|
Post by mcgruff on Mar 30, 2009 17:55:40 GMT
If we all belived in an eye for an eye do you realize how many blind people there'd be?
Jeff
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Mar 30, 2009 20:59:41 GMT
You can twist the words but you are foaming at the mouth to kill someone if they make one misstep in your life where you feel you can justify it. i don't know where you get that. i've told you more than once that i hope that no one ever asks me to kill them. i certainly don't want to, but, i am smart enough to know that it is the choice that they make if i ever did have to
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Mar 30, 2009 21:22:27 GMT
If we all belived in an eye for an eye do you realize how many blind people there'd be? Jeff the sad thing is that there's not enough dead ones
|
|
♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Apr 17, 2009 4:52:23 GMT
I can find absolutely no news on this horrific case! April 15 was the date on which this sentence was to be carried out by the victim. The Iranians are no longer televising their executions and other examples of Sharia justice. I suspect a news blackout! www.orlandosentinel.com/news/opinion/views/orl-eye-for-eye-appel-033109,0,4845223.story QUOTE: OrlandoSentinel.com Visions of Sharia: Vengeance allowed but no less barbaric Jacob M. Appel March 30, 2009 Although the principle that "the personal is political" was first popularized by the American Women's Movement of the 1970s, the same wisdom may have much to teach us about relations between the West and Islam. The widely-publicized and ongoing tragedy of Ameneh Bahrami and Majid Movahedi offers a glaring example of precisely how. At first glance, Bahrami's story seems like a tale of medieval injustice. After the Iranian electronics student resisted the persistent and unwanted advances of Movehedi for more than two years, he blinded and disfigured her in a 2004 acid attack. Such attacks are still all too common in much of Asia -- most notably in Afghanistan, Pakistan, India and Bangladesh. They are often orchestrated against women who refuse to don the hajib or who resist unwanted proposals of marriage. Such attacks are barbaric. However, Iranian law provides for an equally barbaric remedy. Under the Islamic rule of qias -- roughly translated as equivalence -- the victims of such attacks may demand identical treatment for their assailants. Bahrami, now receiving free medical care in Spain, has demanded that Movehedi be blinded too. At her request, an Iranian court recently ordered that sulfuric acid be dropped into one of his eyes. (Apparently, since Iranian law does not view men's eyes and women's eyes as having equal value, Bahrami must pay 20,000 Euros if her spurned suitor is to lose both eyes.) The Spanish authorities should immediately investigate this matter. If Bahrami has pursued this ghastly retribution from Spanish soil, they should prosecute her to the fullest extent of the law. This case is far more than a personal tragedy. If Spain fails to take action against Bahrami -- either under domestic criminal statutes or under international laws governing willing participation in human-rights abuses -- that nation will send a message to civilized people throughout the world that a person may enjoy the benefits of life in the western democracies while still participating in social or legal practices that these societies have deemed intolerable. What will Spain then say to the man who returns to Nigeria for an adultery trial to offer testimony that will pave the way for an "immodest" woman to be stoned? Or to the witness who offers evidence to a Saudi court that allows for the amputation of an accused thief's hand? In short, the message sent by not acting will endorse the most disturbing of all double standards -- that if Muslims blind Muslims, that is not the business of non-Muslims in the West. Western Europe has recently awakened to the threat of the small minority of immigrants who have sought economic opportunity within its borders while refusing to relinquish cultural practices that most westerners view as noxious. For example, France now imposes criminal penalties upon immigrant parents who take their daughters "on vacation" to Africa to have their genitals mutilated. Holland is considering similar rules. Such prohibitions should be adopted across Europe and in the United States to punish those who are complicit, in any way, in involuntary human mutilation. Individuals who seek to travel abroad to witness or encourage such acts, as Bahrami has told the media she intends to do in the case of Movehedi's blinding, should be forcibly detained. The reality is that while blinding men like Movehedi will unlikely deter such conduct in the future, women like Bahrami will be less likely to seek vengeance in blood if they face prison time. Cultural pluralism has its benefits -- up to a point. While civilized people can reasonably disagree about the regulation of head scarves, or the appropriate boundaries for inflammatory speech, nobody in mainstream American society -- or in Spanish society, I imagine -- would tolerate a state-sanctioned blinding imposed by a western court. Jacob M. Appel, a health-care attorney, teaches at New York University.
|
|
♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on May 11, 2009 16:31:48 GMT
In the interview below Miss. Bahrami insists she is not intending to blind her attacker out of revenge! Her intent is to deter these attacks from happening and save other women from her fate! It's still not known publicity, if the sentence has been carried out. Pictures of Miss Bahrami before and after the attack are on the following link. i40.tinypic.com/1036346.jpgtinyurl.com/pu7nnk QUOTE: One day soon, Ameneh Bahrami hopes Majid Mohavedi will be deliberately and slowly blinded. Sulphuric acid will be dropped into his eyes in a punishment mandated by a court in Tehran, Iran. His crime: In 2004, he threw the same acid in Ms. Bahrami’s face, blinding the 24-year-old electronics graduate. Her crime: She had spurned his advances and refused to marry him, despite numerous approaches from his family, who are also considered complicit in the attack. “I don’t want to blind him for revenge,” Ms. Bahrami, 31, told CNN in an interview in her parents’ Tehran apartment. “I’m doing this to prevent it from happening to someone else.” The two met in 2002 when they attended the same university. But Ms. Bahrami said the shy 19-year-old was merely a classmate who insisted on sitting next to her and brushing against her. Once she stood up in class and screamed to get him to stop, the woman added. But he continued to stalk her and make threats, even as he asked her to marry him. “He told me he would kill me,” she said. “He said, ‘You have to say yes.’ ” His threats finally erupted into violence in November, 2004, when she was waiting at a bus stop after leaving the medical engineering company where she worked. She said she sensed someone moving behind her. Turning round, she discovered Mohavedi, then felt a blinding pain as he tossed acid into her face. The corrosive liquid dripped down her neck and on to her hands and arms as she tried to protect herself, leaving the young woman looking as though her flesh had melted. Despite 17 operations, she lost one eye and has only limited sight in the other. Her face remains scarred, but she has run out of money for further surgery. Two weeks after the attack, Mohavedi turned himself into police and confessed. He was convicted in 2005. Attack victims in Iran usually accept “blood money:” a fine in lieu of harsh punishment. With no insurance and mounting medical bills, Ms. Bahrami could have used the cash, but she said no. Asked by the judge if she wanted Mohavedi’s face to be splashed with acid, she replied, “That is impossible and horrific. Just drip 20 drops of acid in his eyes so he can realize what pain I am undergoing.” “I told the judge I want an eye for an eye,” she said in the CNN interview aired yesterday. “People like him should be made to feel my suffering.” The punishment is legal under the Islamic Shariah principle of qias, equivalence or analogy, which allows retribution for violent crimes. The principle is also found in the Code of Hammurabi and the Old Testament. Ms. Bahrami’s lawyer, Ali Sarrafi, said Mohavedi had never shown any remorse. “He says he did it because he loved her,” Mr. Sarrafi said. He told the court he still loved Ms. Bahrami, but if she asked for his eyes to be taken out, he would seek the same punishment for her. “They must also completely empty out her eyes, since I’m not sure that she cannot secretly see,” he said, according to a report in The Washington Post. “The newspapers have made this a huge case, but I haven’t done anything bad.” Acid attacks on women are common in Muslim countries, often because the victims refuse to marry the assailants or as a way of controlling them. In November, Taliban insurgents sprayed acid on girls walking to school in Kandahar, blinding at least two of them. Two weeks ago, Iran’s Supreme Court rejected Mohavedi’s appeal and upheld the blinding. The punishment is expected to be carried out soon. Mahmoud Salarkia, Tehran’s deputy public prosecutor, said the publicity surrounding the case would deter future acid attacks
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 11, 2009 18:54:26 GMT
Cases where the victim is allowed to choose the punishment just gives rise to a nasty suspicion that instead of deterring criminals, they will just pick and choose their victims - who will probably be the chefmates of this world!
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on May 11, 2009 19:44:20 GMT
Cases where the victim is allowed to choose the punishment just gives rise to a nasty suspicion that instead of deterring criminals, they will just pick and choose their victims - who will probably be the chefmates of this world! Christians are going to live to regret all that 'turn the other cheek' stuff . . .
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 11, 2009 20:36:56 GMT
Riot, I nearly mentioned the C word then remembered that Iamjumbo is a Christian.....
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on May 11, 2009 21:23:26 GMT
Well, I'm a Christian and I just can't go along with this sentence.
Yes, the bloke is a monster who deserves to be punished but NOT like THAT!
|
|
♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on May 11, 2009 22:34:45 GMT
Well, I'm a Christian and I just can't go along with this sentence. Yes, the bloke is a monster who deserves to be punished but NOT like THAT! Wikipidia has an entry on this ugly tradition of maiming women with acid. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid_attackIf these horrible attacks can be reduced by punishing the attacker with government approval in the same manner, then the sentence is not only justified, but neccesary. It shouldn't be about revenge. Of course we will never be able to compile statistics on the number of acid attacks prevented because the potential acid attacker feared suffering the same fate.
|
|
|
Post by Liberator on May 12, 2009 0:59:40 GMT
How strange that our so-called 'civilised' society is full of filth baying for exactly this kind of return to tit-for-tat aht Alfred the Great obsoleted and screaming that restricting any woman's viciousness or finding men not guilty is 'misogyny'
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on May 12, 2009 21:31:46 GMT
I'd say you must live on a different planet from most folks if you seriously think that our society is 'full of filth' calling for this sort of barbarity.
I don't know where you get the idea that any of the women on this board would regard an example of bad behaviour, crime, etc., by a female with any less horror, anger and contempt than they would if a man did the same thing.
I don't know where you get the idea that any woman here would regard the acquittal of a man as being an example of misogyny.
On the other hand, your constant anti-female remarks do show a consistent pattern of TRUE misogyny (as opposed to the bullshit version of it pushed by pseudo-feminists.)
Ratarse, sometimes you can post quite sensibly.
Please stop posting your racist and anti-female rubbish.
|
|
|
Post by Liberator on May 13, 2009 0:43:47 GMT
I have never posted any anti-female remarks - generally my views are anti-male. Nor have I posted any racist ones. The issue you avoid is that when women are accused or guilty, there is always excuse for them because they are women, but whenever men stand accused, they are seen as responsible because they are men. This has been the situation throughout the 20th century and Victorian period.
Please stop lying. It is just your kind of traditional sexism that does seek to exempt any woman from the same judgement as men by screaming Misogyny the moment she faces equal treatment. This traditional sexism often calls itself Feminism in order to oppose sexual equality just as totalitarian dictatorships called themselves Socialism in order to oppose socialist equality.
|
|
|
Post by lonewolf on May 13, 2009 6:19:29 GMT
I would show mercy instead of blinding him which is the higher road to take and will teach a far better lesson than blinding him but it is not my choice nor in my hands. Nor was there acid in YOUR eyes!
|
|
|
Post by chefmate on May 13, 2009 11:52:45 GMT
I would show mercy instead of blinding him which is the higher road to take and will teach a far better lesson than blinding him but it is not my choice nor in my hands. Nor was there acid in YOUR eyes! No there wasn't but an eye for an eye is vengeful and cruel; we are supposedly civilized but then, we do allow the murder of unborn children and most people won't blink an eye over that atrocity.
|
|
|
Post by trubble on May 13, 2009 14:49:07 GMT
How does this eye-for-an-eye thing work? Is it just for eyes or if, say, I ran over my neighbour's dog would he be entitled to run over my dog?
Or if I killed his family by negligent driving, would he have to mow mine down? What if I was running with scissors and fell and hurt my hand, should I stab my other hand? If he breaks my nose in a fight I should get to break his back... it's all a bit...primitive and short-term gratification...
|
|
|
Post by Liberator on May 14, 2009 0:16:46 GMT
The Jewish interpretation at those times was that it meant equal restitution without additional punitive demands. As long as history records, it was taken as value of. In fact, given differences in who was considered citizen or not, these ancient 'Classical' and 'Primitive' societies were often far les vicious and more turned towards compensation instead of punishment than our own Right Wing and much more so than the American Religious Right who'd often make Jinghiz Khan look too wishy-washy liberal.
There is something in Leviticus about a man throwing a stone at another that goes amiss and causes a woman to have an abortion being guilty or murdering her child. No doubt it was intended to handle some practical situation of other people getting mixed up in a private fight. With no proper police and judicial service to sort these things out, every possible occurrence had to be written down for reference because there was no other law, except maybe the King if you could get to him.
It's like 'Judge' Roy Bean checking his law book that there are laws to cover black and white men, but not yellow, so killing of or by a Chinese labourer cannot be illegal.
|
|
|
Post by trubble on May 15, 2009 15:04:44 GMT
Sounds much more flawed than our current system.
|
|
♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Jul 28, 2009 7:41:50 GMT
Apparently the sentence wasn't carried out on April 15 because the victim Ameneh Bahrami is still in Spain, undergoing operations. The sentence is expected to be carried out when Mrs. Bahrami can return to Iran. I could only find this German newspaper interview with Mrs. Bahrami dated July 5, 2009 tt.com/tt/home/story.csp?cid=10410570&sid=57&fid=21Translated quote from Mrs. Bahrami: "This has nothing to do with revenge!" says Ameneh, who wishes to deter future attacks like this via this frightening example of blinding her attacker. "I'm doing this for the women of Iran! I want to prevent other women from suffering what happened to me!"
|
|
♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Mar 5, 2011 6:14:58 GMT
Another Iranian man has been sentenced to be blinded after blinding the husband of a woman, who he had an affair with. www.heraldsun.com.au/news/world/man-sentenced-to-be-blinded-with-acid-by-iranian-court/story-e6frf7lf-1225969498354 QUOTE: Man sentenced to be blinded with acid by Iranian court IRAN'S supreme court has upheld a sentence of blinding with acid for a man who blinded his lover's husband, under the Islamic "eye-for-an-eye" justice code, a government daily said. The convict, named only as Mojtaba, 25, threw acid in the face of Alireza, 25, a taxi driver in Iran's clerical hub city of Qom, after an "illicit affair" with the victim's wife, Mojdeh, also 25, said the newspaper Iran. The supreme court has upheld a lower court ruling that Mojtaba be blinded with drops of acid, in line with Islamic justice, which allows for "qisas," or eye-for-an-eye retribution, in cases of violent crime, it said. Qom prosecutor Mostafa Barzegar Ganji said the victim had used his right to qisas. "We have asked for forensic specialists to oversee the blinding of the convict," he said, quoted in Iran. Several acid attacks have been reported in Iran. In February 2009, Majid Movahedi was sentenced to be blinded in both eyes for having hurled acid in the face of a university classmate, Ameneh Bahrami, who refused a marriage proposal.
|
|