Thanatos wrote:
> In article <475b5800$0$15346$4c368faf@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> FDR <nospam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>> 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-Bashir granted her a presidential
>>>>>>>> pardon earlier Monday, and she left the country hours later
>>>>>>>> under court order.
>>>>>>>> Sudanese courts ruled she should be deported 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.
>
> I did no such thing. If you read it again more slowly, you might be able
> to discern the nuance here. I'm not holding out hope, though.
>
> I am, however, somewhat mystified by your attitude that executing
> otherwise innocent people for no other reason than bigoted attitudes and
> trumped-up violations of "law" is acceptable so long as it's done one
> person at a time and not en masse.
Can you show me where this woman from England was going to be executed?
There may have been angry mobs, but the law she broke wasn't
punishable by death. Keep grasping at straws.
|
