Iranian authorities appear to be presiding over a surge of brutality, with hangings way up over the past several years. Meanwhile, "human rights groups in Iran expressed shock after judicial authorities disclosed they had amputated the left feet and right hands of five criminals convicted of armed robbery in the southern province of Sistan-Baluchistan." Optimistically, one can perhaps view this kind of activity as reflecting a regime that knows it's in crisis.
« "The Face of Seung-Hui Cho" | Main | Think About the Term "Provocations" »
Wave of Mutilation
10 Jan 2008 01:46 pm
Comments (27)
Pessimistically, one can perhaps view this kind of activity as reflecting a regime that's hanging people and chopping off their limbs.
I guess you're just a "glass half full" guy...
One might even call call it a sign of the regime's increasing desperation.
Admit it, you did this post just for the song in post title, right?
Actually, there is nothing inherently wrong with the death penalty. Christ Himself refrained from condemning it when Dysmas the repentant thief said 'We receive the due reward of our actions'.
Too many liberals ignorantly oppose the death penalty because they do not grasp the concept of redemption through suffering. In other words, they can't understand the meaning of Christ on the Cross.
Thanks, Matt - I was searching for what to listen to at work when this post popped up. "you think i'm dead, but i sail away..."
What never gets discussed about Iran versus a place like Pakistan or Saudi Arabia, is that when a regime like Iran reverts to these cruel tactics, it bolsters the population’s perception of America, since we are naturally the main adversary to the Iranian regime. Conversely, when brutality occurs in Saudi Arabia or in Pakistan, the anger is directed at the United States as well, due to the perception (rightly or wrongly) that we are propping up these states.
Which brings us to the question as to whether we should stop fearing Islamists taking over governments for the following reasons:
(a) Islamists in power suddenly like living. Iran is a perfect example. It is an Islamic state, which, for all intents and purposes, acts rationally.
(b) Islamists out-of-power in nuclear states (Pakistan) are not so much concerned about living, as the only source of motivation is to destroy.
It may be counter-intuitive, but from a pure American security standpoint, maybe we need to stop propping up secular states (or quasi-secular) in Pakistan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, and let the Islamists take over. Suddenly I have a feeling that fighting a war with the United States (beyond anything but saber rattling at the UN) is not conducive to them staying in power.
At some point, to hell with human rights in the Middle East if it is going to come at the expense of our safety.
Or you could say you completely changed your mind since 9:19 this morning. I would say the central government has lost control of the religious zealots running this province or the central government feels they can do anything they want without fear of popular uprisings.
I hope they don't read about this in my state, Texas. I'd hate to think of Texas legislators mulling this neat new punishment, amputating hands. And you can do it all humanitarian like, too, with anaesthetics! It would be a crowd pleaser.
As I understand it, many of the people hanged were homosexuals, which further buttresses my point.
human rights groups in Iran expressed shock after judicial authorities disclosed they had amputated the left feet and right hands of five criminals convicted of armed robbery in the southern province of Sistan-Baluchistan.
"One nation, under God ... "
That's what it looks like, folks.
.
Has anyone thought of the obvious reason: perhaps there's a crime wave? Everybody loves to play amateur Kremlinologist, but let's not get ahead of ourselves.
"Has anyone thought of the obvious reason: perhaps there's a crime wave? Everybody loves to play amateur Kremlinologist, but let's not get ahead of ourselves."
That's a good point. Iran's population is very young, which means they're due for a rise in criminal acts.
Or the Supreme Council could have realized the big lesson from the post-Stalin Soviet Union:
If you're utterly brutal to your population, you tend not to get overthrown. If you ease up, your life expectancy goes way down.
Regimes which feel threatened externally tend to become more repressive.
The long comment loading time allows me to re-read my posting. And I think, gawd that's shitty writing.
How about, Regimes threatened from abroad tend to become more repressive.
In fairness here, amputation of limbs for theft is ofter imposed in our ally, Saudi Arabia so at least the ragheads in Tehren are no more savages then the ragheads in Riyadh.
Wave of mutilation? THAT monkey's gone to heaven.
Actually, there is nothing inherently wrong with the death penalty. Christ Himself refrained from condemning it when Dysmas the repentant thief said 'We receive the due reward of our actions'.
Too many liberals ignorantly oppose the death penalty because they do not grasp the concept of redemption through suffering. In other words, they can't understand the meaning of Christ on the Cross.
Hector
So, does this statement imply not only that the death penalty is acceptable, but that death by crucifixion, along with other horrendous means that martyrs were killed (being fed to lions, etc.), are also acceptable?
I mean, I don't think that's what you mean to imply, but it seems to be a fairly straightforward reading of what you wrote, and I'm really not sure how to avoid seeing that implication.
Re Julian Elson
Actually, I think that the 15th century Catholic Church had it right. Impose the death penalty by burning at the stake.
Well, instead of executing these guys, they took away their livelihood of being armed robbers (hard to be an armed robber with no left foot and no right hand - although I suppose it could be done with some determination.)
Fortunately for me, the US is (slightly) more enlightened and only gave me nine years in prison.
From the standpoint of someone truly enlightened, I don't see all that much difference between the two positions.
The basic attitude is still "punish", not "rehabilitate".
All that aside, oddball punishments are still the norm in many Third World countries, so who cares?
Here's an interesting Saudi case I found with ten seconds Googling:
Bush Refuses to Condemn Saudi Court’s Punishment of Gang Rape Victim
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/68655/
Julian,
No, I would not personally be in favor of feeding people to the lions. Obviously there is a tradeoff we have to make between trying to push the criminal towards atonement through suffering (a good thing) and actually deriving pleasure from inflicting pain (a bad thing). Whenever we coerce, impose pain, or kill a prisoner it should ultimately be for his own good more than for ours. so I would draw the line between torture and judicial execution, somewhere this side of crucifixion. I'm not opposed to corporal punishment though, and definitely not to capital punishment.
If Our Lord intended to be critical of capital punishment, then He would have said so. By accepting (vicariously) the sentence of capital punishment for our sins, He implied that capital punishment was a legitimate punishment for crime.
Re Richard Steven Hack
Apparently, Mr. Hack doesn't think that someone who sticks a gun in an unarmed bank tellers' face and informs the latter that he has the option of handing over all the money in his till or having his ticket canceled should be punished if he is unfortunate enough to be caught. I guess Mr. Hack, despite his whining, has been rehabilitated to the extent that he no longer commits bank robberies. Or possibly the daily bending over for the brothers has convinced him that jails are not a fun place.
Heh, heh, SLC, you're absolutely right for once about your first sentence.
I actually don't think people should be "punished" for committing crimes. I think they should be prevented from profiting from coercion, which is not the same thing, and doesn't involve the same processes.
And since I never had to bend over for anybody, whereas you bend over daily for people who think you're a moron for supporting them, I'd say you have more experience at bending over than I do. You're just some unpaid, ignorant punk - and I use the term "punk" in the precise prison sense - that the people who run Israel and the US use as "blog fodder" to drum up support for their wars so they can get power and wealth that you'll never see because they don't think you deserve any.
Which makes you a moron as well as a punk.
Hector, your Lord didn't seem to like suffering much when he couldn't remember the safety word last night, but that might have been the ball gag's fault.
""One nation, under God ... "
That's what it looks like, folks.
.
Posted by Grand Moff Texan | January 10, 2008 2:23 PM"
For more proof, just look at Hector on this thread. It is kind of odd how Mr. Jesusier-than-thou on Atlantic threads has praised the mullahs in Iran, Castro, etc. for their use of inflicting suffering but making sure it is not at Stalinist genocidal levels. It's really sick stuff, yet he thinks he's moral. Torquemada thought so as well.
In fairness here, amputation of limbs for theft is ofter imposed in our ally, Saudi Arabia so at least the ragheads in Tehren are no more savages then the ragheads in Riyadh.
Posted by SLC
Iranians aren't Arabs, bitch.
Re: Hector, your Lord didn't seem to like suffering much when he couldn't remember the safety word last night, but that might have been the ball gag's fault.
That made no sense at all. Are you posting while high?
I don't think I'm particularly Christlike, by the way. The diffrence is that I strive to be and when I fail, i pray to God for forgiveness of my sins, while you think your just peachy keen just the way you are. Also, unlike you, I don't go around making apologies for abortion doctors and gay bath house aficionados.
Comments closed January 24, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
More birth pangs!
Posted by Ugh | January 10, 2008 2:00 PM