yovargas wrote:Ghân-buri-Ghân wrote:River wrote:But first, perhaps we should get back to the topic of this thread: is justice served by removing a man's eye via sulfuric acid?
Well, does the method of removal matter? And to ask whether justice is served requires appraisal of what constitutes justice. And those that make that appraisal have to be screened for their prejudices. It may be convenient to separate the act from those who condemn it, but those who condemn should, in reality, be open to question why they condemn, and why they may condemn such specifically, whilst condoning such other.
I believe this example has been presented specifically because it is happening in Iran, and under Sharia law. Islam generally, and Iran specifically, is the foe "de jour", and for this reason, each and every event that can cast this culture in as negative an aspect as possible is trumpeted with vigour.
I think it is disingenuous.
I am fairly certain that if the US justice system were the one thinking about dropping acid into a prisoner's eyes, it would be getting protested with far more force, anger, and passion than this case is. Which in my eyes more or less disproves your position.
Your insistence on dragging your anti-West whatevers into every discussion is exceedingly tiresome.
And yet I specifically called this act barbarous!
What I am unwilling to do, unlike, it seems, others, is to distance one barbarous act, by an "enemy", from the barbarous acts of "us". What I find chilling is the ability of "us" to tacictly condone acts of barbarism by "us" whilst condemning acts of barbarism by "them".
I do think that injecting prisoners with acid is barbarous. I do think drone attacks on "supposed" enemies is barbarous. I do think that targeted assainations of unconvicted suspects is barbarous.
And I do think that the emphasis placed on actions by foreign enemies is rank propaganda, especially when slaughters by named allies are ignored, and consequently given tacit approval. Even worse, there are criminal nations (UN defined) that, because of policy, are routinely given overt approval.
What is so contentious about that?