Should Federal Officials be tried for Treason for aiding Al Qaeda?

[The2ndAmendment]

Who are these 3 people who voted no, have some balls and post here.

 

[aaronleland]

What does this have to do with the topic at hand?

You do realize it's Republicans and neo-cons voting yes in your poll, right?

 

[Moonglow]

First, we would have to alter historical records to acknowledge that Reagan was guilty of treason for arming Iran. See how "conservative" opinions would change then.

Yet during Clinton the RWer's supported Saddam.

See anybody can play reverse psychology.

 

[ScienceRocks]

First, we would have to alter historical records to acknowledge that Reagan was guilty of treason for arming Iran. See how "conservative" opinions would change then.

Yet during Clinton the RWer's supported Saddam.

See anybody can play reverse psychology.

Almost a shame we took him out of power. He wasn't a religious extremist.

 

[Moonglow]

reagan is dead

I'm just wondering if the Republicans would recognize their man-god as treasonous, since they seem ready to put Obama in jail.

Republicans and Neo-Cons? No.

Libertarians and Constitutionalists, yes.

What does this have to do with the topic at hand?

Continue derailing and you get a neg.

oh my!

 

[The2ndAmendment]

What does this have to do with the topic at hand?

You do realize it's Republicans and neo-cons voting yes in your poll, right?

Does it matter? Take a neg.

This is 2013

Partisan hacks are irrelevant now.

 

[ScienceRocks]

So the no's are supporters of religious extremist Al Qaeda?

 

[Moonglow]

First, we would have to alter historical records to acknowledge that Reagan was guilty of treason for arming Iran. See how "conservative" opinions would change then.

Yet during Clinton the RWer's supported Saddam.

See anybody can play reverse psychology.

Almost a shame we took him out of power. He wasn't a religious extremist.

and he knew how to handle the extremist, and gave women rights and was anti-Iranian.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

So the no's are supporters of religious extremist Al Qaeda?

Yep, and their best defense is blaming Bush...

shit I'm sorry,

blaming Reagan

 

[aaronleland]

What does this have to do with the topic at hand?

You do realize it's Republicans and neo-cons voting yes in your poll, right?

Does it matter? Take a neg.

Since the people voting yes had no problem when a Republican president armed our enemies, yes it does matter.

And I love that picture of you playing toy soldier in the OP. Did you right that note in crayon?

 

[The2ndAmendment]

And I love that picture of you playing toy soldier in the OP. Did you right that note in crayon?

That's currently one of the most famous pictures in the news, you faggot. Now you're trashing our armed forces. Good one.

You're left wing Authoritarian terrorist worshiping trash.

 

[aaronleland]

So the no's are supporters of religious extremist Al Qaeda?

Yep, and their best defense is blaming Bush...

shit I'm sorry,

blaming Reagan

I have disagreed with Syrian intervention from the start. If you had interest in looking at things objectively you would have known that before running for the neg button. Most liberals disagree with Syrian intervention as well, but I think you already knew that. What people are voting "no" on is arresting officials for treason for doing what almost every administration before them has done. You are just a batshit insane, Alex Jones watching, tinfoil hat wearing, maniac.

 

[Katzndogz]

The FSA are radical Islamists as well.

What the hell is Washington thinking when all they want to do is to weaken Assad's military?

Do they want to just hand AQ and the FSA the keys to all the chemical weapons?

How well do you know muslims personally?

This is what I have learned. There is no loyalty to the country of Syria. The culture is tribal. Loyalty is to the self, the family, the clan and the tribe, in that order. There is no national identity. Because of this culture individual loyalty is fluid. One man can be FSA one day because they gave him a gun. The next he can be al quaeda because they gave him money. He can be with any of the other 1,200 warring factions by lunchtime in order to get a meal. He could even fight for Assad if he got something for it. Treason and disloyalty have different concepts. The only honor is family honor.

This is why the middle east is generally involved in some kind of civil or tribal warfare. The only enemy that can unite the warring tribes is the infidel.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

So the no's are supporters of religious extremist Al Qaeda?

Yep, and their best defense is blaming Bush...

shit I'm sorry,

blaming Reagan

I have disagreed with Syrian intervention from the start. If you had interest in looking at things objectively you would have known that before running for the neg button. Most liberals disagree with Syrian intervention as well, but I think you already knew that.

Yes, I did, and most liberals are outraged we're aiding and abetting Al Qaeda, that's where you differ from them.

You're only concern on this thread is to derail it. Also, you said the people who voted "Yes" are Neocons, start proving that we are, you have our ENTIRE forum/board history to inspect.

The jig is up your propagandist pig. Enough Liberals and Conservatives have seen through the ruse, the Rand Paul/Ron Wyden support is growing everyday.

 

[percysunshine]

First, we would have to alter historical records to acknowledge that Reagan was guilty of treason for arming Iran. See how "conservative" opinions would change then.

??? We were at war with Iran? I must have been partying for 8 years. Missed that one. I am sure Congress slipped a declaration of war in there when I was hung over.

 

[aaronleland]

Yep, and their best defense is blaming Bush...

shit I'm sorry,

blaming Reagan

I have disagreed with Syrian intervention from the start. If you had interest in looking at things objectively you would have known that before running for the neg button. Most liberals disagree with Syrian intervention as well, but I think you already knew that.

Yes, I did, and most liberals are outraged we're aiding and abetting Al Qaeda, that's where you differ from them.

You're only concern on this thread is to derail it. Also, you said the people who voted "Yes" are Neocons, start proving that we are, you have our ENTIRE forum/board history to inspect.

The jig is up your propagandist pig. Enough Liberals and Conservatives have seen through the ruse, the Rand Paul/Ron Wyden support is growing everyday.

I must be one of "disinformation agents" Alex Jones has warned you about. Don't worry, the tinfoil will block out my "propaganda".

 

[percysunshine]

 

[ScienceRocks]

This is why I serious think about telling the middle east to go fuck themselves.
1. Ban islam from coming to America
2. Close the fucking borders
3. and focus on infrastructure, science and tech here in America...

Part of me seriously thinks about those first 2 as there's no winning within that shit hole. We don't want the problem follow us here either.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

This is why I serious think about telling the middle east to go fuck themselves.
1. Ban islam from coming to America
2. Close the fucking borders
3. and focus on infrastructure, science and tech here in America...

Part of me seriously thinks about those first 2 as there's no winning within that shit hole. We don't want the problem follow us here either.

I would ban future Muslim immigrants from coming to the United States, and close the borders.

But, as you saw in last night's thread, I would not round them up and genocide them/deport them either (the ones who are already here); unless they became militant and raised an Insurrection against the Constitution (Sharia Law); this of course is very unlikely though (at the current Muslim population in the US).

 

[Londoner]

It would be easier to have these discussions if

1. people had the ethics to hold their own side accountable.

2. The GOP voter knew the facts surrounding Iran-Contra. Ronald Reagan sold weapons to the world's leading terrorist nation behind this nation's back. He obliterated the United States Constitution.

3. The GOP voter knew the facts surrounding Reagan's removal of Hussein from the official list of terrorist nations. (Followed by the money and weapons he poured into that evil regime)

There's a whole murky hinterland of oil and weapons relationships that "talk radio voters" are never exposed to. The only thing they hear about is the evil democrats, which is only 1/2 the story.

Google "Bush, Carlyle, Bin Laden".

We have (for good reason) an oil based foreign policy draped in feel good rhetoric about fighting "evil doers" and making the world safe for democracy. Hussein would never have risen to power were it not for Reagan's support and protection. One suspects the OP has never studied the very questionable relationships his Republican leaders have formed.

If the OP knew the facts of how Iran went from the democratically elected and widely popular Mohammad Mosaddegh to the brutal Shaw, it would be easier to have a discussion about this stuff.

Having said that though, it would be nice to hold both sides accountable for the relationships formed under the banner "spreading democracy". The lefty news shows I watched have opposed Obama's plan to bomb Syria. We need the Right to learn how to question and oppose their own party, but it is inconceivable that someone on the right would oppose Reagan or Bush in matters form policy. The right is extremely obedient and protective of their Washington leaders. They always have been. The Republican Party does not tolerate dissent when they have the White House.