Iraq and Afghanistan are independent countries with set of laws to guide their countries. It might not conform with the laws of other countries but it is their laws that they believe necessary to guide their nation's destiny. The US invasion caused so many lives more than any terrorist has inflicted to any nation.
2007-11-21 18:05:00 · 14 answers · asked by henry 4 in News & Events ➔ Current Events
First the US didn't "invade" Afghanistan. The UN sent in a force to take out people who violated their own citizens rights brutally.
Why don't you go try to live in Burma and when you come back tell us how much you enjoyed your freedom
2007-11-21 20:13:49 · answer #1 · answered by wayne 4 · 1⤊ 3⤋
Hi, You assert "Religion has caused more death and hurt in human history than any other aspect of human sociology." And later you assert that this is more often than racial wars and violence. For starters, I contest that contention. Not that I know for sure that you are wrong. In fact, you could be right. However, it seems to me to be just a little bit of a hand waving argument. Has anyone done studies to demonstrate that? Another problem you have is that even though most things you list did happen (with bits of exaggeration) not everything you list has to do with religion. e.g. the invasion of Iraq and Afganistan has nothing to do with religous motivations of the Bush administrations. (And BTW, your comment about Bush saying something about Atheists is false and also totaly irrelevant to your point other than you bolster your false opion that he';s a moron.) It is also arguable that Hitler's montivations were not religious in nature, though it is certainly possible that the actions of the Nazis were based on previous centuries Christian anti semitism. Now to the final point, which should answer your question. Suppose you are correct and that religion is the number one cause of death and hurt. But that is irrelevant since it isn't the ONLY cause. Why does its being number one allow it to be singled out by you? Let's take another so called "cause". Try "love". Do you know how many crimes of passion are commited every year? How much domestic abuse goes on? The underlying motives behind many of these is what some of us term "love". So, how about outlawing "love"? Let's keep men and women totally separate! That way no man can abuse his wife or kill her when he finds her cheating on him because he won't be able to. (I seem to recall something similar happened in the novel "1984".) But of course, that is ludicrous. The crime is not in the "passion" its in the crime itself. i.e. what is NOT criminal is what the person felt but what the person did. The same applies to religion. If someone commits a crime in the name of religion, the problem is not the religion per se, it is the crime. So what is criminalized? Well, the crime of course! And guess what, America does have a justice system. And as a final note, I think it is somewhat laughable that you have the audacity to consider yourself "enlightened" and "educated" when you do not seem to have a clue as to where the ends of your "logic" leads should it, hypothetically speaking, be carried out to its ghastly conclusions.
2016-05-24 23:57:29 · answer #2 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You see Americans are terrorists so are the Muslims. But check this, who started the other first? American of course, started the war with Muslims (PALESTINE) then they were rewarded with September 11, they invaded Afghanistan but with little force so they archived little. Then they invaded Iraq thinking they will win the war, not knowing they are inviting terrorist to attack them. But it's okey let them stay there for life if they want peace, never should they dare to leave otherwise they will be rewarded 3000 September 11 like attacks. So invading Afghanistan and Iraq are truly acts of terrorism but a protection to the world. You know Bin Laden is bad and i hope they will never leave these countries otherwise.......
2007-11-21 18:35:21 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 4⤋
Terrorism is the intentional targeting of defenseless civilians to attack, rather than military targets.
Even if you consider the attacks as unjust or unjustified, they are not terrorist because the targets are military, not civilian.
The fact that civilians die in an attack on a military target, does not make the attack an act of terrorism.
2007-11-21 18:27:31 · answer #4 · answered by The First Dragon 7 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Why don't you ask an Afghan and an Iraqi national... You may be surprised of what answers you get.
2007-11-21 21:08:24 · answer #5 · answered by Yulik MahBaht 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
they might consider it terrorism. they have different beliefs and morals than we do, some extreme, so they may think we are committing acts of terrorism by doing things to and within their country that they believe are morally wrong.
2007-11-21 18:12:48 · answer #6 · answered by SUN vs. MOON 2 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Absolutely.
2007-11-21 18:22:36 · answer #7 · answered by Kimon 7 · 1⤊ 3⤋
Why do you think that because you say something, that it must be true?
You said: "The US invasion caused so many lives more than any terrorist has inflicted to any nation."
That's not true. Saddam Hussein exterminated more than 1,000.000 (1 Million) Kurds in his own country because they opposed him.
When we "hit" 1 mil dead, come back and whine.
Get your facts straight.
Otherwise, people might think you're lying.
Can't imagine why.
2007-11-21 18:21:56 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 5⤋
Afganistan-No. coz it was for 9/11 retaliation & so it is justified.
Iraq-Yes. coz the real motive was hidden.
2007-11-22 01:10:20 · answer #9 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
It maybe partly true because there are two truths I can so far figure out and they are the following:
Afghanistan-for revenge for 9/11
Iraq-Oil and partly for revenge for 9/11
so pretty much, you're right.
2007-11-21 18:15:31 · answer #10 · answered by ? 4 · 2⤊ 5⤋