Analogies are not the problem. In fact, an analogy is like a good knife; sharp, removes problematic parts, and totally unethical unless it knows the motivations of its wielder.

Seriously though, yes it is obvious why analogies are so often used, but I think you have it the wrong way round. They are a form of proof by negation; you don't have to find a thing exactly like the subject of the argument.

It's a way of fighting against bad arguments; If I say China is bad because X, Y and Z and also, their flag is red! They must be evil. If you then tell me that this argument could also be applied to the Red Cross/Crescent, you have negated my argument by analogy. You don't have to negate every argument I made; but at least then we can treat X, Y and Z on their own.

The problem with this writeup is, there really are no other powerful arguments in it.

And I'm pretty sure C4 is great for controlled demolition of highly dangerous buildings. Or do you want adventurous people to hurt themselves?