A Good Definition of Treason

[maineman]

1. That was Al Gore’s opinion. The fact is that the US put pressure on Israel then, and has many times, and you claim that they never have. I documented an example to support my opinion.
2. Again, are these examples not within the interests of the US? Do you really think that the Islamists only wish to conquer Europe, and leave us Americans alone? I could find other examples specific to the US but so far your inability to argue thoughtfully and civilly doesn’t justify that.
3. Again, shoot the messenger, and again, I could link to more examples but…

I said that we never put any REAL pressure on Israel and we haven't YOu documented an example of an attempt. do you know what the word TRIED - as opposed to SUCCEEDED - means?

I am pretty certain that Islamist have no interest in attempting to conquer north or south america...yeah... at least their most prominent scholars certainly make that clear.

Again.... I think that the Weekly Standard is a right wing rag, and it amuses me that you would put more credence on it than on organs of our own government. And would you link to more examples of the mysterious top secret report that no one can lay their hands on? How convenient. The text of both the 9/11 commission report and the senate intelligence committee's report explicitly debunk the Saddam -OBL connection...but hey, you sip enough koolaid, beleive whatever the hell you want to.

 

[maineman]

Not necessarily. If the casualties were not from another sector of our country, it would NOT be a civil war. In Iraq however, you are mixing the religious with political. It's a bloodbath, I agree. Isn't that what the surge is hoping to address? I heard that they are already looking at a plan B, to be implemented if this doesn't turn it around quick enough.

Oh.... let's not quibble over details.... a country of 28M loses a thousand in a week...that would be the same as America losing 10K in a week...... that's a bloodbath...and in Iraq, it is impossible to separate religious from political.

and, if the situation is degrading at an accelerating rate with 130KL American troops, do you really think that another 21.5K is going to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat?

 

[Annie]

I said that we never put any REAL pressure on Israel and we haven't YOu documented an example of an attempt. do you know what the word TRIED - as opposed to SUCCEEDED - means?

Let's say this was true, US never applied REAL pressure to Israel. What would be different? Israel already gave up Gaza, what was given in return? Never mind. What should they hope for if they give more?

I am pretty certain that Islamist have no interest in attempting to conquer north or south america...yeah... at least their most prominent scholars certainly make that clear.

So why are they joining with the likes of Chavez? I don't think they like us and I don't think Iraq is the cause or Israel for that matter. Could it be our religiosity? Just a thought.

Again.... I think that the Weekly Standard is a right wing rag, and it amuses me that you would put more credence on it than on organs of our own government.

depends on which part, eh?

And would you link to more examples of the mysterious top secret report that no one can lay their hands on? How convenient. The text of both the 9/11 commission report and the senate intelligence committee's report explicitly debunk the Saddam -OBL connection...but hey, you sip enough koolaid, beleive whatever the hell you want to.

I'm not going here, with the exception that you might wish to check out some of the documents found in Iraq.

 

[glockmail]

I said that we never put any REAL pressure on Israel and we haven't YOu documented an example of an attempt. do you know what the word TRIED - as opposed to SUCCEEDED - means?

I am pretty certain that Islamist have no interest in attempting to conquer north or south america...yeah... at least their most prominent scholars certainly make that clear.

Again.... I think that the Weekly Standard is a right wing rag, and it amuses me that you would put more credence on it than on organs of our own government. And would you link to more examples of the mysterious top secret report that no one can lay their hands on? How convenient. The text of both the 9/11 commission report and the senate intelligence committee's report explicitly debunk the Saddam -OBL connection...but hey, you sip enough koolaid, beleive whatever the hell you want to.

1. Again, opinion, this time, yours.
2. Perhaps you should read the Koran to find out what their plan is:

Kill disbelievers wherever you find them. If they attack you, then kil them. Such is the reward of disbelievers. (But if they desist in their unbelief, then don't kill them.) 2:191-2
Fight them until "religion is for Allah." 2:193
Those who fail in their duty to Allah are proud and sinful. They will all go to hell. 2:206
War is ordained by Allah, and all Muslims must be willing to fight, whether they like it or not. 2:216

3.

The central trail of evidence appears to show bin Laden's unquestionable complicity, but a second, subtler set of footprints may lead to Saddam's door. That trail originates with the first World Trade Center bombing, with evidence that some analysts believe links the 1993 operation to Iraq. That theory has gained currency over the past few years among some intelligence experts, including former CIA director R. James Woolsey. In recent days, the administration has contended that the Sept. 11 attacks likely had some state-supported assistance, and others (including Israeli intelligence) have pegged Iraq as the likely co-conspirator. Moreover, there are reports of possible ties between at least one of the hijackers and Iraqi intelligence.

http://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/2001/09/21/iraq/ Maybe this liberal rag is more to your liking.

 

[maineman]

Let's say this was true, US never applied REAL pressure to Israel. What would be different? Israel already gave up Gaza, what was given in return?
Never mind. What should they hope for if they give more? the west bank... allowing Jerusalem to become an international city - and they should hope that moderate arab states pulled the plug on any further support for palestinian mischief

So why are they joining with the likes of Chavez? I don't think they like us and I don't think Iraq is the cause or Israel for that matter. Could it be our religiosity? Just a thought. not liking us is one thing, seeking to overrun us and forcibly convert a continent -removed by oceans from their continents - of infidels is certainly another

depends on which part, eh? Senate Intelligence Committee. 9/11 Commission

I'm not going here, with the exception that you might wish to check out some of the documents found in Iraq. If you've already checked them out, just give me a synopsis.

Here is what I KNOW from living there: ba'athists wear suits and ties and they don't trust mullahs.... they are politicians in a very western sense, and not very interested in Islam except as is politically expedient. Islamic extremists hate ba'athists and want to overthrow baathist regimes who they feel are too western and too little islamic. Saddam would not have trusted Osama as far as he could throw him and vice versa.... he would no more give Osama a weapon of mass destruction -if he had any which he did not - than he would give one to the Chief Rabbi in Jerusalem.

 

[glockmail]

[1].... Senate Intelligence Committee. 9/11 Commission

[2]....Here is what I KNOW from living there: ba'athists wear suits and ties and they don't trust mullahs.... ....

1. Politics.
2. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." "Politics makes strange bedfellows."

 

[maineman]

1. Again, opinion, this time, yours.

so you really don't know what the word "tried" means. OK...I got it.

2. Perhaps you should read the Koran to find out what their plan is:

stop it. are you suggesting that muslims are, by their faith, commanded to kill infidels whereever they find us? do you need to have some of the bloodier sections of the old testament pulled out to counterbalance that?

Maybe this liberal rag is more to your liking.

"appears".... "may"...."theory"..."likely".... "some"..."possible"....

oh yeah... that's some rock solid shit you got there! LOL!

 

[maineman]

1. Politics.

something you are suggesting that the Weekly Standard is somehow devoid of?

2. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." "Politics makes strange bedfellows."

that only works when the enemy of your enemy is not also your enemy.

 

[Annie]

Here is what I KNOW from living there: ba'athists wear suits and ties and they don't trust mullahs.... they are politicians in a very western sense, and not very interested in Islam except as is politically expedient. Islamic extremists hate ba'athists and want to overthrow baathist regimes who they feel are too western and too little islamic. Saddam would not have trusted Osama as far as he could throw him and vice versa.... he would no more give Osama a weapon of mass destruction -if he had any which he did not - than he would give one to the Chief Rabbi in Jerusalem.

Not that the rest wasn't response worthy, just that I gotta ask about the above, wasn't that DURING Saddam's reign? Why would you extrapolate to now?

 

[maineman]

Not that the rest wasn't response worthy, just that I gotta ask about the above, wasn't that DURING Saddam's reign? Why would you extrapolate to now?

Saddam was not the first nor the only ba'athist in the region. The political philosophy is what it is...the enmity is natural. I would point you to "From Beirut to Jerusalem" by Friedman.... a chapter entitled "Hama Rules"

this wasn't about Saddam not liking Osama...it was about ba'athists not liking wahabbists.

 

[glockmail]

1. Again, opinion, this time, yours.

so you really don't know what the word "tried" means. OK...I got it.

2. Perhaps you should read the Koran to find out what their plan is:

stop it. are you suggesting that muslims are, by their faith, commanded to kill infidels whereever they find us? do you need to have some of the bloodier sections of the old testament pulled out to counterbalance that?

Maybe this liberal rag is more to your liking.

"appears".... "may"...."theory"..."likely".... "some"..."possible"....

oh yeah... that's some rock solid s[...] you got there! LOL!

1. You appear to be unable to follow the discussion without circling.
2. I am not simply suggesting, but showing you the words that command them, then and now. The OT stories that you refer to are not commandments to contemporary Jews or Christians.
3. So you dismiss both a report from a conservative outlet and an opinion from a liberal one.

 

[Annie]

Saddam was not the first nor the only ba'athist in the region. The political philosophy is what it is...the enmity is natural. I would point you to "From Beirut to Jerusalem" by Friedman.... a chapter entitled "Hama Rules"

this wasn't about Saddam not liking Osama...it was about ba'athists not liking wahabbists.

My first question was book or article. Since a chapter, assuming a book. Which Friedman?

 

[maineman]

My first question was book or article. Since a chapter, assuming a book. Which Friedman?

Tom Friedman.... good book.... also recommend Lexus and the Olive Tree by same author

 

[maineman]

1. You appear to be unable to follow the discussion without circling.

no...I suggested from the beginning that America has NEVER put any real pressure on Israel...and all you have is a quote from Gore in the heat of the campaign where he says that Bush the first tried to. You gonna give me anything else or is that about it?

2. I am not simply suggesting, but showing you the words that command them, then and now. The OT stories that you refer to are not commandments to contemporary Jews or Christians.

I would suggest that passages of the Koran are no more or less commandments to contemporary muslims than passages of the OT are to contemporary Jews or Christians...and if you truly believe that ALL CONTEMPORARY muslims are commanded to kill all infidels wherever they find them, should we not consider slaughtering all american muslims preemptively.... sort of a domestic shock and awe?

3.So you dismiss both a report from a conservative outlet and an opinion from a liberal one.

I dismiss conjecture and opinion masquerading as fact wherever I find it. So I really don't dismiss the "reports" as much as I do your attempts to pass them off as the gospel. Got it?

 

[Annie]

Tom Friedman.... good book.... also recommend Lexus and the Olive Tree by same author

Thanks. I'll check them out.

 

[pegwinn]

Again. Congress is not guilty of treason. IF you look at the text of the Constitution, that alone would exonerate them. IF you read the actual law which uses the constitution as it's foundation, the judge would throw it out.

Treason is a harsh word and worthy of a kick in the balls by the offended party.

IRT Congress if you choose stupid, corrupt, cowardly, gutless, owned, or worthless I am right there with you.

If you wish to discuss the specifics of John Kerry's treason I am there.

BTW, to the armchair quarterbacks denigrating the President from the safety of the armchair brigades....... Go to church and thank God that I was not the President on 911.

Iraq may or may not have taken place depending on operational needs.
Pakistan and Afganistan would have been invaded and occupied until the body of OBL turned up.
Saudi Arabia would be on notice that if they continued financing terror anywhere, we would seize the assets and donate them to victims funding.
There would be secret prisons, but, they would be secret.
Any terrorist captured in battle would be soaked for all available intelligence and summarily executed per the Geneva Accords.
Said terrorist would be buried with pigs in full view of the other prisoners.

That would be just the beginning. I wouldn't get reelected, but I guarantee that terrorism against the USA would either stop or drastically slow.

 

[maineman]

Treason is a harsh word and worthy of a kick in the balls by the offended party.


If you wish to discuss the specifics of John Kerry's treason I am there.

yeah.... if you have the time, if you could detail how John Kerry is guilty of the harsh accusation of "treason", I'd love to hear it.

 

[glockmail]

1. You appear to be unable to follow the discussion without circling.

no...I suggested from the beginning that America has NEVER put any real pressure on Israel...and all you have is a quote from Gore in the heat of the campaign where he says that Bush the first tried to. You gonna give me anything else or is that about it?

2. I am not simply suggesting, but showing you the words that command them, then and now. The OT stories that you refer to are not commandments to contemporary Jews or Christians.

I would suggest that passages of the Koran are no more or less commandments to contemporary muslims than passages of the OT are to contemporary Jews or Christians...and if you truly believe that ALL CONTEMPORARY muslims are commanded to kill all infidels wherever they find them, should we not consider slaughtering all american muslims preemptively.... sort of a domestic shock and awe?

3.So you dismiss both a report from a conservative outlet and an opinion from a liberal one.

I dismiss conjecture and opinion masquerading as fact wherever I find it. So I really don't dismiss the "reports" as much as I do your attempts to pass them off as the gospel. Got it?

1. Spiraling down now.
2. You've interpreted both incorrectly then.
3. So you're closed minded then. Whouda thunk?

 

[Adam's Apple]

Again. Congress is not guilty of treason. IF you look at the text of the Constitution, that alone would exonerate them.[/QUOTE)

The bolded part in the Constitution is my definition of treason. No where does the Constitution say that treason can only be committed knowingly or with intent. So you stick to your definition, and I will stick to mine.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article III.

Section. 3.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[maineman]

1. Spiraling down now.
2. You've interpreted both incorrectly then.
3. So you're closed minded then. Whouda thunk?

1. my initial statement, many many posts ago, was the the US has never really leaned hard on Israel and delivered any negative consequences.... and your reply was that Al Gore, in 2000 claimed that Bush senior had TRIED to do that. It reminds me of an old Lyle Lovett song, "He wasn't good, but he had good intentions". You make my case and refuse to admit it... If I appear to be spiraling it is because I am following your spinning as you attempt to run away from your own words.

2. says who? glock the religious scholar and expert on Islam, Judaism and Christianity? whatever, sweetheart! lol

3. My mind is quite open. I just am able to discern the difference between opinion and conjecture on one hand, and fact on the other... an ability you obviously do not possess.