Thanatos wrote:
> 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.
I notice you make some comments on things that never happened.
|
