They didn’t compare the reactions to the death of someone who led one of the world’s largest terrorist organizations for decades with that of someone mainly known for being good at debates. They compared the reactions to the death of someone who led one of the world’s largest terrorist organizations for decades with that of Charlie Kirk.
Does it really make any difference whether they compared the death of someone who led one of the world’s largest terrorist organisations for decades
- with someone who wasn’t good at debates,
- or with someone who was?
My point still stands: even if Charlie Kirk had been entirely unremarkable, it wouldn’t be right to compare him with someone responsible for thousands of civilian deaths?
They didn’t compare the reactions to the death of someone who led one of the world’s largest terrorist organizations for decades with that of someone mainly known for being good at debates. They compared the reactions to the death of someone who led one of the world’s largest terrorist organizations for decades with that of Charlie Kirk.