ThePest179

WE. NEED. REAL. SOURCES. Not this bullshit you keep giving us, REAL data, with real citations and dates, and it must be within the last five years. Or, as an alternative, peer reviewed scientific papers that describe and go into great detail the flaws of dating methods. Try not give us opinions and cherry picked facts this time, okay?

I still think the Nazis killed more people. But, this won't go anywhere, so I'm going to stop. Goodnight.

out of vengeance... riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. ok, in eastern prussian case it was true, but what about Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland, who were occupied at start of the war? to whom it was nessesary to "revenge" there? Just a sidenote- its interesting to see that Russia used same scenario to occupy Crimea as it did with Estonia and Latvia in 1940: i.e just smoke and mirrors to make illegal action seem legal.But i also imagine you havent heard of soviet destruction battalions, that only task was to destroy everything and kill everyone they can when soviets retreated. in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania they did considerable damage, but still relatively little as german advance was quite swift+ many forest brothers guarded security, but i have heard that in several other places it did not go so well. Well, you're correct with the other countries that they were pillaging, this isn't just tied to the Red Army by any means. It was simply more destructive than most (minus the Nazis they were fighting). On the destruction battalions, I'm pretty sure the intent was a scorched earth policy, not really a "kill all while maximizing destruction" intent.

The sources are crap, that's why we don't like them! And you're claiming insults again! Just another way for you to claim our arguments are invalid is by claiming we're insulting you.

I don't count indirect deaths, and more importantly it's pretty hard to estimate the number of people they did kill in occupied areas (out of vengeance of course, not just to be evil).

Granted, you go into a dream where you are slowly eaten and can't wake up. I wish the good guys didn't always win.

Banned for having no avatar. Wait a second.....

You mean a Bible thumping website masquerading as a source? I seriously think that you did this as some sort of joke. There is no other explanation, especially considering how piss poor this "source" is.

Key word: A few.

Banned for saying fur.

Aww, come on. No Love craft reference? That was set up perfectly. OT: Granted, but now they stop showing emotion. I wish for a secret torture chamber.

BANNED CUZ UR TEH THOUGHT POLIZE!

Okay.

Well, if the organs aren't damaged, then technically no further harm was done to your body (and to be fair, that was pretty hard to corrupt). Anywho, granted, but now everyone die of boredom because they had to read everything over and over again, including yourself. I wish I knew everything.

Banned for having a stick.

Which is a blatant lie. Yes, their dating methods are a lie. If we knew the atmospheric concentrations, and the original concentrations of the various elements they use for dating, then they could be fairly accurate, but neither of those are known. (not just C-14 dating, this includes all of their current dating methods) GIVE THE SOURCES. We can't progress without them. Resorting to a personal attack, or are you actually going to refute the argument? Oh, and that comment you made to @Vapymid about having two sides of bias was TOTALLY not a personal attack.

Hey, remember when I was a jerkass?

Granted, but now OTHER organs had to be removed to make room for the originals. I wish time went faster.

Banned for being crazy prepared.

Provides a different opinion.

I personally don't believe the Soviets killed more than the Nazis (Mao Zedong did, though) but, you can keep believing that, because we are all entitled to our own opinion. First, US war crimes in Vietnam were very real. Second, Your claims of propaganda are hollow. Third, The LEADERS of South Vietnam asked the US to send over troops, not the people. If you want to keep this going, PM me.

KrimsinYT is cool. The only one I really watched anyway. Seconded.

Agreed. Something doesn't seem right...

Which is a blatant lie. Yeah, you've got two sides of bias pushing you to completely dismiss as untrue anything that doesn't meet their political agenda. (the king is the head of the church in the UK, and Russia has a history of controlling the religion with an iron fist) And you're so great, because you only have ONE side of bias driving you.

Whoa! Looks like I missed a party. Well, so much for derailing the thread. Basically my stance on global warming is this: it is a very real problem that must be dealt with, and so far that I've seen is that you guys came up with a solution that can be implemented (nuclear energy). I say we go ahead. "No battle plan ever survives contact with the enemy."-Napoleon "What can go wrong, will go wrong"- Murphy's law