From: "Gary Wiltshire" 

On Thu, 06 Apr 2006 00:00:15 -0400, John Cuccia  wrote:

> On Wed, 05 Apr 2006 23:15:06 -0400, "Gary Wiltshire"

> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 05 Apr 2006 20:29:37 -0400, John Cuccia 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 05 Apr 2006 20:03:36 -0400, "Gary Wiltshire"

>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ah, so far nobler would have been a photograph showing one soldier
>>>> shooting another in the head?
>>>
>>> So you think pictures of executions are noble?  To go with your belief
>>> that immolation in nuclear fire is smarmy?  I'm not sure what you are
>>> getting at.
>>>
>>> Wait, are you asking why I used a picture of Hiroshima to argue my
>>> point?  Is that what this is all about?
>>>
>>> Heck that's easy. It was the most graphic example I could think of an
>>> event that proved the "laws and customs of war" to
be conveniences
>>> that are discarded when necessary.
>>
>> I didn't say "execution."  I said one soldier shooting
another in the
>> head.
>
> I typed "execution" because it was easier than typing
"one soldier..."
> and it was a bit less grammatically awkward than saying "So you think
> pictures of one soldier shooting another in the head are noble?"  The
> meaning is the same in either case.
>
> By now I have no idea what point you might be trying to make, or even
> if you are trying to make one.
>

We're back to the business "laws and customs of war" and your use
of the Hiroshima picture.  Would it be more noble to post a picture of one
soldier shooting another in the head (in battle)?  Wouldn't that soldier's
action be in keeping with the "laws and customs of war," as
opposed to Hiroshima which you clearly think isn't?

--
Gary Wiltshire

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5