NationStates Jolt Archive

BAGHDAD, IRAQ (CNN) -- Authorities in northern Iraq have arrested four people in connection with the "honor killing" last month of a Kurdish teen -- a startling, morbid pummeling caught on a mobile phone video camera and broadcast around the world.

The case portrays the tragedy and brutality of honor killings in the Muslim world. Honor killings take place when family members kill relatives, almost always female, because they feel the relatives' actions have shamed the family.

Idk if this has been posted here or not yet, (still an NS noob) however wtf! How, can a country use cell phones and still practice Honor Killings? That's like a cave man watching a movie on DvD. WTF???? I'm thinking maybe we shouldn't pull out of Iraq after all.

Source: http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/05/18/iraq.honorkilling/index.html

Idk if this has been posted here or not yet, (still an NS noob) however wtf! How, can a country use cell phones and still practive Honor Killings? That's like a cave man watching a movie on DvD. WTF???? I'm thinking maybe we shouldn't pull out of Iraq after all.

Source: http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/05/18/iraq.honorkilling/index.html

Because technology makes us civilised?

The article is a bit strange / inaccurate:

The case portrays the tragedy and brutality of honor killings in the Muslim world. Honor killings take place when family members kill relatives, almost always female, because they feel the relatives' actions have shamed the family.

The Yazidis, who observe an ancient Middle Eastern religion, look down on mixing with people of another faith.
The Yazidis aren't muslim, and the killing happened because she converted to Islam... So how is it a portrayl of the tragedy of honour killings in the muslim world?

Sad story though :( - it's been around for a few weeks, but not on NSG to my knowledge.

Idk if this has been posted here or not yet, (still an NS noob) however wtf! How, can a country use cell phones and still practive Honor Killings? That's like a cave man watching a movie on DvD. WTF???? I'm thinking maybe we shouldn't pull out of Iraq after all.

Source: http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/05/18/iraq.honorkilling/index.html

The idea that the world is now civilised is a delusion. The "western" world isn't so bad, but most people are still idiots.

The Yazidis aren't muslim, and the killing happened because she converted to Islam... So how is it a portrayl of the tragedy of honour killings in the muslim world?

It happened in Iraq. Iraq is majority muslim, therefore part of the muslim world. I may be an atheist, but that doesn't change the fact that I live in the Christian world, like it or not.

It happened in Iraq. Iraq is majority muslim, therefore part of the muslim world. I may be an atheist, but that doesn't change the fact that I live in the Christian world, like it or not.

True, but it's still strangely written. If a christian sect had carried out the killing instead of a "hybrid" religion as the Yazidis are, I doubt it would be proclaimed as an illustration of the problem of honour killings in the Muslim world.

Ah well, I guess I'm just focusing on a detail here anyways so...

The article is a bit strange / inaccurate:

The Yazidis aren't muslim, and the killing happened because she converted to Islam... So how is it a portrayl of the tragedy of honour killings in the muslim world?
Good catch!! Well. almost anyways. Apparently she hadn't converted, but it was thought that she had....

Authorities believe she was killed for being seen with a Sunni Muslim man. She had not married him or converted, but her attackers believed she had
The story would appear to be in error to say the least.

It happened in Iraq. Iraq is majority muslim, therefore part of the muslim world. I may be an atheist, but that doesn't change the fact that I live in the Christian world, like it or not.
And your point is?

And your point is?

Um... answering his question was my point. I try to be helpful like that. :confused:

True, but it's still strangely written. If a christian sect had carried out the killing instead of a "hybrid" religion as the Yazidis are, I doubt it would be proclaimed as an illustration of the problem of honour killings in the Muslim world.

Ah well, I guess I'm just focusing on a detail here anyways so...

Yes, but it is an irrelevant detail, that they nonetheless decided to include. I think that's what you're saying, right?

Good catch!! Well. almost anyways. Apparently she hadn't converted, but it was thought that she had....

The story would appear to be in error to say the least.
Yeah, there's been differing stories about her conversion for a few weeks.

But then again, it's irrelevant if she had or not. They still killed her in a horrible, humiliating and utterly gruesom way way, which truly makes me sad :(
Um... answering his question was my point. I try to be helpful like that. :confused:
Indeed :fluffle: :p

Yes, but it is an irrelevant detail, that they nonetheless decided to include. I think that's what you're saying, right?
Right on the money :)

Because technology makes us civilised?

Apparently so, I guess no matter how far we may progress, we'll still have people out there holding onto ideals from 2000 B.C.

Apparently so, I guess no matter how far we may progress, we'll still have people out there holding onto ideals from 2000 B.C.

Unfortunately, it's not that old nor as uncommon as we'd like it to be. You'll find much of the "Honour" ideals in western society as well...

It's not as prevalent or visible, but make no mistake, it's present and it can (and will) make itself known in evil ways. For example, when was he last time a black man was beaten up in the US for daring to date a white woman? Just one example... There's "honour" in play all over the place.

I read this weeks ago, as it came up in connection with the revenge attack (They took 20 or so of this Yazidi lot off a bus and shot them). The story then was that the woman was believed to have converted to Sunni Islam and was killed as a result (by the Yazidis). I've seen the video. Theres a few hundred involved at the least.

How uncivilised. Everyone knows that in civilised countries that when you kill someone and vdeo it on mobile phone it's happyslapping, not honour killing. If you're doing it as an honour killing it just shows how backwards you are.

If the law is based on the words of a deity, interpreted by a human, is the word of a deity also the law?

"Honor killings" rely on some obscurely interpreted bit of a deity's word, applied by a human to another human. The first human chooses to believe they are carrying out the deity's will and thus committing no sin though breaking another of the deity's laws (generally "don't kill" is in the deities' words somewhere).

The same applies, though in a more complex, "refined" form, to western countries' laws and their effects on people. Death penalty is still used in some, generally slightly less socially evolved countries even during the time of peace (this lets USA off the hook since they've been in one war or another for practically the last 100 years).

So either all killings in "the name of law" or "the name of deity" are good and thus we can't nag about honorary killings, or else all killings are bad, in which case we should nag about criminal death penalties as well.

So what was the point again?

So either all killings in "the name of law" or "the name of deity" are good and thus we can't nag about honorary killings, or else all killings are bad, in which case we should nag about criminal death penalties as well.

So what was the point again?

Um, they dragged her out in the middle of the street, and hit her with stones until she died? But also, if this really was an "honour" killing, that would mean relatives had committed the act. I could never kill a relative of mine, even if they had done something really terrible (which this girl did not do).

Let's face it she was killed for sleeping with someone outside her religion. But more then that, she was killed in a very gruesome and brutal way. Your arguement about the death penalty in the US makes no sense in this context. (While I don't agree with capital punishment) In all fairness to the US we don't stone ppl for having sex.

How uncivilised. Everyone knows that in civilised countries that when you kill someone and vdeo it on mobile phone it's happyslapping, not honour killing. If you're doing it as an honour killing it just shows how backwards you are.

What does videoing have to do with honour killings? I try to be polite, but are you purposefully trying to talk crap?

Your arguement about the death penalty in the US makes no sense in this context. (While I don't agree with capital punishment) In all fairness to the US we don't stone ppl for having sex.
In all fairness? Remember that sometimes in the US, innocent people are murdered by the State??

If the law is based on the words of a deity, interpreted by a human, is the word of a deity also the law?

"Honor killings" rely on some obscurely interpreted bit of a deity's word, applied by a human to another human. The first human chooses to believe they are carrying out the deity's will and thus committing no sin though breaking another of the deity's laws (generally "don't kill" is in the deities' words somewhere).

The same applies, though in a more complex, "refined" form, to western countries' laws and their effects on people. Death penalty is still used in some, generally slightly less socially evolved countries even during the time of peace (this lets USA off the hook since they've been in one war or another for practically the last 100 years).

So either all killings in "the name of law" or "the name of deity" are good and thus we can't nag about honorary killings, or else all killings are bad, in which case we should nag about criminal death penalties as well.

So what was the point again?

WTF?

In all fairness? Remember that sometimes in the US, innocent people are murdered by the State??

Well sure, innocent people are murdered often in many places. But I guess what I'm driving at is (if the article is infact true) how a family could just kill one of their relatives for sleeping with someone, but then on top of that in the manner they did. Maybe I'm just missing something here.

What does videoing have to do with honour killings? I try to be polite, but are you purposefully trying to talk crap?

Hey i didn't start it it. The whole bloody thread is about the incongruity of the high technology of video phones and the barbarity of honour killings. just look at the first post.

How uncivilised. Everyone knows that in civilised countries that when you kill someone and vdeo it on mobile phone it's happyslapping, not honour killing. If you're doing it as an honour killing it just shows how backwards you are.

Happy slapping isn't even close to what we're dealing with here, a close analogy would be with Klu Klux Klan lynchings: targetted acts of violence to intimidate a people into behaving in a certain way.

Well sure, innocent people are murdered often in many places. But I guess what I'm driving at is (if the article is infact true) how a family could just kill one of their relatives for sleeping with someone, but then on top of that in the manner they did. Maybe I'm just missing something here.

It's more her clan than just her relatives. There were a llot of people in on this, and the police were just standing there watching it all happening...

Happy slapping isn't even close to what we're dealing with here, a close analogy would be with Klu Klux Klan lynchings: targetted acts of violence to intimidate a people into behaving in a certain way.

Personally i find the happyslapping worse. When these people killed the girl, it's because of religion or tribalism. That's easy to understand, it's happened throughout history. It's probably integral to the human psyche to treat other people like that. Confers an evolutionary advantage and all that.

But when people attack and kill people and video it solely for the enjoyment of it, then that seems a lot worse to me.

Your arguement about the death penalty in the US makes no sense in this context.

I wasn't arguing merely for USA death sentence (plus like I said, USA is continually at war with something or someone, so they could get away with "wartime exceptions" <- that was the actual joke, which I think everyone overlooked :p), but the concept of death sentence in general.

WTF?

FTW!

But when people attack and kill people and video it solely for the enjoyment of it, then that seems a lot worse to me.

Personally what I found most disgusting about that bit of news was not the act of killing, but the act of taking it on tape instead of stopping it. Now, in all fairness, I can understand why they wouldn't want to get between the girl and the stones, but at least they could have stopped short of spreading it to the Net... anyone ever heard the term "snuff video" before? Such a thing as here would qualify. :eek:

The idea that the world is now civilised is a delusion. The "western" world isn't so bad, but most people are still idiots.

If you are using the "Western" world as the benchmark for civility then your right most of the world lives in the past. A vast majority of people in all of the western world do not realise this. Then they get surprised when a couple towers are leveled by airplanes or some trains get blown up.

The ironic thign is that an "honor killing" is about the most dishonorable thing you can do.

How does killing the restore the dead person's honor, they're dead because their family murdered them, that's pretty dishonorable to me.

They're successfully arresting people in Iraq now?

Impressive.

If you are using the "Western" world as the benchmark for civility then your right most of the world lives in the past. A vast majority of people in all of the western world do not realise this. Then they get surprised when a couple towers are leveled by airplanes or some trains get blown up.
Yeah and then some people get so paranoid, that they end up destroying a Middle East country, and killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people....

And then they sit back and rationalize......

"Better over there then here" :eek:

They're successfully arresting people in Iraq now?
Impressive.

LOL, that was actually my first thought too, but I tried to ignore it and focus on the deeper issue. :D

"Better over there then here" :eek:

Unfortunately that's human brain's evolution for you. As long as we don't empathize with the 'victim', we can ignore it. And something happening in a faraway country where the people are "not quite like us", is easy to inhumanize to the level where people can act like they didn't care. Most have a nagging feeling of guilt nevertheless, but that's where government propaganda steps in. :p

They're successfully arresting people in Iraq now?

Impressive.

They've got to put the wounded somewhere. :eek:

Because technology makes us civilised?

Exactly. Technology doesn't make us civilized. Cities do that. They might not make us pleasant, intelligent, or kind, but they make us civilized.

Of course, that's only if you accept the definition of "civilization" as "formation of cities." But the two go hand in hand.

You've never been in Jobstown.....

I'm uncertain as to why the OP thinks that technology and barbarism are inversely related.

I'm uncertain as to why the OP thinks that technology and barbarism are inversely related.

That's funny - as I'm fairly certain as to the whys and wherefores pertaining to it. I thought it would be frankly obvious to one as normally astute as you.

And how ya doin', anyway - exams over yet? Long time no see...