I don't think it happening in other cases is a reason to ignore it - on the contrary, all the reason why such injustices should be publicised.

And yes, I wouldn't go to any of these countries - but just because we might think someone is mad to have done so, doesn't make it their fault, nor stop it being bad if they are executed. That's the "but you shouldn't walk alone at night / dress like that" victim blaming.

There are arguments for not giving in to ransom. But to want a death, so as to serve as a warning? Well hang on - if he should have known, then there is no need for a warning. If a warning is needed, it's reasonable he wouldn't have known.

And for a warning to work, you need publicity of the story.

And yes, I wouldn't go to any of these countries - but just because we might think someone is mad to have done so, doesn't make it their fault, nor stop it being bad if they are executed. That's the "but you shouldn't walk alone at night / dress like that" victim blaming.

I think Washu's point was more along the lines of publicizing it or paying the ransom will only cause the tactic to be more viable in the long term. All publicizing it does is get everyone pissed off at Iran, but everyone's already pissed off at Iran and not doing anything. Publicizing it in Iran might make people in Iran pissed off enough to do something, but publicizing it here as anything more than a big warning sign not to go to Iran wouldn't have a positive effect.

[quote name='mdwh' timestamp='1330008966' post='4915876']
And yes, I wouldn't go to any of these countries - but just because we might think someone is mad to have done so, doesn't make it their fault, nor stop it being bad if they are executed. That's the "but you shouldn't walk alone at night / dress like that" victim blaming.

I think Washu's point was more along the lines of publicizing it or paying the ransom will only cause the tactic to be more viable in the long term. All publicizing it does is get everyone pissed off at Iran, but everyone's already pissed off at Iran and not doing anything. Publicizing it in Iran might make people in Iran pissed off enough to do something, but publicizing it here as anything more than a big warning sign not to go to Iran wouldn't have a positive effect.[/quote]I agree about paying a ransom.

But not publicising the events? It was Washu who wanted the death to "serve as a warning", I was just point out that that needs publicity. Though I do think that one positive effect is if people don't visit such countries in future - if only to save themselves from risk.

You're arguing that publicity would at worst have no positive effect, but I don't see the negative effect?

Sometimes these things can have positive outcomes, e.g., the recent case with journalists arrested in North Korea. Everyone being "pissed off" is not a binary.

Plus, I'm not really convinced. Even if a bad thing happens that we are powerless to stop, that doesn't mean we shouldn't mention it, or there should be no coverage of it.

I'm not sure how public you'd want to make it. This day and age it seems like there would be a decent probability of trying to crowdsource the ransom, or becoming outraged at your own government for not paying the ransom despite not paying it being best in the long term.

I guess we're both working off conjecture, so it's likely neither of us are accurate. I just don't see publicizing it here in anything other than a cautionary measure would be prudent. Cautionary measure being a more objective look at what Iran is willing to do than trying to put any moral/ethical spin on the story.