Isn't really possible with you. You've driven more than one person nuts in past years trying to deal with any form of a rational, linear argument.

As often happens with people who don't like using rational means of argument, the first thing that is done is to destroy a term so it no longer has a useful meaning. For example, currently "torture" is a meaningless term in political discussion, since it's now been expanded to include anything that makes a person physically uncomfortable.

So now we stand at the point where making a person stand in one spot for hours is exactly the same as acid showers, amputation, REAL electric wires, and deaths by the thousands. Of course, the motivation issue is way over your head.

Remind me where Hitler spent years after the invasion trying to set up an independent government in Czechoslovakia, while pouring billions in aid into that nation. Where Hitler's troops engaged in dangerous, house-to-house and ground patrols to avoid harming civilians as much as possible.

But you have no clue what that previous paragraph means, do you? The discussion, as always, breaks down when we get into abstract principles. To you, a cop who accidentally shoots a kid during a firefight is exactly the same as someone who kidnaps that kid, takes them into the woods, and strangles them. To your mind, all that you see is that someone killed a kid. You can't get to that next tier required for serious moral analysis.

I hate to be blunt about this, but your thinking process doesn't work well enough for me to argue with you. I'm not sure why I keep trying. I guess I hope others get something out of the responses.