Replies

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.

Look, if you wish to be incoherent and only adress one side of the argument, that's fine,

What i was pointing out, was the DIFFERENCE between combative territory, where we generally fight wars, and bombing civilian centers, which we condemned the Nazis for in London. there is a difference, and we jumped ship when it became part of the equation of saving Innocent American Lives, as opposed to simply continuing the Island Hopping Campaign.

Secondly, as to points 1,3 ...? So, yes, that is what torture is....what isyour point, i thought we were pretty much in agreement on that.

As to point 4, we are not talking about a Presumed good.

An Uncertain, and anticipated good, maybe, but in the final analysis, you are talking about trading off deliberately inflicted suffering on someone that has committed, or is presumed to be in league with those committing acts of hostility SPECIFICALLY disavowed by the Geneva Convention, to save the lives of Not presumed, but definitively innocent people.

And Before you argue that last point, consider, the Courts currently confirm that is the nature of these Illegal combatants.