Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: steve-b
Do you know who you sound like? No, I suppose you don't. I'm just going to have to spell it out:

Your analogy is fraudulent and emotionally loaded. Terrorists in afghanistan made an unannounced, unprovoked attack on civilians in another country halfway around the world with massive casualties and destruction. The confederates carried through their long-announced intentions to lay seige to a fort within their own boundaries in direct response to military instigation by Abe Lincoln, who had sent a fleet of warships there to start a war. It resulted in minimal destruction and not a single casualty. The two situations are simply not comparable and as a rule of logic from the law of causality, the invasion of Virginia was not a necessary consequence of the firing on a fort in South Carolina.

126 posted on 03/11/2003 11:50:28 AM PST by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies ]


To: GOPcapitalist
Nope; the two are precisely equivalent. In both cases, the initial aggressor (the Confederates, al-Qaeda), not the agressed-upon party (the USA, the USA) who responds with retaliatory force, bears the onus of guilt.
130 posted on 03/11/2003 12:05:01 PM PST by steve-b
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson