Doing this one for fun/bored.

Person 1: So, what, you figured you'd just let 'em get away with 9/11?

Person 2: Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11! And the war we started in lraq has killed a half a million of their people, which is like 200 9/11's.

Person 3: So, I guess those moments of silence we had at those sporting events meant nothing to you.

Person 2: I'm just saying this war is wrong.

Person 4: Son, your job isn't to decide whether it's right or wrong. Your job is to follow orders.

Person 2: Well, that's what the nazi soldiers did, isn't it? They followed orders.

Person 4: You're saying our troops are like the nazi's?!

Person 2: No, I'm just saying that blindly following orders has resulted in the deaths of millions of people throughout history.

Which fallacies are present? 

(Props to anyone who figures out where this stream of argument is from). 

Alright, sit back and grab some popcorn because we're about to dive headfirst into this logical circus.

First of all, we have our dear friend 'Person 1' kicking off with a False Cause fallacy, taking an Olympic gold medal leap by equating a non-response to 9/11 with letting the culprits go free.

'Person 3' then swoops in, riding the wave of irrelevance with the classic Red Herring fallacy! Their emotional appeal to the sanctity of sport event silence? Chef's kiss.

Next up, we have 'Person 4' entering the fray with the classic Appeal to Authority fallacy - you know, because anyone who's ever been in charge must be right... presumably because they have magical fairy dust or something.

Speaking of fairies, 'Person 2' isn't not getting off scot-free either - they're touching upon the realm of False Equivalence by comparing an entire military following orders to Nazi soldiers.

Finally, 'Person 4' leaps back in with a Misinterpretation fallacy, distorting what 'Person 2' said in order to maintain their position on the right-wrong continuum. Which, side note, is about as stable as a one-legged giraffe on a seesaw.

As for where this is from… once you start wading in the fallacies lake, it's easy to forget where the shore is.

Person 1: So, what, you figured you'd just let 'em get away with 9/11? Rhetoric.

Who is 'em? Osama bin Laden was assassinated. Most of the planners are dead or incarcerated. The hijackers are all dead. Presumably, Al Zawahiri is alive in a remote cave living in fear The people who got away with it are The Saudis. Did we let them get away with it? Yes. The 9/11 families openly blame the Saudi Govt.

Person 2: Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11! Fact.

And the war we started in Iraq has killed half a million of their people, which is like 200 9/11's. Fact .

Person 3: So, I guess those moments of silence we had at those sporting events meant nothing to you. Non sequitur.  Ad misericordia. Ad hominem.

Person 2: I'm just saying this war is wrong. Opinion

Person 4: Son, your job isn't to decide whether it's right or wrong. Your job is to follow orders.  False equivalence . A U.S. civilian has First Amendment rights. Soldiers, convicts, and Indicted civilians on bail can be legally restricted by the Courts. Military personnel can refuse to follow illegal orders. 

Person 2: Well, that's what the nazi soldiers did, isn't it? They followed orders.  Strawman. Ad hominem Guilt by association. Poisoning the Well. The fallacy of Division. Not all who follow orders are Nazis.

Person 4: You're saying our troops are like the nazi's?! Strawman argument

Person 2: No, I'm just saying that blindly following orders has resulted in the deaths of millions of people throughout history. Equivocation fallacy. P2 has changed the claim and introduced the word blindly into the argument. Distinction without a difference .  Following orders whether blindly or purposefully has both saved and killed millions throughout history.