"Your attempt at reductio ad absurdum just made you look absurd, Brandioch."

Here, I'll post the definition to make it easier for you.

reductio ad absurdum
A method of proving that a proposition must be false [or true] by assuming the truth [or falsity] of the proposition and then showing that this assumption, taken together with other premises whose truth is already established, would lead to a contradiction (or, at least, to an obvious falsehood). This method is sometimes called indirect proof.

Now, what was my position in that thread?

That the "coverage" of these events is being mangled and obscured.

To support that, I referenced the "laws" that he violated.

"I'm not sure how that breaks out into two separate charges, but I'm not a lawyer, and dividing things out into multiple charges is a fairly common prosecutorial tactic."

Well, you seem to be supporting my position then. You DO NOT KNOW why one crime was broken into two charges.

Well, more correctly, you DO NOT KNOW if each of those charges reference a different law that he broke.

"So yes, specifically, dealing with the Taliban is illegal; also Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and a long list of others (list available on the State Department site; I'm too lazy this morning to provide the site address to approximately the tenth forum)."

Yet, there have been reports that our government had tried to rig oil deals with the Taliban.

Are you sure those are the laws being broken?