"Amazing" in what way? That I don't drink your kool-aid? That I
consider more people being killed as more bad, even though it didn't
involve a -- GASP -- nuke?

Since you need it spelled out in simple terms, go to a library (aside:
when there, don't pronounce it "lie-barry" -- they'll laugh), pick up
this month's National Geographic, and read the story on the 60th
anniversary. It'w written in simple, easy to understand english, so
you'll get it, and there are pictures too, just in case the english is
too tiring on you.

There's even a picture taken from 5 miles away from a 15 kiloton
(Hiroshima-sized) strike, with a bunch of troops.

Good luck at trying to open your mind to a new concept.

David wrote:

On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 08:23:10 -0600, Eric F. Richards
wrote:

"John S." wrote:



You are confusing issues here.

No, I'm not. You are, or you are being deliberatly obtuse.

The point is, the firebombings KILLED MORE PEOPLE.

They were more DESTRUCTIVE.


End of story.

So, which was "more evil?" (which is a bull**** construct, but lets
leave that alone for now...)

Killing 75,000 people with a nuke?

Killing 300,000 people with incindiaries?

Killing 300,000 people with incindiaries, timing the individual waves
to catch fire and rescue people in the open and unprotected? (read up
on Dresden.)

In the firebombing of tokyo, london,
dresden or koln there were numerous devices used which resulted in
numerous highly destuctive fires. In the two separate nuclear bomb
attacks on japan one device was used in each attack with extreme
destruction the result.


I would have far rather been 5 miles away from Hiroshima than 5 miles
away from Dresden. I suspect even at that distance I could have been
sucked in by the firestorm.

Chances are you would have been killed or seriously maimed for life by
radiation at a 5 mile distance.


Check your facts.
Amazing.

On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 07:30:36 -0600, Eric F. Richards
wrote:

"Amazing" in what way? That I don't drink your kool-aid? That I
consider more people being killed as more bad, even though it didn't
involve a -- GASP -- nuke?

Since you need it spelled out in simple terms, go to a library (aside:
when there, don't pronounce it "lie-barry" -- they'll laugh), pick up
this month's National Geographic, and read the story on the 60th
anniversary. It'w written in simple, easy to understand english, so
you'll get it, and there are pictures too, just in case the english is
too tiring on you.

There's even a picture taken from 5 miles away from a 15 kiloton
(Hiroshima-sized) strike, with a bunch of troops.

Good luck at trying to open your mind to a new concept.

Fascinating...