wasn't expecting that embed to have that image.. i'll fix it

massacre (v): "deliberately and violently kill (a large number of people)."

That definition is so broad as to encompass virtually any war.

Just looking at what happened at wounded knee would technically classify this as a massacre, just as massacres happened in vietnam, and all the way back to the times of rome.

So using the term war or battle instead of massacre is a distinction of emotional nuance.

which is why I found you a more concise and appropriate term.

What you appear to criticize him on is the use of a term with the wrong emotional nuance. You appear to have no factual leg to stand on whatsoever.

It's purposeful slaughtering of civilians

yet for some reason, no matter how many times I point said difference out, you refuse to even acknowledge it.

I made my point and I see no new argument.

Sorry, I am done.

that's the difference.

I think I won.

You can think that, but in reality you're very wrong. You've basically ignored me pointing out the actual definition of my terms, and continued to point the finger of 'emotional nuance'

Anyway. This is the closest one can get to winning an Internet argument, so let me just declare myself the winner.

it doesn't mean civiliians specifically, its excessive killing in a short time frame.

Haunted, usually it's on civilians though, or disarmed soldiers. people who can't fight back.

He who declares himself the victor is usually the prideful, ignorant one.

well yes, but the definition of the word isn't that focused.

you could indiscrimanately massacre an entire army.

Would you not agree though, that Wounded Knee was a massacre, and to undermine the gravity of what happened that day is historically faulty?

idk what wounded knee is

a bunch of native american women, men and children were shot down during a conflict with the US Army.

some were warriors, yes, but there were also civilians.

without knowing specifics i can't say

you kinda have to research these things. But yes, it is dubbed, by historians, as a massacre.

Just like the valentines day massacre.

only on a much larger scale, of course.

well, if the US army went in and shot everyone without any care i'd call it a massacre.

I find it funny how Undead Mockingbird shut down any form of constructive argument and declared victory despite his faulty claims against me.

also that's pretty much what it turned into.

soldiers were ordered to open fire on defenseless women and children.

estimated 300 out of 350 of the original tribe were killed.

it's likely the other fifty or so were able-bodied people who fled when they saw entire families being mown down.

breifly looking it up, yeah i'd say its a massacre, but i'd als agree that massacre is pretty borad term that does include a lot of war situations.

maybe not so much under modern warfare, but before all the tech definitely.

Yeah because soldiers do horrible things in war.

ESPECIALLY in the past like in wars like Vietnam and the world wars.

world war 1 is probably the best example

yeah they fled, were hunted down, and slaughtered.

How is that, by definition, not a massacre?