Seems to me to be a reactionary thing.
2007-05-14 11:03:27 · 15 answers · asked by Charles Dobson Focus on the Fam 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Hey wingshooter Im pretty sure Iraq didnt ask us to invade. dummy
2007-05-14 11:14:20 · update #1
I am absolutely sure that these heinous beheadings would not have occurred against Americans if it weren’t for our invasion of Iraq. We can know this for two simple reasons:
1. Zarqawi, the major alleged perpetrator behind the American beheadings, gave speeches decrying America’s invasion and occupation of Iraq before he beheaded or ordered his followers to behead men like Nick Berg and Paul Johnson.
2. We saw no beheadings of Americans prior to our invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq.
The evidence is clear. We engendered the hatred that lead to these villainous deeds against American civilians. Do I absolve the terrorists of their crimes because of our own transgressions? No. People must be held accountable for their criminal offenses regardless of who offended them. However, to not acknowledge that we were the terrorists’ inspiration for these acts is to be in denial.
2007-05-14 13:08:22 · answer #1 · answered by Lawrence Louis 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Well, Iraq had nothing to do with those terrorists attack so everyone's arguments about them attacking us is irrelevant.
It absolutely is a reactionary thing. If you invade someones country, regardless of motive, people will defend themselves and retaliate. Imagine if the US was invaded. US citizens, regardless of who is right or wrong in the war, would defend themselves against the invaders or "liberators". It's human nature.
2007-05-14 12:14:43 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Those head-chopping, child-killing, women-torturing extremists - they're just misunderstood victims! We should just wave the white flag, and they'll leave us alone I'm sure.
Meanwhile, keep believing that they don't want us there as you have been brain-washed to believe. Never-mind all the facts. If we had actually occupied the country, put up statues, kept them in oppression, the area would be calmer than it is now. Change takes courage - you liberals USED to know that.
2007-05-14 11:22:08 · answer #3 · answered by Whootziedude 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No because they wouldn't have to. If the American efforts in Iraq and the Middle East were going as bad as people like to claim these groups would not have to resort to these tactics for attention.
2007-05-14 11:26:34 · answer #4 · answered by 3rd parties for REAL CHANGE 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I continually have been given caught being the robber as a toddler. no person here is going to place down hands and enable the evil Muslims take over. purely because of the fact maximum folk are sane sufficient to attain that's not likely to ensue besides would not advise we would not combat it if it did.
2016-12-11 09:25:41 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Seems more like a barbaric murder thing to me.
And, yeah, I think given a suply of Americans and a video camera they'd do it. The war may have given them easier access to Americans, and a bigger audience for the videos, though.
2007-05-14 11:15:17 · answer #6 · answered by B.Kevorkian 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
They were attacking us before we invaded them!!! It's a reactionary thing, but it is because we didn't appreciate them continually attacking us here and abroad!
2007-05-14 11:10:19 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 0⤋
Muslims are beheading people around the globe.
2007-05-14 11:08:13 · answer #8 · answered by Got a light Leo? 3 · 6⤊ 0⤋
If there were no americans there they could not be beheaded america get out
2007-05-14 13:58:09 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Yes, and we are occupying them at the request of their government
2007-05-14 11:08:38 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋