Why the WORLD must BOYCOTT the US if McCain wins.

Discussion in 'Congress' started by MichaelCollins, Sep 8, 2008.

  1. MichaelCollins
    Offline

    MichaelCollins US last in Foreign aid

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2008
    Messages:
    607
    Thanks Received:
    37
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    London
    Ratings:
    +37
    World governments should unite and proclaim a universal boycott of trade with the US ...if the stone age McCain and the nobody vice candidate win in November. Severe trade sanctions must be imposed.

    I know its a long shot and its highly unlikely that americans will vote in a terrorist for the third time running ... but then no one in the world could believe that there were enough stupid americans to vote for GW terrorist.

    For the sake of world peace, if the terrorists win in the US again...Sanctions are the only option.
     
  2. jillian
    Offline

    jillian Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Messages:
    69,550
    Thanks Received:
    13,012
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    The Other Side of Paradise
    Ratings:
    +22,427
    Cool... applause to ya... kudos and all that stuff....

    I think it's really neat that you feed absolutely every stereotype that the xenophobes have about Europeans. Good on ya... you deserve each other.
     
  3. MichaelCollins
    Offline

    MichaelCollins US last in Foreign aid

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2008
    Messages:
    607
    Thanks Received:
    37
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    London
    Ratings:
    +37

    Sorry, i dont quite understand where you are coming from.

    Are you suggesting that G W Bush is not a terrorist?
     
  4. jillian
    Offline

    jillian Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Messages:
    69,550
    Thanks Received:
    13,012
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    The Other Side of Paradise
    Ratings:
    +22,427
    Are American troops intentionally attacking civilian targets to achieve a political result? Is George Bush?? Because THAT is the definition of terrorism......

    Words have meaning... attaching false meanings to distort images is propaganda. It invalidates whatever point you make that might be justified. (And I say this as someone who's no fan of Baby Bush....).
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  5. MichaelCollins
    Offline

    MichaelCollins US last in Foreign aid

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2008
    Messages:
    607
    Thanks Received:
    37
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    London
    Ratings:
    +37

    Terrorism is starting a war on a sovereign nation and its innocent people.... on an utterly FALSE PRETEXT...AN INVENTED PRETEXT... KNOWING THAT IRAQ WAS NO THREAT.

    Terrorism is massacring innocent civilians ...intentionally or not.... i am not sure if it hurts more being blown up intentionally or not... fortunately i have never had the opportunity to find out.

    BUSH IS A TERRORIST... i know it sounds provocative... but its a fact.

    He massacred 1000s of innocents to justify a huge industrial military machine... and to profiteer personally for his backers... and geopolitically for the US.

    it is the PUREST form of terrorism... utter TERROR in the lives of millions of innocent iraqis.


    SHOCK AND AWE... was PURE COWARDICE .. which is the definition of terrorism in my book.


    and make NO MISTAKE... do not be deceived or do not willingly believe the lies... THIS WAS NO MISTAKE with regards to WMDs.

    This was a cool, calculated MASSACRE ... planned long before 911

    THe US war machine needed a war... so as usual they INVENT an enemy
     
    Last edited: Sep 8, 2008
  6. del
    Offline

    del BANNED

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2008
    Messages:
    45,052
    Thanks Received:
    9,830
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +9,885
    you need to buy more books, Mickey.
     
  7. jillian
    Offline

    jillian Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Messages:
    69,550
    Thanks Received:
    13,012
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    The Other Side of Paradise
    Ratings:
    +22,427
    No..that isn't terrorism. That's war... one I didn't agree with, and don't agree with, but war nonetheless.

    I think the confusion a lot of you have is in your definitions. You need to be much more precise.

    The utility of the war or pointlessness of the war isn't relevant to the definition of terrorism. Neither are civilian deaths (regardless of how many) if the TARGETS of the military action aren't civilians. Now, I certainly don't want to be construed as supporting unnecessary war or the absurd waste of lives or resources because of Bush's war. But it isn't terrorism.

    As for the definition of "terrorism in [your] book? Well, until your name is Webster it's really irrelevant what your "book" says.

    It is really offensive when people on the political extremes try to insult the intelligence of the rest of us by refusing to assign words their proper definitions.
     
  8. SwingVoter
    Offline

    SwingVoter VIP Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2008
    Messages:
    1,246
    Thanks Received:
    123
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Richmond, Virginia
    Ratings:
    +129
    which would create an economic depression in the US during Obama's presidency, and allow the GOP to cruise to victory in 2012
     
  9. MichaelCollins
    Offline

    MichaelCollins US last in Foreign aid

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2008
    Messages:
    607
    Thanks Received:
    37
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    London
    Ratings:
    +37

    I find it much more insulting when you use the word WAR to describe an unprovoked attack on innocent people....

    Surely war requires a cause? Surely war has an enemy? Surely war has an opposition?

    No one was fighting back. No one provoked an attack.

    THIS WAS PURE TERRORISM.... NOT WAR.
     
  10. jillian
    Offline

    jillian Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Messages:
    69,550
    Thanks Received:
    13,012
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    The Other Side of Paradise
    Ratings:
    +22,427
    ummm... he said "if the stone age McCain and the nobody vice candidate win in November"...

    that would mean a depression during a McCain presidency after which Hillary would cruise to victory in 2012...

    just sayin'..... although unlike so many on the right, I wouldn't be praying for that depression just to get my person into power next time around.
     

Share This Page