quote:

Originally posted by Epicurus Furthermore, if people elect these leaders to power at time t = x, and then event A that "rocks" that nation occurs at time t = x + 1 and leads the leaders of that nation to take a course of action that the constituents as a whole don't agree with and COULD NOT have predicted, and voice their disapproval by demonstrations and the like, then the people should not be held accountable, and the suicide bombers are at fault.

I guess that would be at time x=t+1? Otherwise we are talking about an event that happened prior to the person being elected.

Hehe,trust the pedants to destroy the fun.

quote:

I guess that would be at time x=t+1? Otherwise we are talking about an event that happened prior to the person being elected.

He he he...and I'm a mathmatician lol...thanks...I will re-redit the post to correct for that

Edit:/ I need major sleep. The original formulation was correct. Stop your confusion tactics and answer the post

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic I guess that would be at time x=t+1? Otherwise we are talking about an event that happened prior to the person being elected. Hehe,trust the pedants to destroy the fun.

nah since t=x, t=x+1 is basically the same as x=t+1

quote:

nah since t=x, t=x+1 is basically the same as x=t+1

Actually, it's not exactly the same. You see, t is your dependent variable and x is your independent. So we fix x and find t. If x = t+1, then t = x - 1, and obviously that's not the same as t = x + 1. The original formulation was correct but your confusion is interesting since it confused me also for a second

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew nah since t=x, t=x+1 is basically the same as x=t+1

Well if t=x and t=x+1 then by induction t=y for any y that you would care to mention. Therefore also for t-1, which would be an event in the past (assuming greater values of t means further ahead in time, of course )

^^^^ Yes, yes. I should have specifically written t1 and t2. Pardon the confusion. Now let's get back to the issue at hand shall we, before we start delving into mathematics

quote:

Originally posted by FuzzyGreen Her country was involved in a war. I'm sorry to hear about her loss, but stuff like that happens in war (a lot less with the way the US wages war these days also). The American army tries as hard as possible to avoid civillian casualties, but in war, people die. Now, lets look at who's responsible, shall we... Her and her family kept an evil regime in power, just as the Germans were responsible for the Nazi's coming to power and staying in power. Likewise the Japanese. Her innocents is shattered by the fact that she is part of a community that did nothing to stop her own evil government.

and your nation creates hatred, which lead people flying airplanes in wtc and such..

we can do this arguement as well dumbass, but i wont because terrorist are stupid and your adminstration is even more stupid.,

your just sick guy, saying it's her fault that she lost her familie..really...il keep my tone down.

quote:

Originally posted by Epicurus No they should not be held accountable. Although citizens in democratic countries do INDEED elect their leaders, not EVERY citizen elects that specific leader. A citizen could have voted for another leader, who then proceeded to lose the elections. Thus, when their governments perpetrate acts of "state terrorism", for instance, and "terrorists" attack this state back by killing civilians by using suicide bombs against them, which, ipso facto, do NOT discriminate against people who voted for or against a particular leader, the suicide bombers are at fault.

Just to add to your hypothetical situation ... said terrorists would be doubly at fault since their planned attacks were not in response to a convoluted logic trail of responsibility for perpetrated acts of "state terrorism", but rather as a means to accomplish a completely independant set of ideological goals.

___________________
Retro ...

quote:

Just to add to your hypothetical situation ... said terrorists would be doubly at fault since their planned attacks were not in response to a convoluted logic trail of responsibility for perpetrated acts of "state terrorism", but rather as a means to accomplish a completely independant set of ideological goals.

Oh common, the logic isn't that convoluted. Even you were able to follow it But seriously, of course, your point is valid IF you were able to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that it was true. However, I didn't include that statement specifically because it is extremely difficult to prove that these acts were indeed performed for a COMPLETELY INDEPENDANT set of ideological goals. Thus, when I argue this, I usually like to concede this point and see where that gets me. If indeed, I can somehow rationally justify why the "terrorists" are to blame when they kill innocent civilians DESPITE conceding this point (See view point number 2), then I've obviously strengthened my general argument regarding the lack of accountability of the citizenry of that democratic country.

the justification that i've heard (although don't agree with), is that citizens pay taxes, taxes finance wars. since all citizens pay taxes, there are no innocents...

frightening.

I say it's simple. You don't like a country then leave. No ones forcing you to stay a part of that nation. If that nation or it's ideals offends you then leave. You choose to stay and be a part you choose to not opt out. Until you are old enough to descide for yourself your legal guardians take responciblity for you and so children can't be excluded.

___________________
If you can read this, I'm seriously fucking bored.

Wow, this thread is going off tangent a lot, besides having a retarded main argument.

___________________
Blip, blip, blip...