When the alien broadcast his message asking for the "Son of Jorel" or something, it was clearly to get the superman out of his way. So, if he didn't turn himself in, why did he allow the alien to destroy most of Metropolis? Why didn't the superman stop him?

It seems improbable that someone would be able to fake his own death so many times and so effectively, but it genuinely seems to be the same guy over and over. A bunch of people over on /r/conspiracy keep attributing it to the Tleilaxu, but everyone knows you couldn't make a ghoula that good.

I know I should just disregard the nutjobs out there, but I can't help but question.

Looking at this battle on paper one would think that the 501st, one of the best legions in the Imperial Army, would have an easy time with the primitive Ewoks. Their shocking defeat and the subsequent destruction of the Death Star's shield generator has always baffled me, so what happened?

I heard that the Time Lords, unprovoked, actually sent an agent to prevent the Daleks from ever being created, and that this directly resulted in the Time War. Is this correct?

Was the Galactic Empire an economically sound, self governing civilization; or would they of just crumpled without the Rebel uprising due to risky investing strategies?

Nod isn't just some terrorist organization, it has strongholds around the world and even a proper army with uniforms. They control countries and have a council of leaders. It wasn't ONE country that took over these places, but one organization that took over many. They have no national pride because they don't come from one nation. How exactly did they get to be a global superpower?

I mean it's not like their powers are magic, they are based on well founded scientific principles of spice consumption.

I don't quite buy the whole 'humanity is the most diverse race, from soldiers to poets and diplomats' gunk the Standard Codex tries to sell us. It all seems deeply anthrocentric to me - possibly human propaganda to get them onto the Council.

We've seen that potential slayers can be identified before they awaken, and that some number of them were assigned watchers. Was there ever any research into awakening those potential slayers prematurely? Because, like, one slayer is great and all, but imagine an army of slayers. I can't imagine this didn't at least occur to the Watchers' Council at some point, and given their resources and training I also can't imagine why they didn't ever try it.

Shortly after the Red Court were destroyed Harry Dresden is said to have died, only to eventually come back to life. Did this really happen or was it just made up by those close to him, to make his transition to Winter Knight seem more acceptable?

So, events with Harry Potter and others at Hogwarts during the Last Battle proved fairly nicely that every witch or wizard, even school children, housewives and elderly teachers, can be a formidable enemy. Why is it then that an entire country full of witches and wizards couldn't defend against a relatively small number of Death Eaters, the Dark Lord's immortality notwithstanding?

Like, surely a crack team could have destroyed the Horcruxes, including Harry (cold, but practical) and then Voldemort would have been just any other powerful wizard. I get that this information was secret and hidden, but what are the Unspeakables for if not to gather intelligence?

It just seemed like everyone was just doing their own thing and not talking to anybody else about anything.

The classic theory, as put forth by Esmenar Runciman, suggests that Xerius knowingly nudged the Vulgar Holy War into Kian in order to send a message to maithanet that Xerius was not a man to be trifled with. This kind of one-dimensional scapegoating, however, has been recently called into question.

Of particular note is the timing - Esmenar's work was published just after the public shaming of Anasurimbor Kellhus by his former mentor and teacher, Drusas Achaimian. Kellhus, though considered by many to be a prophet and true Aspect-Emperor, was standing on shaky political ground at the moment Esmenar's history came out. He was a foreigner and despite his exploits was distrusted by many who had not participated in the Holy War.

Esmenar's narrative sought to smooth away Kellhus's blemishes and present an image of religious piety and preternatural awareness (and, let's face it, he makes a lot of impossible claims as to Kellhus's supposed abilities) to unify the Inrithi under his tyrannical control. Xerius made an easy target, as the Nansuri were never fully trusted by the "true" Inrithi. In any case, that was the argument put forth by Caphrianus. he is biased toward the Nansuri, to be sure, but his evidence makes a lot of sense, and Esmenar tended to ignore politics in order to advance the holier elements of the Holy War.

So how much truth is there to the revisionist theory? I find the argument compelling, even with Caphrianus' clear bias.

Stannis of House Baratheon, First of His Name, Rightful King of the Andals, the Rhoynar and the First Men, is known as a military genius. He smashed the Iron fleet and took Great Wyk, almost won the Battle of Blackwater Bay and managed to hold Storm's End against a numerical superior force.

Charging a numerical superior force entrenched in a forest with only a small number of mounted soldiers seemed like a fatal tactical mistake. How Mance Rayder and his Wildlings fail to take advantage of these odds? I'm not exactly a maester but a forest isn't exactly favourable terrain for cavalry.

EDIT: As /u/AirOutlaw7 pointed out, I'm afraid my enthusiasm simply got the better of me. I should have phrased this question in a more neutral and impartial way, for which I deeply apologise. Still I'd like to know why a seemingly suicide charge succeeded.

It's true the equalist movement gained a lot of ground during his rise, but the worldwide military comprised of mostly (if not all) benders. How would a group of sloppily put together people stand up to people like Zaheer, Firelord Zuko, or Unalaq?