[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".

[jmacusa]

You're playing at semantics. Let's start with the fact the Germans started the war. They proceed to flatten Warsaw. They flattened Rotterdam and Coventry and most of London. They made the rules. The sowed the seeds of their own destruction and reaped the whirlwind. Why should Dresden be any different than the bombing of Hamburg two years earlier? Do you not understand that when your enemy throws away the rule book your aren't bound by the same rules? You're attempting moral equivocation here and it isn't working. The Germans planned the Holocaust and made the Jews of Europe their deliberate targets. Do you not understand the difference?