You are wrong about it not proving anything, as it proves that you're intentionally trying to trivialize the conflict into an event of its own, by hiding the co

You are wrong about it not proving anything, as it proves that you're intentionally trying to trivialize the conflict into an event of its own, by hiding the context of the prior events caused by other actors playing on the same field in their chronological order. Secondly, I'm yet to see a proof that it's indeed a fallacy, as you are yet to demonstrate how exactly OP's appeal to common standards is an unsound argument causing faulty reasoning. You're just evading the argument altogether whilst calling it a fallacy. I bet you're either cherry-picking definitions or not fully understanding the meaning of the term, especially when it serves your intent to hide your lack of consistency on the subject matter of military conflicts.