News Forum - Can public executions save Afghanistan’s ailing entertainment industry?

[Thaiger]

A convicted killer has been shot and killed by the father of his victim in western Afghanistan, with the full approval of Kabul. It is the first officially-confirmed public execution since US-led forces allowed the Taliban to assume control of the country last year. According to the Guardian, Taliban spokesperson Zabihullah Mujahid said the executed man stabbed and killed another man in 2017. The execution was carried out by the father of the victim, who shot the man three times, Mujahid added. The case was investigated by three courts and authorised by Hibatullah Akhundzada, the Taliban supreme leader, who is […]

The story Can public executions save Afghanistan’s ailing entertainment industry? as seen on Thaiger News.

Read the full story

[HolyCowCm]

Well it isn't wasn't exactly the entertainment I thought I was going to open and read about. Do they sell popcorn for these events?

[kalyan]

I remember they do free distribution of stones to spectators!

[Soidog]

I’m not a religious person but I do hope there is a judgement day. These heathens are in for a shock. 

[KaptainRob]

4 posts removed which do not comply with News section rules

MODERATOR.

[Chatogaster]

 

As much as I dislike the regime over there, I'm not sure what the previous posters are upset about. 

There are at least 4 things to agree or disagree with:

1. The existence of the death-sentence,
2. The fact that a (any?) convicted murderer can qualify for that sentence,
3. The fact of executing it (i.e. the sentence, but as it happened, him too) in public,
4. The choice of executioner.

There were some references to selling popcorn and providing stones for free (buy 2 bags of popcorn, get 1 stone for free?), so I guess it's point 3 that seems to have given offense (possibly as a subconscious result of the sensationalistic imaginary of entertainment that was pushed by the author of the article). 

If anyone agrees with all other points, insisting that the execution should always be done out of sight would be hypocrite. If anyone doesn't agree with some of the other points, then those should be more worthy of being upset about.

Personally, I would take much more offense if the victim was guilty of, say, having not been dressed properly and the executioner first shot 2 legs, then had a quiet smoke and finished the job a while afterwards, only to hear the public shout encore, encore, … But that's not what happened.
 

 

[HolyCowCm]

5 minutes ago, Chatogaster said:

If anyone agrees with all other points, insisting that the execution should always be done out of sight would be hypocrite. If anyone doesn't agree with some of the other points, then those should be more worthy of being upset about.

Yeah, and the same thing about eating food. I personally have killed my foods before many times. Gutted and cleaned and cut into pieces. I know how my food gets to  the table, but this Sharia BS crap needs to be extermintated with the ones who live by it.

[Chatogaster]

3 minutes ago, HolyCowCm said:

Yeah, and the same thing about eating food. I personally have killed my foods before many times. Gutted and cleaned and cut into pieces. I know how my food gets to  the table, but this Sharia BS crap needs to be extermintated with the ones who live by it.

I share your sentiment/conclusion, but the analogy makes no sense (except perhaps to the Taliban, who likely consider their ideology and hence sharia just as essential as food).

[HolyCowCm]

2 minutes ago, Chatogaster said:

I share your sentiment/conclusion, but the analogy makes no sense (except perhaps to the Taliban, who likely consider their ideology and hence sharia just as essential as food).

My analogy is I can kill and eat my own food and sometimes still do. How many Muslim folk actually can show up and watch these murders even though they support the sharia and eat sharia as life? Meaning if they show up they can probably end a life by their hands as well. Most cannot so make is hypocritical which is the norm majority for the human race

[Rookiescot]

41 minutes ago, Chatogaster said:

As much as I dislike the regime over there, I'm not sure what the previous posters are upset about. 

There are at least 4 things to agree or disagree with:

1. The existence of the death-sentence,
2. The fact that a (any?) convicted murderer can qualify for that sentence,
3. The fact of executing it (i.e. the sentence, but as it happened, him too) in public,
4. The choice of executioner.

There were some references to selling popcorn and providing stones for free (buy 2 bags of popcorn, get 1 stone for free?), so I guess it's point 3 that seems to have given offense (possibly as a subconscious result of the sensationalistic imaginary of entertainment that was pushed by the author of the article). 

If anyone agrees with all other points, insisting that the execution should always be done out of sight would be hypocrite. If anyone doesn't agree with some of the other points, then those should be more worthy of being upset about.

Personally, I would take much more offense if the victim was guilty of, say, having not been dressed properly and the executioner first shot 2 legs, then had a quiet smoke and finished the job a while afterwards, only to hear the public shout encore, encore, … But that's not what happened.
 

Yeah killing another human being in public by cruel and excessively painful methods is always the way to go.

[HolyCowCm]

10 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

Yeah killing another human being in public by cruel and excessively painful methods is always the way to go.

Only if it is like a Jeffrey Dahmer or like a Serb General from in the war atrocities of genocide I would actually watch and want a beer and popcorn and cheer.

[Rookiescot]

13 minutes ago, HolyCowCm said:

Only if it is like a Jeffrey Dahmer or like a Serb General from in the war atrocities of genocide I would actually watch and want a beer and popcorn and cheer.

The death sentence is an understandable want and need from part of society. I can see the appeal. 

However I would rather see the guilty party rot in jail for the rest of their lives. Every morning that person wakes up and knows there is no hope. 

However if you execute someone and it turns out it was the wrong guy...... then we are the murderers. 

Doing any of this publicly or live streaming on TV is way out of order in either case. 

[HolyCowCm]

19 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

The death sentence is an understandable want and need from part of society. I can see the appeal. 

However I would rather see the guilty party rot in jail for the rest of their lives. Every morning that person wakes up and knows there is no hope. 

However if you execute someone and it turns out it was the wrong guy...... then we are the murderers. 

Doing any of this publicly or live streaming on TV is way out of order in either case. 

Beyond a reasonable full doubt. And then even then some. No hearsay.

[Vigo]

3 hours ago, Chatogaster said:

As much as I dislike the regime over there, I'm not sure what the previous posters are upset about. 

There are at least 4 things to agree or disagree with:

1. The existence of the death-sentence,
2. The fact that a (any?) convicted murderer can qualify for that sentence,
3. The fact of executing it (i.e. the sentence, but as it happened, him too) in public,
4. The choice of executioner.

There were some references to selling popcorn and providing stones for free (buy 2 bags of popcorn, get 1 stone for free?), so I guess it's point 3 that seems to have given offense (possibly as a subconscious result of the sensationalistic imaginary of entertainment that was pushed by the author of the article). 

If anyone agrees with all other points, insisting that the execution should always be done out of sight would be hypocrite. If anyone doesn't agree with some of the other points, then those should be more worthy of being upset about.

Personally, I would take much more offense if the victim was guilty of, say, having not been dressed properly and the executioner first shot 2 legs, then had a quiet smoke and finished the job a while afterwards, only to hear the public shout encore, encore, … But that's not what happened.
 

Public executions in Afghanistan are used to intimidate and to control a population. In the past, innocent people were executed as part of the Taliban regime of terror. If the intent is to punish, then there is no need for a public display. If the intent is to deter, then the execution can be done without the showmanship aspect. The stark reality is that the Taliban application of Sharia law has been described as a perversion of justice by Shia legal experts (and that is the polite version).  Justifying the Taliban methodology is no different the arguments given to support the Nürnberg Laws  (Nuremburg) which was enacted by a sitting government and supported by a majority of the population.  Foreigners should keep this in mind when Afghanistan demands financial and monetary aid.