Every single commentator and the New York Times is wrong.

The New York Times has seized upon a violent attack upon an Iraqi woman to highlight and garner support for a popular New York Times theme; Women's rights.  This is a cause that I have and do support but the connection between this incident and the conclusion drawn by the New York Times and commentators is seriously flawed by poor logic, careless reading and bias.

The New York Times is guilty of concluding the general from the specific (since a woman was killed by a mob of men and justice did not prevail, then the Afghan criminal justice system, the men of Afghanistan and the police of Afghanistan have trampled on the legal rights of Afghani women). 

Other commentators gasp in horror and condemnation at the "country", "the men", "the people", "the culture". Where does that lead?  What is the action to be taken?  Against whom? With what legal authority or system? Their generalization are based on a carefully crafted visceral article and preconceived notions about a country, a religion and a genders. 

The inclusion of the graphic video always makes the case and is at the heart of the subtely persuasive technique. Who among us can witness graphic violence without sympathy for a defenseless victim?

One careful reader pointed out the inconsistency in addressing the victim by her first name next to the salutations given other people mentioned in the article. Indeed, the New York Times is generally very careful about using the correct salutations.  Could it be that being on a first name basis with the victim makes the crime more "personal" and creates more sympathy for the victim?

But there is much more to this article than what almost all commentators seemed to gleen. It is right there for all to read.  The victim was vocally denouncing the purveyors of black market products.  The inciter was the purveyor. The victim, in her Islamic zeal, was attempting to stop the trafficking in condoms and Viagra. The violence was incited to protect illegal trade in contraband. Now someone tell me which beaters and murderers were religious zealots and which were involved in the underlying black market criminal activity?

I put it to you that YOU are simply another mob without rational thought and a poor nexis clamoring for "justice" while a duly appointed and elected criminal justice system has spoken.  What will you have? A lynching? New trials?  Death to everyone?  Another invasion?

Mob violence is nothing new in this country. It has a very long history. The New York Times may remember the mob that they helped to incite to invade Iraq and Afganistan in the name of self-defense. A million or more gathered in New York City pre-invasion to Iraq to try to stop it. The New York Times was there but failed to report accurately or completely the opposition to the invasion.