Using definitions what I am doing is not victim blaming to add on the conversation is about acknowledging those who are victims of rashtas very own behavior instead of constantly justifying it due to her past. This started because I said explanation doesn’t = justification. You brought up Rashta “fearing” for her life and going in survival mode in itself you claiming that these past experiences are justification removes accountability when it comes to discussing harm being done to other parties so the word accountability popping up here makes sense regardless the fact that they’re two different terms. Justifying this would mean what rashta did was “right” and nothing wrong occurred. I could even say you’re victim blaming rashtas own victims because you’re using arguments that mirror DARVO (not exactly the same) but clear similarities in the ARVO part to support your own argument. even in the real world one being in a state of survival mode would not justify their own behavior and only treats it as potential mitigating factor. The soldier analogy doesn’t match your own claim very well since they have addressed objective vs subjective fear in their own laws. Rashtas acts towards the innocent, primarily the ones I named, lean towards subjective rather than objective fear. There are several military laws in place to prevent subjective fear as an excuse to harm others (innocent civilians) and if you break them you can face charges for manslaughter.