Quote:
|
Originally Posted by bling
If you're asking me to compare Rekna's analogy with yours, I would certainly choose Rekna's as being more applicable. Yours brought murder into a school yard scenario - in essence, as Rekna shrank the scope of all aspects in his analogy, you picked one aspect to remain. So your analogy doesn't fit.
I think the most applicable analogy would be that 200lb bully pushes the 90lb weakling around and so the weakling pushes the 4 year old sister of the bully - and she begins to cry. Is it fair to the 4 year old girl? No. But neither are the actions of the bully to the weakling. The 90lb weakling can't push the 200lb bully - it would be entirely meaningless.
|
Yet the use of a Gun signifies the breaking of the "Rule" that a typical school yard bully fight would have. You don't expect a gun to be used to handle a situation like this, just like you don't expect a normal enemy combantant to target your civilians.
If you are taking the analogy literally I can see your point. If I said more details like...The girl didn't die...would you see mine?
What mine is leading up too is we know that in this situation the weakling using a gun to kill a 4 year old is wrong...that's terrorism in a nut shell. That's striking at what isn't expected to be strucken it...that's retalliation, if you were wronged, to a point that it makes you the bully.
When those planes hit the world trade center...the US right then became the 90 lb weakling.