Afghan teacher wants acid thrown on her attackers

I don't much like the 'eye for an eye' type treatment. Someone throwing acid has problems, rather than cause more, let's treat those.

These criminals should not be given the death penalty, and it is not befitting to their crimes. They should be locked up for good in an Afghan prison. They will not be martyred, and their lives will be as miserable as the girls they disfigured. Period.

I have said plenty of reasons why the death penalty is not right, and have said even MORE reasons why the death penalty for these criminals is not right, especially because it doesn't follow the 'eye for an eye' argument either in the bible or according to justice. These people killed no one, and as such I'm getting tired of pointing out how that renders the arguments of those who say 'death is the punishment equivalent to what they did' moot, since they are nothing alike. AGAIN, if the girls want to throw acid on these criminals, THAT is an eye for an eye, and nothing I can do there (I still don't want the girls to have to suffer more by committing such an act, but hey).

Moderator: Readers, please stay on topic. Do not go off on a general debate about the death penalty. Please focus your comments on the Afghan teacher's case.

The death penalty is not an "eye for an eye". The orgin of an EYE for an EYE is in the Bible "The phrase "an eye for an eye", (Hebrew: עין תחת עין‎ ayin takhat ayin) is a quotation from Exodus 21:23–27 in which a person who has taken the eye of another in a fight is instructed to give his own eye in compensation. Since that doesnt apply to justice people have modified it to their own usage. In justice those for capital punishment say if a man murders he should be killed.. No where does it state he should be killed by the one who killed him. That is just a lame arguement when you cant find a true reason to say it isnt right.

The logic of jail time is flawed, what right do you have to confine someone that you dont have to kill that person ? Didnt you judge the person either way? didnt you decide their fate either way? Atleast when you do the death sentence they dont have to suffer in the horrid liofe of prison... So maybe the death sentence isnt as bad as jail time for life, maybe its a welcome relief for the criminal in the end, many have said that before they had been executed...

Moderator: Posts that do not refer to the Afghan teacher's case are off topic and will be removed.

As for punishment fitting the crime, I pose this argument: These men went after CHILDREN, for the simple fact that they were supposedly paid to do it by people who didn't agree with a woman's right to receive an education. Just the fact that they are willing to carry out such an attack on a child, let alone do it for MONEY, tells me that they are too dangerous to be allowed to carry out the remainder of their lives (be it in or out of Prison). They will not show remorse, they will not repent, as a matter of fact I propose that should they wind up only going to Prison the likely scenario will be they will then have the chance to possibly spread their hate to other willing minds (i.e. other inmates) who may or may not be getting out of that prison and carry on the cycle. Not to mention the COST of feeding and clothing them, health care and such, the burden of which falls to the taxpayers of that country. insert sarcasm Sounds like a fair deal to me! Maim and kill, and then retire on the public's bill!! end sarcasm

As a father, I cannot see any excuse for mercy to be shown to any individual that harms a child, be it my child or someone else's. Doesn't matter what country, it's a heinous act that deserves a harsh punishment. In this man's mind, there is no defense nor reason to have mercy on such an animal. If someone defends that person's right to live, then they feel the way about same about child murderers and such. If you can live with that, great for you, sweet dreams.

Helter: "Some of us have lives outside of JT. Obviously you don't."

Awwwwww! You hurt my feelings! sniff

Nah, not really. I can assure you I have a fine life outside of JT. Fine enough that at work at my company I have constant computer access and can check email and do what I please freely. At home? Nah... I don't bother with the internet all that much, though once in a while I'll admit checking in just for fun.

Anyway, it's far more likely you simply couldn't get back to me because you had no logical answer for your illogical statements when I called you up on them, and your attempt to insult me was the only way you knew how to try and even the playing field.

I don't agree with the idea of hanging the men at all, and I have clarified that. I do not think my thoughts are the law in the least, and welcome anyone who wishes to discuss things rationally and thoughtfully. I am against the 'eye-for-an-eye' punishment when it comes to the death penalty, yes, because ultimately it involves a person taking the life of another human being, and as such technically that person is also a murderer. Whether or not it is considered 'justice' when it comes to capital punishment, the fact remains that there are special people hired to do the job (push the button, swing the axe, etc.), often masked in old days, because most people know they are committing a form of murder when they carry out the sentence, and don't want it on their souls and/or conscience. In the case of these criminals, they did not murder anyone, so it cannot possibly be an eye-for-an-eye by the very definition of what the term implies. So you have people going ABOVE what these criminals did. Imagine if a young woman who was raped could dictate that the perpetrator die for doing so.... I would sympathize with her case, agree that the man deserves 10 years or so in prison as well as having to somehow compensate the victim, and I could empathize as much as possible with her anger, but murder is not at all the same thing.

When it comes to prosecuting and carrying out sentencing of other crimes, there is nothing at all comparable to the death penalty. Swinging an axe to cut off the head of someone who killed someone else is not at all like putting someone in jail who mugged a person. Of course I believe in justice, I just don't believe taking another's life is justified, in any case. When I said, "Well who's going to murder you for murdering the murderer" I was merely pointing out the flawed logic of the death penalty, which I touched on above. I knew it was extreme, and would elicit the kind of response it did from people who glorify the idea of these men hanging.

So, once again, I don't agree that these men deserve death -- I DO agree they deserve to never see the light of day for a long, long time. If you want to come back and discuss it, great. Looks like we're going to have to agree to disagree, which is fine too. But don't come back here and say that I support rape or cheer on the criminals or support child murderers and then complain when you don't like my reply.

@smithinjapan - First off, I never stated they did something to me personally, but am going to assume you mean to speak of the person doing the actual hanging never having something done to them by the CRIMINALS being hanged.

I find it funny how you stick to they "eye for an eye" reference instead of referring to it as justice. In reference to your statement of "If you, for example, were to hang them, then who gets to hang you?" - If I were to apply your warped logic to all criminal acts, well, then I would have to ask myself "Well, if he puts this person in prison then who gets to put HIM in prison?" That kind of logic, I actually do have a problem understanding. I do however, agree with you on one point... the victims SHOULD have the first chance at throwing the acid. It's totally their right.

Personally, I fully believe that the throwing of the acid would help to set an example and the hangings would serve to remove at least SOME of the radical lunatics running around and make the world just that little bit safer. I believe that, using this route, justice would indeed be served and have yet to see anything from you that remotely comes close to changing my mind (and I'm apparently not alone). Realize this, there's a battle going on between one side that does not have rules, and the other side that is restricted by rules. I'm not by any means saying that we should throw out all laws, but I personally don't believe it's the wrong way to go if we start using an escalation of force and dole out some harsh punishments as deterents. It would in no way resolve things quickly, and would most definitely get ugly, but it's already ugly and getting worse. Sometimes the Ends justifies the Means.

Moderator: Readers, please focus your comments on the story, not at each other.

Nippon5: "Revenge is understandable. But state-enabled revenge is not the way to a more civil society"

Again you contract yourself! You say the death penalty for these men is 'reasonable', and then you say that state-enabled revenge is not the way to a more civil society. Contradictions, contradictions!

"So I think you have to include Singapore in that blanket statement , since in Singapore it does work... I think that answers your flailing attempt to question me..."

Again, you make ZERO sense here. How can being against the death penalty, and Singapore having a low crime rate, mean I am for the death penalty in Singapore and Iraq? This is so unrelated you cannot even talk about non-sequitors!

Anyway, as the mods said, the article is about Afghanistan. And since you have clearly voiced your concern about the death penalty in other nations, you should not support it in Afghanistan either. I am against it in all countries, and all forms. This incident in Afghanistan and the punishment for these men is no exception.

Nippon5: "You do realize your on a Japanese sight and not Canada Tech College sight anymore right? People here are not coming for a cafe english lesson, and dont care if you find their english wrong or not.. LMAO"

I've never been on a Canada Tech College sight, but thanks for telling me what they're like, in your experience. Furthermore, I would never go to one of those sites (not 'sights') expecting to teach English. Why would I? As for here, I'm not trying to teach English at all, but in your case you really ought to be concerned about the language you use because half the time it makes zero sense whatsoever, and the other half of the time it is so full of mistakes you contradict yourself. Just look at your post today on the 'Karzai admits failure of US, UN' article; you said that you think the Afghan government 'should get back on track' but then say you were clearly referring to said governments need to START getting on track when someone asked you when it was ever on track (hence, you cannot possibly say 'BACK on track' and 'START being on track' and mean the same thing).

"as far as understanding my point you had no problem understanding it, but to make yourself feel like you could be better you try to insult someone everytime, its so childish and shows your colors all too well.. So try not to be a donkey all the time and respond like an adult with a set and not a internet geek once and awhile."

This makes a lot more sense, though is still riddled with errors and contradictions. It's still wrong, though.

"As for who.. that person is you and others on this very board... You praise the control of the country Saddam had and his control was based only on killing.. Thats a simple statement with simple meaning. When you justify a leaders stability and say he was a stable leader then you must consider his way of leading stable.. and in Iraq that was killing people who dont follow his rule... Also known as capital punishment.."

Wow... you've really fallen off the wagon on this one. NO, since I have to point it out to you AGAIN, talking about the instability of the current government does not at all mean I support the former government under Saddam. When are you guys ever going to learn that this kind of black and white 'logic' never works and is the kind of thing that lost you guys the recent US election?

Do I really have to spell out what 'capital punishment' is, or are you going to continue to contradict yourself and prove my point. I said I am 100% against capital punishment; you say that Saddam's murdering was capital punishment, when it was not -- capital punishment is a sentence meted out by law against the people who have been found guilty of crime. Simply murdering someone is not at all 'capital punishment'. What's more, the ironic part of this all is that by saying you agree with capital punishment, and that Saddam insisted on 'capital punishment' for people who disagreed with him, then you are guilty of agreeing with his methods (you are for the death penalty) and I would be one of the people sentenced to said punishment for disagreeing! HAHA!

Man... again, you needn't be concerned about little English errors and/or typos here and there, but with YOUR posts... you ought to at least proof read several times and think about what it is you really want to say instead of all the paradoxical statements and contradictions.

Helter_skelter: "Throwing acid on the face of a young schoolgirl can disfigure and even blind that girl for the rest of her life. It can completely destroy a life. It's not that difficult to understand. So the death penalty for these attackers hardly seems unreasonable. Again, the leftists have demonstrated on this thread that their concerns are always with the perpetrator, never the victim."

Your jumping to the conclusion that I have no concern for the victim because I am against handing out death penalties is what is no surpise, my friend. It's the kind of logic that lost the Republicans the White House and both Congress and the Senate. You yourself have made very illogical statements that, "Yes, if you don't support bush you support Al-Qaida" immediately on the heels of saying that you do NOT support Al-Qaida and also do not support Obama -- yet the thread was about threats to Obama BY AQ! What's more, bush has the lowest approval rate in the history of presidents, so by your logic it means AQ has the highest approval rating by Americans of all time. Argol, your selective reasoning proved without a doubt that you have zero credibility, and there really is no point debating your supposed 'logic'. But just for fun, by your own logic let me point out that those you have illegally incarcerated in Gitmo/Guantamo etc. who have done nothing and had their lives destroyed now have the right to go out and kill their jailors. Also let me point out, for the record:

I do not sympathize with nor support the actions of the Taliban and/or these men; they are cowards who committed heinous acts. While I don't believe murdering them is at all 'justified' or 'not unreasonable', I do hope they are locked up for life.

I do indeed, on the other hand, sympathize with the young women who have been disfigured and had their lives ruined by the aforementioned cowards. I hope they gain SOME satisfaction, however small, in the knowledge that these men (some, anyway) have been caught and will face criminal charges and harsh punishment.

There, you see? Not supporting the open calls of death for these men does NOT mean I support them, and you're literally a fool if you think it does (much like you are for saying people who don't like bush like AQ, but those who don't like Obama DON'T like AQ). Likewise it does not mean I am not concerned for the victims -- ie. the young women (since I have to spell that out for you).

Smith

You do realize your on a Japanese sight and not Canada Tech College sight anymore right? People here are not coming for a cafe english lesson, and dont care if you find their english wrong or not.. LMAO

as far as understanding my point you had no problem understanding it, but to make yourself feel like you could be better you try to insult someone everytime, its so childish and shows your colors all too well.. So try not to be a donkey all the time and respond like an adult with a set and not a internet geek once and awhile.

As for who.. that person is you and others on this very board... You praise the control of the country Saddam had and his control was based only on killing.. Thats a simple statement with simple meaning. When you justify a leaders stability and say he was a stable leader then you must consider his way of leading stable.. and in Iraq that was killing people who dont follow his rule... Also known as capital punishment..

I didnt thing the statement Singapore has very low crime and they have capital punishment was hard to follow. Sezwho2 stated... and I quote "Burying people in a pit and stoning them hasn't stopped infidelity. Public hangings have not ended crime. Throwing acid on these miscreants would likely only make future attackers more careful.

Revenge is understandable. But state-enabled revenge is not the way to a more civil society"

So I think you have to include Singapore in that blanket statement , since in Singapore it does work... I think that answers your flailing attempt to question me...

Moderator: Readers, please stay on topic. The subject is Afghanistan, not Singapore.

smithinjapan

So tell me how 'the punishment fits them crime'

Throwing acid on the face of a young schoolgirl can disfigure and even blind that girl for the rest of her life. It can completely destroy a life. It's not that difficult to understand. So the death penalty for these attackers hardly seems unreasonable. Again, the leftists have demonstrated on this thread that their concerns are always with the perpetrator, never the victim.

I notice Helter_Skelter and others haven't been able to get back to me

Some of us have lives outside of JT. Obviously you don't.

By the way, pacifists and forgivers of all stripes, ponder if it was your own daughter for a few minutes and see how merciful you would be feeling.

eye for an eye baby I like the teacher's request. Don't hang em too soon though wait for the acid to do its job. Before anyone calls me inhumane do a little research on what these attacks do to the human body and then tell me these rats don't deserve a little taste of the fear and pain they've peddled.

You didn't notice that I was speaking of the Taliban in general, not just the acid throwers, did you? You can't show mercy to a group that will stop at nothing to gain power. These guys don't negotiate. Your calls for mercy are foolish at best.

calicocat: "The Talib should suffer the same fate as their victims."

Perhaps so, but their victims were not hung, nor were they 'defeated totally'. I agree that they should be punished, and if it's the kids themselves that, by some weird quirk in the law, can themselves carry out the 'eye-for-an-eye' crap that every mob-mentality stricken person on here wants, then by all means. I'd still like, and I notice Helter_Skelter and others haven't been able to get back to me, to know how someone who was killed can come back and hang the people who hung him/her. Until you can explain how the undead can give an eye for an eye, please stop with suggesting them 'suffer the same fate' includes their murder.

Nippon5: "Laws are not the bible nor are they any other book written for religion. In this case the law states the attackers can and will be hung. Seems the punishment fits the crime since its the punishment of the law to those who broke it.. Those who oppose the death penalty will always oppose it no matter what the crime is, so they have become a moot point on the subject of Capital punishment in countries and states where it is done by the law."

Try writing this again in English.

I DO think I know what you're getting at, but you are veering off the topic and focussing solely on the issue of capital punishment, especially in your subsequent paragraph. And since you DID veer off, let me ask you a question to answer one of your 'points': can you show me a single person who is against the death penalty who makes an exception when it comes to Singapore and/or Saddam's rule? Please do, and I want proof... not just off-the-wall and unjustified assumptions that you have, for some reason. If anything, I'll show you dozens of people who are against the death penalty who in particular are against Singapore for what they call being far too strict -- ex., giving someone the death penalty for having more than a couple of tabs of LSD or ecstasy tablets. That's just a single example to show you how absurd your comment was (even where it was readable).

So, Nippon, I await the proof of your claims of 'selective complaining and beliefs'. Of course, you'll forgive me when I don't hold my breath.

There is really no option other than to defeat them totally and then reform those who are willing to surrender.

The problem is that last outsider to pacify this part of Afghanistan was Genghis Khan and his Mongol army. And they did it by burning down everything in sight.

It would probably be better, from a moral stanpoint, if mercy were shown. But the Taliban are a merciless and ruthless enemy willing to stoop to any level to enforce their barbaric concept of social order. There is really no option other than to defeat them totally and then reform those who are willing to surrender. How else do you reason with people who are willing to throw acid on children? The Talib should suffer the same fate as their victims.

One feature of democracy is an independent judiciary. Afghanistan doesn't appear to have that when the President, trying to curry favor with Western donor countries who are fed up with his ineffectual leadership, suggests a public hanging. Some may recall the uproar Richard Nixon caused when he declared the Manson murderers guilty before the jury rendered their verdict.

Pointing this out is, in no way, an expression of sympathy for the perpetrators. Rather it's an acknowledgment of the role an independent judicial system plays in maintaining social stability.

Even in the military we are allowed to go one level higher in force for any force done to us... So the Eye for an Eye thing is just a hot air arguement used to make a point cant hold the air being blown.

Laws are not the bible nor are they any other book written for religion. In this case the law states the attackers can and will be hung. Seems the punishment fits the crime since its the punishment of the law to those who broke it.. Those who oppose the death penalty will always oppose it no matter what the crime is, so they have become a moot point on the subject of Capital punishment in countries and states where it is done by the law.

The law of that country is the law and they have capital punishment just like in Singapore, which I havent heard any anti capital crime person tell me why it works so well there (Singapore) when they say it never works, or how they can say Saddamm ruled the country so stable because he killed anyone who broke his laws, but it isnt good in this case or any other case.. Selective complaining and selective beliefs is what it comes down to, and some on this sight live by that rule...

Predictably the biggest concern for the leftists is the punishment of the attackers not be too harsh. What could possibly be too harsh a punishment for throwing acid on the faces of young schoolgirls in a deliberate and premeditated fashion? I'll be damned if I can think of one.

When I did jury duty a few years ago, in a case where the defendant was charged with a violent felony, it was pointed out to us, "No punishment will satisfy the victims who have suffered such a great loss. If it happened to your family member, you would feel the same. That's why we need an impartial panel to weigh the evidence and recommend an appropriate punishment if, based on the evidence, you decide he is guilty."

It surprises me so many people here are signing off on the "eye for an eye" response given that's guaranteed to lead to tit-for-tat reprisals that will claim more innocent victims. Hello? Isn't that the cause of the horrific levels of violence we've seen across much of the Muslim world? Hardly a response we should encourage. Besides, throwing acid at men, while they will experience the same immediate physical pain, does not have the same long-term effect as it does on women who face a severely circumscribed future owing to their disfigurement.

Truly a heinous crime but apparently those who carried it out were hired to do so. To get at the ones with the deep pockets you're probably going to need their cooperation. Otherwise they will just pay more for the next attack which, as Sez pointed out, will be carried out by perpetrators who will take better care to conceal their identities.

I would not have any problem for Karzai government to completely eradicate Afghan weeds in order to plant a new good crop( well educated women).

skipthesong: "Then it it would be wise not to do anything that would put in such a position, right? People like them need to fear what could happen to them if the commit such crimes.."

And do tell us, skip, what it is these people fear. It seems to be that being murdered (and therefore martyred) is one of their aspirations, not their fears. But go on... do tell.

Freeinjapan: "Having them hung is a bit much" you say? I suppose you're all for suspended sentences for people who kill their children as well, huh?"

Yes, I do say having them hung is a bit much. If you, for example, were to hang them, then who gets to hang you? They did NOTHING to you, and certainly did not hang you, so why do you get to dole out an 'eye for an eye' punishment and then it not happen to you? Do you see the problem with such logic? I already said if the victims themselves wanted to, say, throw acid on the attackers, there's nothing I could do to stop them except remind them how inhumane it is and help them press charges to the full extent of the law. As for the 'I suppose you are for suspended sentences for people who kill children...', where the heck do you get that?? Personally you should not misdirect your own beliefs on others. You're a newbie here, so it's wise to avoid such incorrect and grossly misdirected comments.

In fact, 'freeinjapan', if you read any of the Japanese posts where people have received 'suspended sentences', you'll see I mock this country for its ridiculous laws.

Helter_skelter: "Predictably the biggest concern for the leftists is the punishment of the attackers not be too harsh. What could possibly be too harsh a punishment for throwing acid on the faces of young schoolgirls in a deliberate and premeditated fashion? I'll be damned if I can think of one."

We know that things are confusing for you, Helter, since you utterly proved yourself incapable of logical posts during the Obama 'house negro' thread, but try and bear with reality.

"The school teacher has asked the Afghan government to throw acid on her attackers and then hang them. I wouldn't have a problem with it. The punishment fits the crime in this case."

Case in point. Do tell me, Helter, how this school teacher could be alive to ask the government to hang her attackers if she herself were hung; wouldn't she be dead? So tell me how 'the punishment fits them crime', as you say. The acid throwing? I've already touched on that, but the hanging? Again... waiting for you to explain how this woman died by hanging and yet can ask the government to 'do the same' to the attackers. I'm not expecting a logical response from you, though.

if they act like in the middle ages they should be judged like in the middle ages. and anyway islamic countries punshiment system is often more harsh than in the west (uhm or east)

You do the hokey pokey and you turn yourself around...

The assailants came from Pakistan but were Afghan nationals, said Doud Doud, an Interior Ministry official.

...And that's what it's all about.

I don't agree for the whole 'an eye for an eye' thing....Having them hung? That's a bit much. Jailed, for sure.

Predictably the biggest concern for the leftists is the punishment of the attackers not be too harsh. What could possibly be too harsh a punishment for throwing acid on the faces of young schoolgirls in a deliberate and premeditated fashion? I'll be damned if I can think of one.

The school teacher has asked the Afghan government to throw acid on her attackers and then hang them. I wouldn't have a problem with it. The punishment fits the crime in this case. Throwing acid like this has also occurred in other Islamic countries, so as strong a message as possible needs to be sent out to these Muslim fundies.

Public execution? Send a message? No, don't want to risk these clowns becoming marytrs. Just drag them out of a cell late at night and slot them like the filth they are.

Another option of course would be to castrate them. Don't know the Taliban's views on guys who sing falsetto, but it cannot be good.

Public execution does give them martyr status, so any execution would need to be countered with some fate that is offensive to Islam and degrading to the criminals. I don't know enough about Islam to offer creative solutions - but menstrual blood seems to freak out fundamentalists more than acid does.

After the attack, President Hamid Karzai called for the perpetrators to be executed in public.

Unfortunately promotion of women's rights, including education for girls, is being cast aside by Karzai in his desperate bid to remain in office. To this end, he has been bringing former mujahideen (freedom fighter) commanders into parliament in the hope they will throw their support behind the beleaguered incumbent when next year's election rolls around. Most of these commanders, sadly, share the Taliban's views about the proper role of women in public life. I don't expect much change.

If men had been attacked like this, there would be ten "alleged" Taliban militants dangling from gallowses in Kandahar Stadium by now.

After the attack, President Hamid Karzai called for the perpetrators to be executed in public.

Please, don't martyr those gits.

Here is what I would do: One guy at a time, strap one to a pole in a square. All the women who were hit with acid by that man are invited and get a glass of acid each. Then someone asks the women if any of them thinks throwing acid on the man is too much. Those women dump their acid on the ground, and the mercy and gentleness of even EDUCATED women is loudly praised. The remaining women throw their acid on the man if they can. Those women are praised for upholding justice. Thus an eye for an eye is served. But the men still get some prison time for starting it.

Man do I feel sorry for those women. It takes a real nutjob to think teaching women is such a problem.

“My parents told me that security isn’t good enough and that they were worried about me teaching. But I told my parents I won’t stop teaching. I’m not afraid.”

Pure bravery.

@Nippon5 - Well said!

@smithinjapan - I believe Sarge read the article just fine and happens to agree (pretty clearly stated in his post), as do I. "Having them hung is a bit much" you say? I suppose you're all for suspended sentences for people who kill their children as well, huh?

For those who thing capital punishment and harse punishment dont work have never been to Singapore...

So in some cases it works very well, in fact some on here say Saddamm had a stable country because he ruled the way he did (killed anyone who did wrong) then say capital punishment doesnt work when its not in their intrest to state it makes the area stable.. Hypocrites

Burying people in a pit and stoning them hasn't stopped infidelity. Public hangings have not ended crime. Throwing acid on these miscreants would likely only make future attackers more careful.

Revenge is understandable. But state-enabled revenge is not the way to a more civil society.

These Talibans are like Amish on Crack. Want to live the old ways but sure as heck don't mind using modern tech to hurt and kill.

I don't agree for the whole 'an eye for an eye' thing," Then it it would be wise not to do anything that would put in such a position, right? People like them need to fear what could happen to them if the commit such crimes..

If the law doesn't work for the victims, then the laws either need to be changed or people will star taking the laws into their own hands.

The Taliban wish to preserve a world that only existed for a small portion of historic Afghanistan. Their over reaction post Soviet war was to ID and eliminate anything they saw that could introduce change to the baseline concept of how life should be. Like all fundamentalist views, it was based upon a romanticised notion of how life had been rather than how life is.

The Taliban perceive themselves to be in a war between the restoration and preservation of that old world romanticised lifestyle and the clearly different modern world that is coming to Afghanistan, and in fairness was always there.

This will make them very hard to defeat and even harder to erradicate. I fear that it will be generations before this kind of horrific act is unheard of there. And nothing that can be done to these guys will change that. Kill them, they become martyrs for their cause. Keep them alive and is shows weakness or maybe even sympathy. It is a no win outcome like much of what Afghans have lived with for generations.

sarge: perhaps you didn't read the whole article (or any of it aside from the headline). The teacher wants them to have 'acid thrown on them and (for them to be) hung'. I don't agree for the whole 'an eye for an eye' thing, but if they agree to it and SHE is the one throwing the acid on the attackers, well, nothing I can say about it. Having them hung? That's a bit much. Jailed, for sure.

sounds about right.

The taliban - putting mental into fundamentalist.

That would be appropriate punishment.