Skip

Dogs in the News.
October 4, 2001 7:37 AM   Subscribe

Dogs in the News. Also, Cats in the News.
posted by swift (16 comments total)

 
DASHTI QALA -- Reports have been confirmed that the northern Afghanistan town of Taleqan was forced to witness a gruesome display sponsored by the ruling Taliban government 10 days ago.
Citizens were forced into the main square, where the Taliban forces began parading three dogs, each with its head shaved and stenciled with the names of the men the movement most despises: Burhunnadin Rabbani, the ousted Afghan president, Zahir Shah, the exiled king, and George W. Bush, President of the United States.

The dogs were then doused with gasoline and set on fire.


(from the link)


I suppose they were guilty too. Bastards!
posted by MiguelCardoso at 8:17 AM on October 4, 2001


http://www.geocities.com/bad_pets/BadPets/BadKitty.html is a great link for cat lovers :)
posted by aureliano buendia at 8:30 AM on October 4, 2001


I can't think of a better indicia of a civil society than how they treat their dogs/perros/chiens.
posted by ParisParamus at 8:31 AM on October 4, 2001


we (all countries) are all guilty of mistreating animals. or just peruse through this peta site.
posted by m2bcubed at 8:39 AM on October 4, 2001


I can't believe you forgot "Pigeons In The News".
posted by briank at 9:33 AM on October 4, 2001


Oh... that's it! This is fucking war now.

Paris: you hit it on the head.
posted by Vek at 10:10 AM on October 4, 2001


I can't think of a better indicia of a civil society than how they treat their dogs

how about how they treat their elderly, children, disabled, the unfortunate and the insane?

besides, some civilized societies eat their dogs.
posted by tolkhan at 11:19 AM on October 4, 2001


frightening that someone would identify a civil society by how they treat their dogs. i won't refute it may be ONE measure, but i think it would be a little naive to say we can't think of a better indicia. tolkhan's got it. preach on brotha!
posted by athensltd at 11:49 AM on October 4, 2001


They may eat them, but they butcher them as humanely as butchering can be done. There'd be an outcry in this country if someone torched a cow alive, too. Or at least I'd hope so.
posted by Dreama at 11:51 AM on October 4, 2001


"They may eat them, but they butcher them as humanely as butchering can be done"

No. They don't. I watched a documentary about restaurants in China serving cats. The customer would pick a cat, and it would be hit in the head. It would then be dropped into boiling water and skinned. At this point, a significant portion of the cats would still be alive and gasping for air after being removed from the water. Then they would be cooked. Presumably the rest expired during the cooking.

They showed footage of the entire process.
posted by websavvy at 12:11 PM on October 4, 2001


Then they would be cooked. Presumably the rest expired during the cooking.

And we do exactly the same with lobsters etc. in the West. But they're not cute and fluffy ... so no one complains.
posted by MintSauce at 1:02 PM on October 4, 2001


Yeah, right, Dreama. Dream on. Check out rotten.com today. You'll find we eat, not only cats and dogs but also human babies too, with gusto.

WARNING: take my word for it. Sincerely, anybody: DO NOT click unless you want to ruin your faith in human nature, not to mention your suppers for the next forty years. It's not worth it: These images add nothing to our worst suspicions, so beware.
First is a photo of a skinned cat; second a dog kitchen(or mortuary); third and forth an example of cannibalism, stupidly excused and boasted about by the rotten.com people.
They're just sick-making and gratuitous. They're only intended as proof that humans treat animals a million times worse than animals treat humans and that those Talibans' auto-da-fé is, unfortunately, just another instance od unimaginable cruelty and disrespect for God and the creatures that God blessed.

P.S. The stone babie's images had a point to make and advanced medical knowledge. These are just sick. I only link them because the idea that we treat animals humanely makes me sick.

Unfortunately, "humanely" is not a good word.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 1:11 PM on October 4, 2001


Aaaaaahhhhhh. Cats.
posted by Summer at 3:14 PM on October 4, 2001


Well, anyway, a glimpse at the cat link reminded me of a front-page news photo here some 10 or 15 years ago.....a fire ravaged a veterinary hospital after hours, and the photo showed a couple of cats and a dog stretched out on the pavement, with firefighters administering oxygen to each of them.

Call me a sentimentalist, but it brought a tear to my eye....
posted by Oriole Adams at 4:40 PM on October 4, 2001


how about how they treat their elderly, children, disabled, the unfortunate and the insane?

Amazingly, perhaps, this doesn't seem to be an either/or thing. People who treat animals well, tend to treat all living things well. The mistreatment, abuse, and torture of animals is used as an indicator of a whole range of mental illnesses and anti-social behaviors. Not the only indicator, but nobody in this thread has claimed as much.

tolkhan and athensltd, please go on. Which societies do you believe treat animals badly, but humans well?
posted by lucien at 9:48 PM on October 4, 2001


my response was only to "I can't think of a better indicia of a civil society than how they treat their dogs." i didn't say it was an either/or thing. i just think there are better indicia, ones which, if the contention that human life is more valuable than a dog's is taken as a basic assumption, means that how a society treats its people is more important and relevant.

but, there are some US states that allow cockfighting, and underground dog fights still take place and are a growing problem.
posted by tolkhan at 9:04 AM on October 5, 2001


« Older One of my favorite things about surfing the web is...   |   All Over But for the Crying Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post