You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Bowl Games
- Thread starter Mott the Hoople
- Start date
WinterBorn
Verified User
Is that why he TARGETED civilians?
That would be relevant if Sherman ONLY fought against civilians. He didn't. It isn't.
Call it whatever you want. The confederacy was whipped back into line over 150 years ago. And most southerners are glad to be a part of the USA.
Jalen Hurts beat Clemson in a semi-final game. That is relevant. You want to narrow the parameters to talk trash. The reality is, Hurts beat Clemson in the playoffs.
Irrelevant when the championship game was specifically mentioned. I don't need to talk trash. Hurts never won a championship by beating Clemson. When he was replaced by an injury prone pussy, he ran and ultimately got his ass whipped in a semi final. Perhaps he threw the game in order that he didn't have to get it whipped again in the CHAMPIONSHIP game.
That would be relevant if Sherman ONLY fought against civilians. He didn't. It isn't.
Call it whatever you want. The confederacy was whipped back into line over 150 years ago. And most southerners are glad to be a part of the USA.
It's relevant because when he couldn't defeat the military, he cowardly targeted civilians. In 1862, he was having trouble subduing Confederate soldiers in the Mississippi River area around Memphis. That's when he cowardly adopted the mindset of "collective responsibility" as a way to justify his attacks on civilians. In Tennessee, he took civilians as hostages then traded them for federal POWs or executed them. He burned Jackson and Meridian Mississippi to the ground despite no Confederate soldiers being there to oppose him. His soldiers, upon his orders, sacked the town, stole what they wanted and destroyed the rest.
Sounds like a real man except that he acted like a pussy when he couldn't defeat soldiers.
WinterBorn
Verified User
Irrelevant when the championship game was specifically mentioned. I don't need to talk trash. Hurts never won a championship by beating Clemson. When he was replaced by an injury prone pussy, he ran and ultimately got his ass whipped in a semi final. Perhaps he threw the game in order that he didn't have to get it whipped again in the CHAMPIONSHIP game.
Yes, you narrowed the parameters to include ONLY Championship games. I didn't. Get pissy if you want. I'm not worried.
WinterBorn
Verified User
It's relevant because when he couldn't defeat the military, he cowardly targeted civilians. In 1862, he was having trouble subduing Confederate soldiers in the Mississippi River area around Memphis. That's when he cowardly adopted the mindset of "collective responsibility" as a way to justify his attacks on civilians. In Tennessee, he took civilians as hostages then traded them for federal POWs or executed them. He burned Jackson and Meridian Mississippi to the ground despite no Confederate soldiers being there to oppose him. His soldiers, upon his orders, sacked the town, stole what they wanted and destroyed the rest.
Sounds like a real man except that he acted like a pussy when he couldn't defeat soldiers.
LMAO! You should look at his entire career. He attacked a fortified Atlanta and defeated soldiers. He also put effort into destroying or taking supplies. Not sure how many civilians he targeted, but it was far fewer than the number of soldiers he targeted.
Yes, you narrowed the parameters to include ONLY Championship games. I didn't. Get pissy if you want. I'm not worried.
And that's when you got pissy and tried to ease your pain of both of them having got their asses kicked in the championship game. Hurts should be hurting. He was replaced by an injury prone pussy, ran to another team, and got his ass kicked in an effort to relive the past.
You should be worried and for good reason.
LMAO! You should look at his entire career. He attacked a fortified Atlanta and defeated soldiers. He also put effort into destroying or taking supplies. Not sure how many civilians he targeted, but it was far fewer than the number of soldiers he targeted.
His career turned to attacking innocent civilians when he couldn't defeat soldiers.
Interesting how you claim he targeted more soldiers and fewer civilians yet provide nothing to support that claim.
Do you have any specific numbers you can provide?
WinterBorn
Verified User
It's relevant because when he couldn't defeat the military, he cowardly targeted civilians. In 1862, he was having trouble subduing Confederate soldiers in the Mississippi River area around Memphis. That's when he cowardly adopted the mindset of "collective responsibility" as a way to justify his attacks on civilians. In Tennessee, he took civilians as hostages then traded them for federal POWs or executed them. He burned Jackson and Meridian Mississippi to the ground despite no Confederate soldiers being there to oppose him. His soldiers, upon his orders, sacked the town, stole what they wanted and destroyed the rest.
Sounds like a real man except that he acted like a pussy when he couldn't defeat soldiers.
Claiming Sherman refused to fight soldiers is a lie. Whether you are lying intentionally or because of your own ignorance is for you to decide.
He served with distinction at Shiloh, fighting against soldiers.
He served at the Siege of Corinth, helping to take Vicksburg.
He led during the Campaign of Chattanooga, and ended up routing the confederates in TN.
He led his army into North Georgia, and had a disastrous defeat at the Battle of Kennesaw Mtn, because he tired a direct frontal assault.
He successfully took Atlanta. Which involved routing Hood out if the city. Once again, going against confederate soldiers that were dug in.
BTW, Gen. Hood commanded 60,000 infantry and 11,000 cavalry. But he was forced to retreat by the attacks of Sherman.
So yeah, Sherman had no problem facing soldiers.
WinterBorn
Verified User
His career turned to attacking innocent civilians when he couldn't defeat soldiers.
Interesting how you claim he targeted more soldiers and fewer civilians yet provide nothing to support that claim.
Do you have any specific numbers you can provide?
Nor have you. How many civilians did he target?
WinterBorn
Verified User
And that's when you got pissy and tried to ease your pain of both of them having got their asses kicked in the championship game. Hurts should be hurting. He was replaced by an injury prone pussy, ran to another team, and got his ass kicked in an effort to relive the past.
You should be worried and for good reason.
Neither player is on the Alabama team now. Both played very well for Bama.
I'm not worried at all.
WinterBorn
Verified User
His career turned to attacking innocent civilians when he couldn't defeat soldiers.
Interesting how you claim he targeted more soldiers and fewer civilians yet provide nothing to support that claim.
Do you have any specific numbers you can provide?
"...when he couldn't defeat soldiers."?? LOL! Like the confederate soldiers at Shiloh? Corinth? Vicksburg? Chattanooga? Atlanta?
Claiming Sherman refused to fight soldiers is a lie. Whether you are lying intentionally or because of your own ignorance is for you to decide.
He served with distinction at Shiloh, fighting against soldiers.
He served at the Siege of Corinth, helping to take Vicksburg.
He led during the Campaign of Chattanooga, and ended up routing the confederates in TN.
He led his army into North Georgia, and had a disastrous defeat at the Battle of Kennesaw Mtn, because he tired a direct frontal assault.
He successfully took Atlanta. Which involved routing Hood out if the city. Once again, going against confederate soldiers that were dug in.
BTW, Gen. Hood commanded 60,000 infantry and 11,000 cavalry. But he was forced to retreat by the attacks of Sherman.
So yeah, Sherman had no problem facing soldiers.
That I correctly described Sherman's change in tactics to targeting civiliansin 1862 after realizing he couldn't defeat soldiers proves what I said is true.
Apparently he did since he changed to attacking civilians. The sad part is he didn't get any of your ancestors so they couldn't fuck up the gene pool.
Nor have you. How many civilians did he target?
Nor did I make a comparative claim like you did. I claimed he targeted civilians. That is an absolutely true statement. You made the claim more soldiers than civilians were attacked. Where's the proof? I've proven my claim.
Neither player is on the Alabama team now. Both played very well for Bama.
I'm not worried at all.
One ran when a weak, injury prone pussy replaced him and the other faked an injury because he was getting his ass kicked by a better team.
"...when he couldn't defeat soldiers."?? LOL! Like the confederate soldiers at Shiloh? Corinth? Vicksburg? Chattanooga? Atlanta?
You mean like the civilians in Tennessee and Mississippi when no soldiers were in the area. Maybe you missed the part about him executing non-soldiers and stealing things that didn't belong to him.
WinterBorn
Verified User
Nor did I make a comparative claim like you did. I claimed he targeted civilians. That is an absolutely true statement. You made the claim more soldiers than civilians were attacked. Where's the proof? I've proven my claim.
He fought 71,000 soldiers at Atlanta alone. Given the length of his career, claiming that he targeted more soldiers than civilians makes perfect sense.
And he did a great service by helping defeat the confederacy. You may wish they had survived, but you are in an extreme minority.
WinterBorn
Verified User
You mean like the civilians in Tennessee and Mississippi when no soldiers were in the area. Maybe you missed the part about him executing non-soldiers and stealing things that didn't belong to him.
Armies foraging for supplies has been happening since the beginning of war.
Do you have examples of Sherman executing non-soldiers?
He fought 71,000 soldiers at Atlanta alone. Given the length of his career, claiming that he targeted more soldiers than civilians makes perfect sense.
And he did a great service by helping defeat the confederacy. You may wish they had survived, but you are in an extreme minority.
In other words, you don't have anything specific to back up your claims and are using the "because I said so" argument. Didn't work with Micawber. Won't work with you either, boy.
Sherman wrote to his wife in 1862 that he had more concern with the people of the South rather than the soldiers. She was as cowardly as he was supporting the attack of innocent civilians.
Lincoln wasn't any better. He supported pillaging and plundering of private homes from the very start. When tactics like that were addressed to Lincoln, he ignored them and replaced those making them. When Booth shot him in April, 1864, he ended the life of someone that lived and died as a coward.
Armies foraging for supplies has been happening since the beginning of war.
Do you have examples of Sherman executing non-soldiers?
The history books. Read about Randolph, Tennessee and how Sherman ordered his troops to "destroy the place" leaving one house to mark it.
Why do you defend a coward that attacked innocent women and children that only wanted to be left alone? Must be because of the lifestyle you chose to live yourself.