Iraqis are killing teenagers for being 'emo'
Posted Sat Mar 10, 2012 11:19 PM
Posted Sun Mar 11, 2012 12:22 AM
But when you think about it, in America, if we decided to kill people who sagged their pants, there'll be much less people sagging for fear of death. It really is an effective way to get people to stop doing stuff that disgusts everyone else.
Posted Sun Mar 11, 2012 02:28 PM
Apply that logic to things like homosexuality, inter-racial relationships, etc., that at one point in U.S. history "disgusted" the majority of this hyper-conservative society. I know you're not implicitly supporting this, but there's a lot of things over the past 50 years that American culture has started to "get over" that used to "disgust" the majority of people. Putting the fear of death into people who do not conform to perceived cultural norms is the best way to cause cultural revolutions.
Think of the very early 20th in the rural south. Emmett Till is an excellent example of what you're referring to. He whistled at a white chick, and it cost him his life. That murder was a signal to black guys not to whistle at white chicks. Short game, it was effective. It geeked out black guys for a little while, becuase it was quasi-legal to kill them for minor cultural-norm infractions. (like staying in thier restrooms, staying in thier restaurants, other segregation, etc.)
But longer term? No it isn't an effective way to get people to stop doing stuff. Emmett Till is a case in point. Killed in 1955...50 or so years later (long term game plan, remember) Tiger Woods married to a Swedish chick, O.J. marries Nicole (and kills her, and found not guilty...in a complete reversal of 1950's legal practice), we have a black president, etc, etc.
So killing to force people to conform to cultural norms is effective in the near term. Very near term. But it has a galvnizing effect over the long haul.
Just my humble opinion, FWIW....
Posted Mon Mar 12, 2012 08:35 AM
Posted Mon Mar 12, 2012 08:04 PM
so in order to stop them from killing people they disagree with... we should kill all of them?
Posted Mon Mar 12, 2012 11:08 PM
Pretty much. That's how it works over there. It's a rough neighborhood that has a whole different set of dynamics than anything we have in the west. (Clan feuds dating back centuries, tribal aspirations for autonomy or dominance in politics, etc.)Thier culture and politics are decidedly unlike ours. I mean, immediately after we remove combat troops from Iraq, the Prime Minister issues an arrest warrant for the President. And get this : One's a a Shi'ite, the other a Sunni, go figure!....because power sharing is the way to go, right? Works in the U.S. and the west, after all, right? Different parties being represented and whatnot... But in that region, instead of power sharing it's a power struggle. As a culture, there is less appreciation or understanding of power sharing.
Ditto Syria...Assad is Alawite, and so are most of the ruling class. Does it change with peaceful elections? Nope. Those are fixed. What's going to force a pan-Alawite government out? An uprising. That's how it's done there.
Be aware that I do not advocate killing all of them, even though that is what it would take to stop them from killing people they disagree with...Because I don't advocate trying to stop them. We can't. No one can. What transpires in a sovereign nation is that nation's business, regardless of how wrong it is.....oh, and did I mention that we can't stop it without killing them?
Stalin said it best : "When you have people, you have a problem. Get rid of the people, get rid of the problem." Worked for him, it took a stroke/cerebral hemorrage to remove him from power.
I say let them handle thier affairs as they see fit, be it tolerance and power sharing, or self-inflicted ethnic/tribal/religious cleansing. I don't support or condone the latter, but what gives us the right to tell him what to do? What makes us inherently better, or more "right"?
This post has been edited by ilyushin: Mon Mar 12, 2012 11:11 PM