"Greg Hennessy" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 11:39:57 GMT, "weary" wrote:


a major arsenal, a chemical plant (that happened to be producing
mustard
gas and cynagen chloride agents), an air base, rail facilities, and so
on.

All of which could have been destroyed by conventional means.


Like the 16 sq miles of tokyo was in March 1945 perhaps ?

No. Do try to follow the thread. Back up a couple of lines and you
can read that the previous correspondent tried to justify the bombing
of Hiroshima on the grounds that there were military and industrial assets
in the city. However the aiming point was a bridge in a mainly residential
area and the assets were only lightly damaged. The incendiary raids
on Tokyo deliberately targetted civilians, not military or industrial
assets.


With military targets located in the cities, the cities were legitimate
targets.
The difference between the 1945 nuclear strikes and 9-11 is that in
1945,
there was a WAR ON that had to be brought to an end by whatever means
necessary.

But you deny others the same right.


Of course, to allow idiots like you to sleep safe at night.

Bad news - it isn't working, if we are to believe the number
of heightened terror alerts. Besides, I have never asked nor do I
want my government to kill civilians so that I can sleep safe
at night. As a matter of fact, if I knew that is what my government
was doing, I would not sleep safe at night.