[steve-b]

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.

[Paul C. Jesup]

You sir have reached a new low that is on par with Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur comments comparing Osama with the founding fathers: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/857987/posts

[GOPcapitalist]

Nope; the two are precisely equivalent.

Asserting that in repetition no more makes it so than flapping your arms in repetition will give you flight. As I have demonstrated, the two cases lack analogous elements in fundemental ways.

In both cases, the initial aggressor (the Confederates, al-Qaeda)

False. The CSA was not the initial aggressor at Sumter. They only fired upon the fort as a last resort after repeated attempts for peaceful turnover. They made the decision to fire because a fleet of northern warships carrying troops and munitions and under orders to fight its way into Charleston harbor was steaming in across the horizon. In fact the first member of that fleet had arrived the night before and immediately fired upon a civilian confederate vessle attempting to enter the port. By contrast, Afghanistan was completely unprovoked. Try again.