Tamim
I'm sorry, I couldn't find the original post so I'm quoting Michael's post.

Russ <mcresq@aol.com>did boldly declaim:

I guess I should begin by saying that my views on these points are rather extreme, and you are welcome to disagree with me on these points - most people do. I also do not see much point in our attempting to convince each other of the rightness of our own POV. Our individual views on what is morally right and wrong, especially in relation to acts of violence that have, or originally had, a justifiable goal, are shaped by what we have gone through in life, and are unlikely to be altered by a few posts, no matter how well reasoned they may be.

snip

Hmmm... perhaps we differ slightly on this. I would say that the deliberate destruction of cities such as Dresden was immoral, and its effect was to make the means employed in fighting Nazi Germany immoral. I'm not saying it was immoral to fight Nazi Germany - just that grinding Dresden into dust was not a moral way of going about it. I will say this even if you show (as you probably can) that Nazi Germany would not have surrendered if it had not been for such acts, because I believe that killing an innocent person is an act that is immoral _in se_, and therefore cannot be justified by any end that it may help achieve, however laudable that end might be.

Mostly I agree though I have to say that in some cases it's better to kill 50 innnocents in order to save 50 000. What I don't understand is that how your quite reasonable opinion here is compatible with your views about bombing the capitals of 4 (or was it three) rogue (or evil axis) states. And how can you write the above and say that the only two nuclear bombs used in history were justifiable.