guilty of.
lolAnd yes, these legal laws reach in cyberspace as well- as some people who have been pulled out of here for some questioning on their reckless actions in would quickly tell you. By all means get into heated debates but never cross the law in what you doÂ… right now what you are doing is drawing closer to the lineÂ… so I leave it up to you to decide if you intend to imply that I am breaking the rules in this forum by using clones.
so much of freedom of speech.This is a friendly reminder, just in case any of us get into trouble over stupid things we say.
a threat. how nice.Anyway back to the topic of if I had insulted your mother:
are you a lawyer?
Wah lau, if you can think that qualifies as an insult on your mother, you are either two things or both. You could be:
a) Extremely poor in comprehending written English
b) Unreasonably hypersensitive
How in the world does that quote, taken in its proper context, even qualifies as an insult?
Notice I was drawing up an hypothetical example on the limits of absolute deniability in any argument by using the example of me supposing that your mother is not a good person and rejecting all possible evidence you bring up to the contrary, no matter how convincing, simply because you are naturally biased to think favorably of your mother. I drew this example to illustrate the parallels between your early refusal to account for of any allied accounting of WW2 simply because they were the victors and (by your logic) cannot be trusted to give a proper account.
In any case, at the very least you could notice this very vital word that I made in the quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I COULD deny that your mother is a good person despite all the prove you try to bring up because naturally, you are her child wat so you would defend her character.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice the use of the world “COULD”.
How on earth you can draw up the conclusion that I was actually making an actual insult on your mother is a mystery, which I think can be boiled down to poor comprehension of English or hypersensitivityÂ… or perhaps the inability to see the difference between hypothetical examples and statements made on reality.
I hope that answers your questions.
Hence now it seems that you have actually invoked my motherÂ’s name in an actual, intended, mocking way based on no good justification to begin with.
so if i say 'your mother a ^&*%^', its an insult. But if i say 'i could say your mother a ^&*%^' im off the hook?I demand an apology.
you first -
Am I trying to be a lawyer or threatening you? What I am telling you is simply a matter of fact- if you slander someone expect to get into trouble with the court of law.
The truth is, people have been hauled from here and made to answer for certain things they have said in here before, most recently, one dude was in here making several slanderous remarks about religions and individuals and suddenly the mods of the forums he posted in were contacted by the police and told to provide evidence and testimony, as well as asked if they intended to press charges against that guy for what he posted.
Fortunately for that dude, they decided to settle it out of court, probably out of consideration for his family.
Also, one guy was in here using clones and attempting to smear the reputation of Meridian JC for some reason, when he realized that he was being investigated for the prank he pulled, he PMed the forumnites and mods begging them to remove the posts that he made (and their replies as well).
He was ignored. We havenÂ’t heard from since then, and all this just happened early this year.
Even more recently a dude was in here making plenty of big and negative statements in Australia, offending the Singaporeans staying there, as well as just about anybody and everything about Australia. That guy was also taken to task for many of the things he said.
These are just a few examples of the things that have happened in hereÂ… not to mention the numerous other cases where some dude thought it was fun to launch a smear attack on another individual and realized their prank had legal consequences.
Am I threatening you? No I am telling you- if you really want to carry down the line of argument that I am using a clone, you jolly well, for your own sake have proper evidence to back it up or else you might find yourself in hot soup.
If you want to prove it, just ask the mods to help you check and they will be more then happy to help to nail a clone. But I suspect you will be sorely dissapointed.
Truth is, you can indeed get into trouble with the law if you make an untrue or groundless statement attempting to question the integrity, honesty, goodwill and reputation of another person be it in real life or cyberspace.
What is your defense against the judge going to be? ItÂ’s your Freedom of speech to recklessly say whatever you like about others?
I'll say this again: I do not use clones, and you trying to follow this line of arguing unfortunately... is one that will ultimately have serious consquences on yourself.
So am I threatening you or are you not your own greatest threat? In your desire to win any argument you have recklessly rushed into troubles that are not worth this debate.are you a lawyer?
Did I even, in my post directly insult your mother? Or intend to insult your mother?
so if i say 'your mother a ^&*%^', its an insult. But if i say 'i could say your mother a ^&*%^' im off the hook?
Is this not an example of you trying to take hypothetical statements out of their context to assume they are a personal insult?
I am no lawyer, but what I can tell you quite simply is this:
In a court of law, my statements will be taken in their entire context- it will be immediately clear that I had never any intention nor purpose of insulting your mother and that quote (which was even largely inoffensive to begin with), was an HYPOTHETICAL EXAMPLE to referring to another thing entirely. You case will be thrown out entirely.
On the other hand, unfortunately the things you did are quite obviously, and directly an insult intended to cause mockery and harm.
So IÂ’m afraid you are no the lower ground here. I never had, nor ever had, any intention of insulting your mother and my words made it clear- it is your unreasonable oversensitivity that led to all this, including the very ones with possible legal ramifications of defaming me (for using clones) and insulting my mother.
So really, you can carry on playing with fire if you want. It seems my job has shifted from answering you to collecting evidence in your words. -
please quote the ".....quite obviously, and directly an insult intended to cause mockery and harm" from me. You are obviously busy editing your previous thread. Its ok just list here the so called insult i make.
-
orginally posted by tankfanatic:
you are so smart ...... your mommy cook book were full of these ww2 thingy.
again with the number. Pal... your mother cook book is not a credible source
How many really died at Dresden? I asume also your mommy knew,
You must be his mother. Hi maam.
Hmm...
Enough in a court of law liao.
The first two are pushing it but maybe can escape, the third one is dangerous.
The last one is especially damning. -
As I said, the context and intent of the useage of the terms related to "mother" can be easily infered from your posts. No matter how you try to be creative with accounting for them.
I'm not trying to argue with you or threaten you, I am telling you that in the court of law, which you could easily find yourself in given what you have done, your own lawyer will tell you that your case will be pretty hard to win or argue otherwise that these loose useage of the terms related to "mother" had not been used in an unlawful way.
So you should really be the one who is worried here.
Why don't you read up a little on our libel laws before your next heated post? -
This is going nowhere.
Thread closed.