In article <475c2289$0$16539$4c368faf@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
FDR <nospam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> 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-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.
> >
> > 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.
Since when has the law ever mattered in the Sudan? Especially when Islam
is "insulted"?
I notice you dodged the issue, however.
|
