As best I can make out, her logic involves both causing pain and suffering on people whose guilt hasn't been established

OK, as far as it goes. I think just about everyone recognizes the difference between conducting a bombing run on an enemy country during a war and mistreating people that you have complete control over. Different principles are involved as the two situations are almost entirely dissimilar. That much is obvious and has been stated here by Anjin and others.

As to your characterization of the atomic bombing of Japan,

Certainly, there is a legal point as regards bombing supposedly innocent civilians. In terms of the left's definition of the law the civilians killed incidental to the two bomb drops on Japan are similar to those "civilians" captured and imprisoned incidental to the Iraq war.

Why were the inhabitants of Nagasaki and Hiroshima "supposedly innocent civilians"?
and how is it you think that the civilians killed in those to attacks were "killed incidental to the two bomb drops on Japan"? Do you use some alternate definition of incidental?

It's an argument I've seen several times; it's hardly new.

If I do or do not isn't the issue. I said the arguments used are remarkably similar...

Accepting your assertion for the moment, that the two arguments seem similar to you says nothing about the validity of either argument.
and, it is the issue now. How are they the same?
How is piloting a bomber the same as strapping a man to a table and repeatedly forcing to believe he is drowning? Help me here, I just don't see it.

How is it you see them as the same?

If I do or do not isn't the issue. I said the arguments used are remarkably similar... I made no comment as to their validity.

Again, I'm trying to get Anjin to define or at least identify the pricniple he's using to consider them as being different... and he's trying desperately to avoid that.

Why he's so desperate, should be rather obvious.

Bottom line on a guy like him is that he will make all sorts of noise about supporting the troops, but will not hesitate to drag them through the mud to support his political agenda.

On what principle do you hold the two situations different

How is it you see them as the same?

The point that the left was supposedly all about acceptance's one another aside, it strikes me that the arguments being employed here are remarkably similar to the left and it's constant harping on "torture".

Bullshit...as Anjin pointed out, this is simply the opinion of one person, nothing more...nice try though trying to conflate what Tibbets did to the torture practiced by the Bush Administration...

And by the way, Anjin, since the topic of the post is Torture, why is it you call me a prick and charge me with trying to make a political point, and not Alex?

Oh that's easy...you were the one who dragged Tibbets into this conversation, trying to murk things up, not Alex...

And like I said, try to find a photo of yourself that does not look like a dead flounder.

Nice try.

The commentator you cite speaks for himself. Not "the left" not "Democrats". Himself.

LOL... First off it's a she. Secondly, she speaks for far more than herself, as I think you already know, given the volume of the shouting.

I have never said that the military in Iraq is in need of forgiveness, so for the umpteenth time, don't put words in my mouth. It's cowardly, even by your standards. I know kids that are serving right now & could not be more proud of them.

Fine. Now, answer the question. Or are these shoes just a little tight for your comfort? Why is it that every time you get asked to stand up for a principle, you suddenly start looking for the exit?

On what basis does your forgiveness extend to Tibbets

BTW, I made it quite clear that I don't feel Tibbets did anything wrong, and I do not feel he has any need for my forgiveness.

You just can't help yourself, can you? You have to try and use the memory of this man, on Memorial Day to score a cheap political point. Dude, you are a real prick.