Even if they are not blameless that doesn't mean their lives are forfeit.
Yes if they voice dissent, no if they voice support.This, with the "yes" also extending to those who neither voice nor act either way (beyond what they're basically forced to do).
Even if they are not blameless that doesn't mean their lives are forfeit.This.
They aren't when a sizable portion of that country supports the terrorists. Something something 1 nazi and 10 people at a table = 11 nazis.It's a bit different when people are unable to leave the "table" in question because both the "Nazis" and the "anti-Nazis" (who in the situation being referenced here, are ironically far closer to actual Nazis) are forcing them to stay there, and would in fact quite like to leave the table (or make the Nazis leave it) if they were able to do so.
The people who voted NO. Using that logic is what terrorist use to the target civilians.So much to unpack with this post I don't even know where to begin....
So much to unpack with this post I don't even know where to begin....
So you mean yes, they are blameless, or rather the ones who dissent aren't to blame. You read the topic wrong. Although TC did word the topic rather weirdly.You're right, I definitely read that wrong.
Did you consider yourself free of blame when GW Bush was in office?
You think you're cooking here but I think you forgot to turn the burner on.
Most people on this board were literal children and teenagers when Bush was in office. The way the US handles activism and protest is not good and far from the democratic ideals it espouses, but it's not even comparable to being killed or forced into labor camps for dissent.
It's a false equivalence which distracts from the question of what oppressed people face in regimes like those ran by terrorists, whether the question was meant to or not.
Most people on this board were literal children and teenagers when Bush was in office.Counterpoint: