|
|
Post by peanutfan on Apr 5, 2009 13:13:39 GMT -5
Family honor is a big deal in Middle Eastern culture. If one family member does something wrong, it dishonors all of them, even if, as in the case of honor killings over rape, the family member in question was completely blameless. There's a large double-standard as well (of course)...a woman being raped has to face the possibility of her family killing her to restore their honor, while the rapist only has to deal with the ridiculously light legal consequences and has no cultural backlash to live down.
|
|
|
|
Post by ironbite on Apr 5, 2009 13:30:31 GMT -5
Killing is killing no matter what you're doing it in the name of. Even self-defense? Eh-up. The person you've killed is still dead isn't he? Ironbite-now weather or not it's murder is another twist in the turn. |
|
|
|
Post by Shano on Apr 5, 2009 14:27:33 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by MaybeNever on Apr 5, 2009 14:33:12 GMT -5
There's a concept in psychology (and I'm sure other fields that study humans) called the Culture of Honor, which does NOT have anything to do with romantic honor as we think about with knights and princesses and klingons, but more like a "man's honor" as you'd see in the South (among other places) especially a couple hundred years ago that led to things like duels with pistols at dawn.
From this perspective, when somebody slights you or your family, they dishonor you, so you have to murder their face off with extreme severity or become a laughing stock. It's idiotic, but several cultures still buy into it. Obviously.
|
|
|
|
Post by booley on Apr 5, 2009 17:23:14 GMT -5
Family honor is a big deal in Middle Eastern culture. If one family member does something wrong, it dishonors all of them, even if, as in the case of honor killings over rape, the family member in question was completely blameless. There's a large double-standard as well (of course)...a woman being raped has to face the possibility of her family killing her to restore their honor, while the rapist only has to deal with the ridiculously light legal consequences and has no cultural backlash to live down. Yes but I think it's significant that this wasn't happening under Saddam. This is not to say that Saddam was a good guy. But there are other factors at work which tie into the invasion and occupation. For one, people become MORE conservative (i.e. bound to what they perceive as traditions) when they feel threatened. So if one wants a society to become more "traditional", bombing seems to help. I would also point out that not all the killings of gay people in Iraq are being done by the families. Apparently there are whole deaths squads that do this. Death squads that didn't exist before the occupation. Tying into that, the Iraqis feel insecure because they have been invaded by Foreigners (which is a good part of the reason this stuff didn't flare up under Saddam). The Iraqis think they are being colonized. And they still recall when the British colonized them. So naturally that means they feel to oppose the US they must oppose anything that they think symbolizes the US (or western culture) Conservative muslims in the Middle East often cite tolerance for Homosexuals as one of the signs of Western Decadence. Again and let me make clear, I am NOT defending Saddam. He was a brutal dictator and he did torture and murder people. But these killings we are talking about now would not be happening if the US had not invaded. |
|
|
|
Post by booley on Apr 5, 2009 17:25:46 GMT -5
.... From this perspective, when somebody slights you or your family, they dishonor you, so you have to murder their face off with extreme severity or become a laughing stock. It's idiotic, but several cultures still buy into it. Obviously. I can see that. We have it in this country. IF someone disses you you can't let it slide or else you look like a bitch. Regardless of the consequences (like going to jail or being murdered yourself) It's apparently why young men make up the bulk of murderers and murder victims. |
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Apr 5, 2009 18:15:55 GMT -5
The Iraqis think they are being colonized. Fixed. Again and let me make clear, I am NOT defending Saddam. He was a brutal dictator and he did torture and murder people. But these killings we are talking about now would not be happening if the US had not invaded. The question was never 'should we remove Saddam from power?' The question was 'how can we make Iraq a better place?' Forcing their economy to surrender and then carting off their oil, while shooting everyone who resistred wasn't the way to do it. In fact, it would have been better to just keep Saddam. The way to beat Saddam was to take away the blockade of food killing all his opponents. Maybe arming his opponents with guns when they rose up and rebelled, instead of abandoning them to the Iraqi airforce we allowed into no-flight zones for the only time. And, of course, not helping him with chemical weapons for twenty years. |
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Apr 5, 2009 18:19:59 GMT -5
Eh-up. The person you've killed is still dead isn't he? Your earlier statement kind of implies moral impermissibility. |
|
|
|
Post by Paradox on Apr 5, 2009 19:48:31 GMT -5
The Iraqis think they are being colonized. Fixed. Again and let me make clear, I am NOT defending Saddam. He was a brutal dictator and he did torture and murder people. But these killings we are talking about now would not be happening if the US had not invaded. The question was never 'should we remove Saddam from power?' The question was 'how can we make Iraq a better place?' Forcing their economy to surrender and then carting off their oil, while shooting everyone who resistred wasn't the way to do it. In fact, it would have been better to just keep Saddam. The way to beat Saddam was to take away the blockade of food killing all his opponents. Maybe arming his opponents with guns when they rose up and rebelled, instead of abandoning them to the Iraqi airforce we allowed into no-flight zones for the only time. And, of course, not helping him with chemical weapons for twenty years. Yes, but that wouldn't have gotten us exclusive access to all of that sweet, sweet oil, provided no-bid contracts for Cheney's business buddies, or allowed American companies to buy up Iraqi assets at a fraction of their actual value! |
|
