Why the WORLD must BOYCOTT the US if McCain wins.

[MichaelCollins]

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.

 

[jillian]

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.

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.

 

[MichaelCollins]

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.

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

Are you suggesting that G W Bush is not a terrorist?

 

[jillian]

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

Are you suggesting that G W Bush is not a terrorist?

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....).

 

[MichaelCollins]

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....).

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

 

[del]

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.

you need to buy more books, Mickey.

 

[jillian]

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.

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.

 

[SwingVoter]

...if the stone age McCain and the nobody vice candidate win in November. Severe trade sanctions must be imposed.

which would create an economic depression in the US during Obama's presidency, and allow the GOP to cruise to victory in 2012

 

[MichaelCollins]

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.

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.

 

[jillian]

which would create an economic depression in the US during Obama's presidency, and allow the GOP to cruise to victory in 2012

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.

 

[jillian]

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.

like i said... I can't discuss something with someone who assigns incorrect words. Terrorism is flying planes into buildings; terrorism is putting on a bomb belt and blowing up children on school buses. Terrorism is lobbing missiles into CIVILIAN settlements where there is NO MILITARY TARGET.

If you want to have a discussion on what was WRONG with Bush's war, that's fine, I agree it was a major screw up. And it was a lot of things, but terrorism wasn't one of them because the T-A-R-G-E-T (you reading that? the TARGET) wasn't civilians. And the necessity of a particular military action or justification, as well as whatever unnecessary brutality there was or may have been (though the bar is pretty high on that) might go to whether war crimes were committed, but it wasn't terrorism, regardless of YOUR personal definition.

 

[glockmail]

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.

I hope you asshole do just that. Next time you decide to cut each other up though don't expect us to rescue you a third time.

 

[MichaelCollins]

like i said... I can't discuss something with someone who assigns incorrect words. Terrorism is flying planes into buildings; terrorism is putting on a bomb belt and blowing up children on school buses. Terrorism is lobbing missiles into CIVILIAN settlements where there is NO MILITARY TARGET.

If you want to have a discussion on what was WRONG with Bush's war, that's fine, I agree it was a major screw up. And it was a lot of things, but terrorism wasn't one of them because the T-A-R-G-E-T (you reading that? the TARGET) wasn't civilians. And the necessity of a particular military action or justification, as well as whatever unnecessary brutality there was or may have been (though the bar is pretty high on that) might go to whether war crimes were committed, but it wasn't terrorism, regardless of YOUR personal definition.

incorrect.

iTS SO easy for you, in your cosy little hideaway to say that bombs massacring hospitals and residential streets are not terrorist bombs.

I have a feeling, that if you were there... you would change your mind.

So because the US government sponsored these bombs they are not terrorist bombs?

Do you buy terrorist bombs from a different shop?

You may have been duped by the smart bomb myth or the strategic targeting...but no one in the real world is...once again only in america!

Shock and awe was not TARGETED...in was indiscriminate and out of control.

So civilians were DIRECTLY targeted...and it was PURE TERRORISM because there was no cause, no enemy, no opposition.

 

[MichaelCollins]

I hope you asshole do just that. Next time you decide to cut each other up though don't expect us to rescue you a third time.

Are you Russian? What has it got to do with you?

 

[jillian]

incorrect.

iTS SO easy for you, in your cosy little hideaway to say that bombs massacring hopsitals and residential streets are not terrorist bombs.

I have a feeling, that if you were there... you would change your mind.

So because the US government sponsored these bombs they are not terrorist bombs?

Do you buy terrorist bombs from a different shop?

You may have been duped by the smart bomb myth or the strategic targeting...but no one in the real world is...once again only in america!

Shock and awe was not TARGETED...in was indiscriminate and out of control.

So civilians were DIRECTLY targeted...and it was PURE TERRORISM because there was no cause, no enemy, no opposition.

Um... luv, I live in NYC and throughout most of the time I was in law school I worked on the 44th floor of 2WTC. Wanna talk about cozy hideaways? lol... I've walked more places where bombs have gone off than you've seen in your life. And I suspect that if YOU really had, that YOU would in fact know the difference between war and terrorism.

Again, we're not talking about the utility or reasonbleness of Bush's war. Terrorism is a TACTIC whereby civilians are TARGETED in order to achieve a political result.

So, no matter how many times you try to talk about how bad Bush's war is (and it was and it is), it still isn't use of a terrorist tactic.

WORDS MATTER.

 

[Silence]

which would create an economic depression in the US during Obama's presidency, and allow the GOP to cruise to victory in 2012

perhaps you didn't read that part where he said IF MCCAIN is elected, not Obama.

This will never happen though I personally like the concept. The world imposes economic sanctions against nations all the time whose government they do not agree with and whose government doesn't put the world's population ahead of their own agenda, why should the U.S. get special treatment?

I happen to also agree that Bush COULD be viewed as a terrorist of sorts. Perhaps not on the same level as a traditional terrorist mind you where he's plots specific bomb attacks but certainly a global terrorist insomuch as he did in fact instigate a war on innocent people for no apparent or necessary reason.

Iraq is/was a soverign nation and we invaded because we didn't like the leader and how he treated his people. Much the same could be said about our current administration if looked at from an outside party.

there are plenty of third world countries who have leader that commit henious acts against the people who live that, it is NOT the U.S. duty to nation build. If someone ASKS for assistance then FINE give it but to take it upon ourselves and roll troops in, against almost ALL other nations wishes and against the United Nations, is IMO a form of terrorism.

Bush used our strength to push HIS agenda which is what a terrorist does.

It's an ugly word but unforunately that is how a lot of the world looks at Bush...

 

[Seraph]

I don't agree with MichaelCollins, and I particulary don't agree with how he says things but:
The Cambridge Dictionary defines terrorism as
noun
(threats of) violent action for political purposes

Dictionary.com as
the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes

 

[MichaelCollins]

Um... luv, I live in NYC and throughout most of the time I was in law school I worked on the 44th floor of 2WTC. Wanna talk about cozy hideaways? lol... I've walked more places where bombs have gone off than you've seen in your life. And I suspect that if YOU really had, that YOU would in fact know the difference between war and terrorism.

Again, we're not talking about the utility or reasonbleness of Bush's war. Terrorism is a TACTIC whereby civilians are TARGETED in order to achieve a political result.

So, no matter how many times you try to talk about how bad Bush's war is (and it was and it is), it still isn't use of a terrorist tactic.

WORDS MATTER.

Once again...you cannot assume things....always the refuge of the weak debator.

I grew up in Belfast... bombs were a daily occurence.

Bush's bombs were pure terrorism..because you refuse to accept that for a war to occur...you need provocation, opposition and an enemy.

Terrorism is a tactic...government sponsored or not..whereby iraqi civilians were targeted to achieve an economic and political result.

 

[dilloduck]

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.

Isn't promoting a world boycott against the US if someone you don't like gets elected somewhat treasonous ? If you want to cut off your nose to spite your face that's fine but leave everyone else to deal with their own noses.

 

[MichaelCollins]

I don't agree with MichaelCollins, and I particulary don't agree with how he says things but:
The Cambridge Dictionary defines terrorism as
noun
(threats of) violent action for political purposes

Dictionary.com as
the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes

You dont agree with it why? because it is true...and freedom of speech is a myth in your country?


How can the US bombing of Iraqi civilians been seen as anything other than PURE TERRORISM?

There was no war... so why were they massacring civilians?