[jmacusa]

I’m not ‘’admitting’’ anything you’ve got a problem understanding logic and as I said I’m not the only one here who has pointed that out to you. No, prosecuting any of the Nuremberg criminals was the highest form of justice. More than Nazi Germany gave any of it’s victims. You’re German, aren’t you?

[annalex]

My person has nothing to do with this.

Did you or did you not write:

In my post I said civilians are often killed as a matter of design. That would mean the Holocaust, wouldn’t it?

And did you or did you not earlier say:

There are no ‘’innocents’’ in war. Combatants and civilians get killed in war as a consequence of it. Sometimes by tragic circumstance for civilians and sometimes by design as a matter of strategic design and combatants as a matter of design also

And did you not say:

I never said civilian [casualties] were avoidable

So were the East European Jews killed because their killing was "unavoidable", they were not really innocents and the Holocaust was "a matter of design", or what?

If this conversation is difficult for you, just say so. I wouldn't want to exasperate you in any way. My desire is to penetrate the mind of someone who finds the bombardment of Dresden morally acceptable and the Holocaust of the Jews not morally acceptable. Even though, you said both are equally "unavoidable", the victims were not innocent and the killing was "matter of design".