Without double checking I believe it is gone over quite clearly in the Rosenberg or whatever those ****ers names was case.

The Rosenbergs weren't charged with treason, they were charged (and convicted) under the Espionage Act 1917.

The main reason for espionage and not treason being the USSR was not waging war on the US (it was still technically an ally at the time).

Yes

I’m sure it’s gone over in detail during that case. Feel free to do your own research. Russia wasn’t an ally per say , they just weren’t an enemy via congress, at least that was my understanding

Wait, you think the Rosenberg case backs up your interpretation?

MrDavitWilliam, if you make a third no content post in this thread, I won’t just delete the post- I’ll delete your account with it. Creating new accounts for the sole purpose of trolling other posters is not allowed. Thank you.

Don’t know don’t care

You're the one who cited this case in the context of this discussion. You don't have to post on this subject if you don't know things about it or have an opinion, but if you're going to participate, why be so cryptic and unengaging?

I’m not looking anything up like I said.

What I believe I may or may not have read is much different than what I am willing to bet on.

If anyone wants to bet, I’m all game. If anyone wants to do the research and post it, that’s great too, it’s not gonna be me.


I already have shown that you guys had no idea what treason meant. The reasons as to why are another conversation

I’m not sure when they wrote it they thought about including « all » arms .
Was it that hard to include that small word -> all ?

If believing that helps you sleep at night, I guess okay.

Then you agree that I am well within my Constitutional rights to keep and bear as many arms that derive their potency from nuclear processes as I damn well please. God Bless America!

P.S. MrDavitWilliam is arrive.

Go ahead

I'm assuming it's generally accepted that it would have been morally ok for a German to say "death to Germany" in 1942

also gotta be generally accepted that it's morally ok for a slave to say "death to America" in 1850... or an indigenous person to say "death to America" pretty much anytime

or a japanese American to say it in 1943 when they were rounded up and imprisoned just because of their race

or poor people who were sterilized. or poor people forced to fight in wars for profit. or kids who's futures are being destroyed by climate change because USA refuses to stop polluting, or the parents of those kids, or the grand parents.

or parents who had their kids shot in school shootings

or victims of opioid crisis

or Palestinian americans

iragi americans

afghani americans

women who need abortions and cant get them

homeless americans

imprisoned americans

According to the left ITT you are morally justified to want to kill people if your life sucks, the last post here is in essence why being a radical leftist is fully incompatible with western civilization.

Death to America doesn’t mean you want to kill people

U consider the southern states in the 1860s were radical left ?
I’m not sure slavery was a leftish value or a western value today and yet they were in their mind, justified to kill people too for it.

sure death is life, 2+2=5

man that guy wrote that if you are homeless you are morally justified to kill people

Once you reach for the sword in righteous indignation, and wish death on another person or group, then you are no longer afforded the freedom to keep God absent from your moral game.. if you want to continue to have the moral high ground in the eyes of truth.

This was the failing of Moses in the Exodus story. It’s why he was unable to navigate to the promised land for himself and his people. Moses was willing to unleash God on the Egyptians in righteous indignation on one hand, but on the other hand, he was unwilling to acknowledge the moral implications of God hardening the heart of the Pharaoh. He lost the moral high ground by denying God in full from his moral game.

Similarly, those who advocate for the victimized and chant death to America are summoning the same (righteous) version of God that Moses did, but as soon as that God comes into existence, then sovereignty is his alone. He is responsible, not Egypt, not America.

Moses should have opposed the God of righteous indignation (who he summoned) on behalf of the Egyptians. Likewise, those who chant death to America must advocate for America or lose the moral high ground.

Are you actually unable to comprehend that death to America is not the same as death to Americans, or just unwilling to acknowledge it because you fear it would undermine your (typical) ridiculously reductive argument?

i don't accept the meaning you decide to give to very clear words.

Death is death, attributed to a country is asking for the death of citizens of that country.

I understand the actual terrorists would tell you that no, don't worry, "we mean it differently", but then why don't they say it differently? lol at me being reductionist when they use DEATH on purpose.

I don't think we should allow terrorists to make up slogans and decide what they mean

This is absolutely not universally true. You can pretend it is, but then your arguments are strawmen and therefore useless.

How is it then that depending on the circumstances and details, they sometime tone it down to "Down with America" and sometimes keep "Death to America" when translating from Farsi?