Iran's 'eye for an eye' justice
- Thread starter CUBert
- Start date
I read throughthe bulk of the info, but I still did not see that these actions were perpetuated specifically in the name of Christianity. In fact, this quote appears to contradict that ideal:
[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]The Georgian Supreme Court condemned the "acts of vandalism" perpetrated by Mkalavishvili, "and other expressions of religious extremism and intolerance..." The Court called on "all law enforcement structures to take appropriate measures against those persons who place themselves above the law and because of religious motives take it upon themselves [to] execute 'justice.' Such acts are not only illegal, but they also create a serious danger for the public and the State."
This excerpt appears to support the notion that the Georgian SC (and presumably the gvt) do not subscribe to a theological-style form of ruling the nation.
[/FONT]
I'm no big fan of wikipedia, however, I still fail to see that the state supported the abuse of the Johos based on theocracy
Here's two real simple ones, so you don't hurt yourself....WWI and WWII.
That's just the tip of the iceburg.
Your silly post only strengthens the opinion that you have so little actual knowledge. Especially about history. You should politely ask Colpy to help you with that.
Last edited:
Ummm, no, here's what you really said and asked...
Neither WWI nor WWII was motivated by racism.
Gawd damn you're funny.
I'm going to assume that you meant Georgia. Now can you quote me supporting them, that you claimed earlier?
Yes they were.
The Nazi's believed their Aryan race superior which gave them allowance to trample all over Europe.
These were the best wars you could think of ?
Sorry, my spell check made that word equity, I meant to say equality. And by that I would mean the the law is blind and we are all equal under the law. Or should be at least.
Seriously, ask Colpy for help, you need it.I didn't want to burn out your simplistic capabilities.
Last edited:
You must have missed all the sh*t at Abu Grahib, Guantanamo Bay, handing over prisoners in Iraq to people that will torture and maim, and even the 'official' position of the US that waterboarding is a good thing.
Because then most of the planet winds up blind or dead. It is also how we set ourselves against the criminals and cruel, immoral people.
So you believe that a 70ish, unarmed man who suffers from acute renal disease resisted arrest to the point they had no option but to shoot him 3 times in the head at close range? Are the navy seals that big a bunch of pussies that one old man can resist 24 young, well trained, special forces soldiers? You really need to look closer at the propaganda you are spreading and just how ludicrous it is.
Even Obama himself said at first it was a 'kill mission'.
Well, I suppose that we'll have to agree to disagree on the notion that these violations were committed in the name of Christianity... I just don't see it.
How do you figure?
OK, so equality, fairness and protecting individual rights. The first two are kinda the ways the justice should behave and protecting individual rights is what it should do. So how should the justice system protect individual rights?
I'm just trying to find out what your position is on this. I like to avoid assuming people's positions.
Well say someone kills my son and then in a revenge style of justice I, kill them. Would it not by your logic then be justice by revenge for their family kills me and my family kills them for that same revenge and so on, and so on.
Justice is not about revenge and retribution, that would only lead to anarchy of the worst kind.
Why would the third killing in your scenario be justice? I'm not seeing it, even though you claim it's my logic. Maybe it's your logic. Could you explain?
I interpret the eye for an eye mentality as justified retribution and view it as an entirely personal approach to justice. So even if a murder is state sanctioned through capital punishment there will still be reasons for personal retribution. It is not a pick and choose issue, once you start to allow the personal will of the victim into the law it becomes easily applicable to all. You will rarely find a family member of a capital punishment recipient that doesn't feel like they are a victim themselves and would therefore be justified in assuming they are entitled to retribution if that is what justice has become.