In article <475c895e$0$2378$4c368faf@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
FDR <nospam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> 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.
Dodge... dodge... dodge...
|
