This revenge thing was really a bad choice of words that lead to a detour, sorry. But my earlier point about how the Nazis saw their own acts justified was about deterrence, and can't be interpreted in the revenge framework.

_{*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.}

To re-word my analogy without revenge: Killing children is JUST AS BAD whether you did it from a simple hate for their parents or to deter their parents from continuing killing your own children.

But you would agree that, knowing that the enemy parents are trying to kill your children, it is justifiable to try to kill those parents (not their children) first, in an effort to protect your children?

What does that mean, 'unprovoked'? Britain and Nazi Germany were officially at war for two years.

By "unprovoked attack," I'm referring to the Germans bombing an area populated almost completely by civilians -- and massive numbers of civilians.  I think most people, including you, would agree that striking strategic military targets in a war is different from intentionally bombing civilians.

It was - by the time of fire-bombings, that was the sole thing it was aimed at. (Unlike US daylight bombings that more often had legitimate targets.) And let's not forget that this didn't start in Europe - Bomber Harris only now applied in Europe what he practised in the colonies (Iraq) before.

The fire-bombings, which I agree with you on, were a separate event from what (I think) we've been discussing -- the initial bombing of Londoners and the response against Berlin.  I'm only discussing this particular set of events.  Britain didn't bomb Berlin after the initial bombing of London to frighten the German people.  Churchill ordered the bombing to send a message to Hitler.

Certainly the attacks carried out in Iraq were evil.  You'll get no argument from me on that.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.