Replies

ROTFLMAO!!!!! I had'nt gotten that far yet.

but for some other reason, as for example a presumed “greater good” of saving someone else from injury.

Presumed????? you're joking right.

Look at it like this.

We catch KSM, on 9/9, the next day we capture Atta. do you seriously mean to assert that the greater good acieved by FORCING these guys to divulge, is merely Presumed?

You have a disturbing propensity to misquote and then use your own fantasy to rebut a non-existing argument. To begin with, I never said the Japanese mainland was "combative territory". Perhaps if you would carefully read what I posted you would realize that I said "a hostile, enemy controlled, territory". Yes? Good!

Secondly, the reasons that the tactical nature of bombing and the torture of ILLEGAL COMBATATANTS are not the same are contained in the second paragraph written to you.

Specifically I listed 4 points that differentiate aerial bombing from torture of an individual. To remind you, these were:

1) torture involves the deliberate infliction of severe suffering (as opposed to discomfort, of the sort associated with incarceration) that is designed to elicit some form of gain, for the party inflicting such suffering

2) the circumstances under which that individual is subjected to such suffering, occurs while that individual is under the direct control of the party inflicting the suffering

3) the victim is unable to take any physical action (moving, body armor, gas mask, bomb shelter etc) to avoid the consequences of a noxious stimulus (bullet, missile, bomb, pliers, bamboo chutes etc)

4) the harm is directed at a specific individual, not to prevent that individual from further supportive or direct hostile action towards the party inflicting the suffering (after all he is under the control of the party inflicting the suffering), but for some other reason, as for example a presumed “greater good” of saving someone else from injury.

Let me help you a little more, as you seem to have difficulty in grasping the substance of the argument.

I have stated that there are differences (see 1-4 above). It is implicit that I believe these differences are relevant and substantive. You have every right to disagree with this position. It is incumbent on you to demonstrate either the inaccuracy of these assertions or, if true, their lack of relevance to the argument. If you can offer substantive, thoughtful reasoning, as to why they do not constitute significant differences, have at it. If not, do us both a favor and shut your pie-hole. Whatever you decide, don’t expect further responses from me unless you agree to address the specific issues outlined above. Have a good day.