Re: 'View' Co-Hosts Blame Woman Persecuted by Sudan

Thanatos wrote:
> In article <475ab969$0$2338$4c368faf@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>  FDR <nospam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> 
>> Thanatos wrote:
>>> In article <475a9851$0$8676$4c368faf@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>>>  FDR <nospam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Thanatos wrote:
>>>>> In article <4759efd2$0$9543$4c368faf@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>>>>>  FDR <nospam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Ubiquitous wrote:
>>>>>>> NewsBusters' Justin McCarthy is rightly appalled at the
>>>>>>> ladies' blasé attitude toward the Sudanese threat to beat
>>>>>>> or execute an innocent woman.
>>>>>> What says she was innocent?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Sudanese President Omar al-Ba****r granted her a presidential
>>>>>> pardon earlier Monday, and she left the country hours later
>>>>>> under court order.
>>>>>> Sudanese courts ruled she should be de****ted after completing
>>>>>> her sentence."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Here she would be innocent, there she isn't.
> 
>>>>> Yeah, and the Jews in Auschwitz were "guilty", too.
> 
>>>> Hey, all I'm saying is that technically she broke the countries laws.

>>>> Now if you're trying to compare one woman's misunderstanding of local

>>>> law to mass genocide, go for it. You'll need a long bridge.
>>> I'm not "comparing" anything at all. I'm merely pointing out
>>> the logical conclusion to your position.
>> No, you hyperbolized and exaggerated.
> 
> No, I didn't. You stated that the woman who was being threatened with 
> execution in the Sudan was "guilty" because what she did is a violation 
> of Sudanese law (despite the fact that she didn't actually *do* 
> anything-- the kids in her class did). The exact same thing could be 
> said of the interned Jews in Germany-- they were guilty of violating 
> German law, i.e., being Jewish. There's nothing either exaggerated or 
> hyperbolic about that comment.
> 
> You just don't like the implications of your statements being so bluntly

> illustrated. It's a particular character trait of yours I've noticed 
> over the course of many past discussions.
> 
> Now I'll grant that you stopped just shy of defending the Muslim 
> reaction to this woman's "offense" by merely commenting on the 
> legalities of the situation and saying nothing overtly positive or 
> negative about it but one wonders what the point of making such a 
> comment would be, if not to justify the treatment this woman received.

You took one womans allowance of a bear being name Mohammed and being 
charged with a crime under existing law, and you extrapolated it out to 
massive roundups of Jews.  That my friend, is a stretch.  But you're 
being too obtuse to understand it cause you have some agenda.