[DiogenesLamp]

I'll repeat, if I've said this before: that makes you a coward, intellectually dishonest,

No, it makes me a rational person who is not interested in ridiculous histrionics that you feel like venting. Pearl Harbor is not comparable to Fort Sumter. Not in terms of deaths, not in terms of value, not in terms of who was doing the attacking and why, and not in terms of National interest.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "Pearl Harbor is not comparable to Fort Sumter.
Not in terms of deaths, not in terms of value, not in terms of who was doing the attacking and why, and not in terms of National interest."

Sure it was, all of those:

1. Casualties -- 7% at Fort Sumter, about 7% at Pearl Harbor.

2. Value -- Fort Sumter was one of the US most expensive forts at the time, Pearl Harbor held the entire US Pacific fleet.

3. Who attacked: Fort Sumter was attacked & lost to an enemy military power, as was the US fleet at Pearl Harbor.

4. Why attacked: Fort Sumter was attacked because it represented a provocation to enemy authorities, as was Pearl Harbor.

5. National interest: Fort Sumter represented one of the furthest extensions of US military power in 1861, as did Pearl Harber in 1941.
   Both places were valuable to the national interest as symbols of the United States and as projections of US military power into potentially hostile regions.

Seriously, I see no problem with such comparisons, your repeated denials notwithstanding.