Well it speaks volumes of them to me....weakest and most innocent/defenceless target.

Very brave and warrior-like not :nope:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-23629334

Probably a fair amount of money over there.

My God Jim, the family of one of the girls released this picture of her showing the burns. I feel so sorry for them.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/worl...icle-1.1422337

While the desire to volunteer in a third world country is commendable, there's no freakin' way I'd do it.

Call me when Sweden or Luxembourg needs female body inspectors.

Yep. Many many years ago when I considered doing it I was offered Angola Zimbabwe Kashmir Sri Lanka or Eritrea.
No thank you, especially after they emphasised the theoretical benefits my nationality would give me over their other staff.

First I've seen...they look bad but thank God the face wasn't damaged anywhere near as much.

Why sick minded people do such a thing is just sick. :nope:

Those poor girls now have to go though a long period if not a few years of treatment.

Assaulted for simply existing. The human animal is alive and well apparently.

It's instances like this which keep convincing me that in certain cases, violence is indeed the solution.

Perhaps just eye for an eye.

Or a tooth for a tooth.....the gummy barstewards :stare:

I don't actually think eye for an eye works, but the nature of this act has shown that the perpetrator does not wish to be part of a civilized society as maiming people over something so minor is not acceptable. If they want off the society train, I would have no problem with giving them a helping hand, provided their guilt is proven to a reasonable degree.

^good words, I would have no problems pushing them off the society train - not even mentioning a real train :). The only problem I see, is that the perps in their deranged minds think that the motivation for their deeds came from a higher power than human society.

Convince a little man he's doing something for a good and higher cause, he'll be capable of the most horrible deeds, and he'll do it with a smile.
http://www.wearysloth.com/Gallery/Ac...25785-9775.gif

Before I'm keelhauled, because I'm alluding to Sir William Gull's statement in the tv mini-series Jack the Ripper (w/Michael Caine) 1988, I'd like to say, in my defence, that
**I know this version of events is just a dramatisation based on a popular fictional version**

Also, it is becoming apparent that for us to just "turn the other cheek" isn't working with these people. I fear it comes across as weakness, something I believe LEO and prison guards are familiar with.
OTOH, responding with violence tends to escalate the tone. Any response has to be weighed carefully.

Extremist leaders fear their followers become permeable to free thinking and enlightenment, which obviously undermines their power. Not surprisingly these people live in or nearby countries where religion IS the state. It's all about power, a potent and ancient drug.

Bruce is right.

From a libertarian view on "justice", a victim of a crime shall have the right to demand a penalty that at maximum may equal the crime that it suffered from the hand of the perpetrator. The victim - not the state - should be the receiver of any compensation or penalty payments/fees. And penalty indeed translates into "an eye for an eye" here.

Lets see how this principle would work on such a case. The perpetrator must pay for the medical treatment, and must hand over a compensation that roughly, more or less, equals the severity of the crime. Maybe difficult to decide, but certainly a decision that cannot pass without any form of approval by the victim.

Until here, you then have an equalization of crime and compensation, but no punishment yet. Since the victim has the right to demand that the perpetrator shall be turned into a subject of the kind of crime he committed himself, the victim then can also demand that the perpetrator shall be burned by acid to the comparable degree he burnt her. The victim also has the right to forgo on this measurement, which then would be called an act of forgiveness or mercy. The victim must be totally free to decide here. Other people should keep their moral views on how the victim should decide, to themselves, and should not try to influence the decision by their precious personal world views.

Anything going beyond a punishement exceeding the quality of the crime, would be stepping beyond the scale of the original crime, and so the victim has no claim to demand any further punishment. If it would, it would become a criminal actor itself.

By this it becomes clear that no matter where the perpetrators will be brought to trial (if they catch them, which is anything but certain) - justice will neither be achieved, nor is it the purpose of the whole exercise.

Zanzibar was a center of Arab slave trading, and enjoys tourism interest that only gets effected by economically-linked ups and downs in Europe, but not by changes in general interest for or attraction by the place. Those going there I'm sure will not care for the two girls (if they even recall the case) and the background in ideology of the attackers. Well.