Lazarus Plus
The smoovest
Sander said:Okay, the last time. Let's try again: you claim you did not say something. I call you a liar because you really did say those things. You blame me for it. I go 'Huh?'
One of the several illustrations:
Lazarus: "I'm sorry if you read something into that and then called a bullshit flag on it, but I didn't say WWII was Wilson's fault."
Sander: "And really, that piece of text I quoted was you putting the blame on Wilson. You claim Wilson threw Germany to the wolves, and then say that the result was World War 2 (which was very irrelevant in any case), which is establishing a causal relationship and putting at least part of the blame on Wilson. "
Lazarus: "Again, I'm sorry that you read it (incorrectly) in a certain way. Not what I meant. But part of the blame (I've established this) is, in MY opinion, Wilson's. You know, getting involved in WWI in the first place."
Me: Twist and turn motherfucker!
What did I say that was a flat lie? Still haven't seen that. All I've seen is you saying that I meant something other than what I meant, and then posting me denying that it meant what you think it meant. Show me the flat-out denial.
Gee, so are my sources (including a doctor in History), and they disagree with this. Huh, how convenient.
Yeah, convenent. Yawn.
Yeah, useful.
You know, I had a discussion with someone about Churchill's rise to power a month ago. I quoted Wikipedia (also stating that I was sorry for not being able to find a more reliable source), he quoted his specialist books. I looked up the books and found he was right. Gee.
By the way, there was no source material on the Churchill article either.
I'd be glad to quote sources, except the only history books I own tend to either be about WWII or ancient Greece/Rome. I don't find this argument so important that I will go to the library over it. Sorry.
If you find it so important, cite a source showing that my assertion is wrong. I will admit it. Also, if you know a good reliable online history source, point me to it. I will find what I can.
Oh yes, and your example is completely arbitrarily more reasonable because, you know, it is.
Note that I never spoke about how far into the future either.
<whistle>
Yes, of course, it's very nice to try to rely on things remaining secret in an age of espionage.
Of course, as I've been trying to explain, that doesn't make it any smarter. Hell, it probably makes it even dumber.
It doesn't matter. You're looking on this from the perspective of knowing better. They were doing what they thought necessary to protect themselves. It turned out to be not such a smart idea.
So, they suck at gathering intelligence, they don't check their intelligence because 'it's not feasible' (for fuck's sake, look at the size and population countries alone, sheesh), and that somehow makes them less dumb?
Heh.
If "dumb" equates with "poor intelligence gathering services" then sure, it does not. Otherwise, they were being as intelligent as they could be with the tools they had. And YES, look at history, it is extremely difficult to get more than one source on sensitive information. Also, the most important information in the short term for a war between two countries is the respective army sizes and the ability to mobilize and deploy rapidly. These details were almost certainly what were being looked at by Germany, and they would be jealously guarded by any country for obvious reasons.