When framing the difference between terrorism and collateral damage, attempts to justify either are based on the level of responsibility the citizens have over the actions of their government. There is a notion that collateral damage is more acceptable because it is an accident. There is a notion that targeting civilians is acceptable if the civilians are responsible for the harmful actions of their government. In the mind of a labeled terrorist, targeting civilians is no different than what they do. The appearance of indiscriminately targeting innocent civilians is relative to the degree of guilt (responsibility) perceived by the attackers and the targeted.

I left out some options because they are too close to one of the listed options to distinguish. I left out the "none of the above", people usually choose those options before thoroughly considering any the above options. Feel free to explain why you think it's none of the above on this thread even if you choose not vote.

I guess everyone is waiting for me to vote first. OK. I voted. I will explain my vote after more votes come in.

False choices, it makes a difference if the official is involved with the decision (as opposed to pure rank) or if the citizen had both knowledge of the criminal act and the ability to do anything about it.

The only possibly valid choice was the decisionmaker and that's woefully inadequate.

So you are saying that none of the above is responsible except the decision maker, and only if the decision maker knew exactly what they were doing.

A person who is responsible isn't the same thing as perpetrator. One could be accidently responsible and not even know it. Harmful acts are not always considered a crime, nor are they always intentional.

It depends

bush41 and the bush family doing things, then blaming those things on 19 bumbling people (none from afghanastan or Iraq, ) then going in and bombing the hell out of innocent people is wrong

A meek David, going against a mighty army firing a slingshot or little bomb against their big bombs, that is another story

A Goliath, sending bombs in and destroying innocent people, and saying it is revenge for the David's, or ooops, the bomb went astray, is either wrong, or the arms they had wasn't as legendary as they thought

Sometimes a freedom fighter is a noble warrior

We would not have had America if they didn't go after King George
We may not be able to get America back if the same

However, the way the original people killed everything in its path to acquire America was also wrong

The IRA was noble in their cause, and they were just average people trying to get back what was God rightfully their's.

If one spews the government's line, they should be held accountable though in America today.
If you blindly back Bush, and he is found to have committed crimes against humanity, then so should his mouthpieces and fans from the lowest to the highest, like they did in Germany

Make people think.

As to which answer -I am never good at multiple choice
But it could be ALL OF THE ABOVE almost.

Are we doing any better than someone who blindly backs Bush just sitting here yapping? Are not 99.99999 percent of America guilty today?
(However, one should start at the top-Bush41, then work their way down...so your first answer would include Bush43 being born into)


I did NOT pick a choice...all of the above would apply I guess.

However, not paying taxes is illegal and has instant consequences, so it is a little harsh and has been found not a good way of protest.

When they pay taxes instead of defecting. That's what I put because it was closest to what I think. People are responsible for the actions of their government when they don't pay attention, don't investigate what's going on, and don't speak out against the wrongful actions of their government.

I'm saying the question is framed in a way that doesn't allow for a reasonable answer. Who was responsible for the Allende hit gives a totally different answer than who was responsible for our concentration camps in WWII.

I guess you want a case-by-case consideration. I was asking opinions of an overall principle.

I'd have to agree with Tom. I do think there is a difference between the deliberate targeting of civilians, collerateral damage, and yes, sometimes as in WWII, civilians were deliberately targeted. One usually precedes the other and generally the targeting of civilians is the predecessor cause.

I think you and Tom misunderstood. I guess I didn't make it clear enough.

The question isn't who is responsible for targeting civilians. It's a question of which civilians should be targeted (when targeting civilians) based on their level of responsibility for the harmful acts of their government.

No, you're right. I didn't read it that way it all. I suppose what initially came to mind is that this action would be taken for purely defensive purposes which opens up an entirely different discussion in defining what a defensive action is. So where does that leave me?

I'm not sure where that leaves you. How did you vote?

If I have to accept the given that some civilians are going to be sacraficed in
order to play the game, I chose Being born in the country because doing it randomly would be the only fair way to do it.

Enough people have voted, so I will explain mine.

Taking responsibility for ones government begins with the most basic act of supporting your government. Some might say voting is the most basic government support. Many more people pay taxes than people who vote. Voting is only electing a person to the position. Just holding a position is not governing. Government support starts when the position gets funds to act.

Paying taxes is enabling your government to do what ever it does. Ignorance to how the tax dollars are being spent doesn't free a citizen from partial responsibility for the effects of those tax dollars.

I would have picked defecting as the best option to free a citizen of responsibility, but there's no guarantee that there's a more compatible government out there that will remain in the state that it is. Running away from a bad government will empower that government if you are opposed to it's methods. I also think the influence of governments are global these days. One governments problem is every other governments problem. We are that interdependent now.

A peaceful revolution is the best solution, but I didn't put that as an option because I figured everyone would jump on that and not consider the other levels of responsibility. I wanted to see what everyone would say if the peaceful revolution fails.

I figure that a forceful revolution is the best option when negotiations fail. Force doesn't have to be violence. It could be as simple as a boycott or a strike. This would be a way of undoing the mistakes of our grandparents while building a better nation.

Some might say we don't have a choice as to whether or not we pay taxes. We have a limited choice by choosing not to work, if not for a short period of time. Even if we continue to pay taxes, we could still revolt.

Six votes and no majority?

Interesting!!!

I think it is to do with being uneducated. A study of the past would force people to see the faults of certain groups and not allow those groups anywhere near leadership. People have responsibility for their own education. However the groups who have a lot to lose by education can also work to silence those who know too much. This is done by mind control...the use of 'tinfoil hat' (which I do as an ironic joke) 'conspiracy theorists' etc 'have you thought of drug therapy?' and accusations of living by fear etc, all these things are mind controlling and are the fault of the mind controllers. Some people use these techniques innocently, because they have been brainwashed. Education via the internet can highlight when you yourself are helpiing to perpetuate lies, and keep criminal activities covered-up.

I did not vote because I think it is to do with Spirituality or lack of it, in society. We have to clean our minds of the poisons that we have been given via many and various sources.

People are guilty when they close their eyes, when they do not want to know, when they do not want others to tell them anything, when they refuse to be given a note, when they isolate someone from a group, when they obstruct someone from doing what they want to help the community, when they victimize, when they speak evil of that person trying to do good, when they allow someone to be framed, when they will not consider that conspiracies can, and do happen, and not by the ones who are accused by the mass hysteria.