You left out a few parts from the analogy
Like the parts where the crowd I'm in is told that there is a "criminal" in our midst.
Shown pictures of what he looks like.
Told what he did and shown footage of the thousands of dead he caused.
Told what section of the stands he is in.
Told that that section will be targeted in 15 minutes and anyone still in it will be considered a willing collaborator.
Okay, the analogy is getting stretched. But I know that's your preferred method of debate: focus on the flaws in an analogy rather than the insight it may provide. Any analogy that so closely matches the original situation as to have no arguable differences is no longer an analogy, but the thing itself.
So rather than trying to refine my analogy any further, I'll go back to the original formulation: If a combatant hides among non-combatants in an explicit effort to cause them to be targeted, he is at fault for their deaths.
