The International Legal Right of Bush's Terrorism: A Monopolistic Intellectual Property Right of the "Free Market"

gap
between
rich and
poor
I subscribe to the notion that life is creative coordination of behaviour, and therefore life is not the destructive struggle for the most powerful to be better off at the expense of others. When I see our divided society and the growing gap between the rich and the poor, and at the same time I see the growing concentration of power in fewer powerful corporations owned by fewer powerful people, I reflect on how wrong are the economic and social policies of the developed countries.

developed
raped
under
developed
The developed countries led by the United States operate under the banner of the "Free Market" while at the same time justifying their raping of the economies of the developing countries. The United States has a chronic foreign trade deficit and they stabilize their supposed 'model' economy and their economic hegemony on the planet by leading the wars against terrorism and by leading the monopolization of intellectual property rights.

Few days ago I wrote

"The war in the Middle East and the war in Afghanistan are muddled with the private interests of the Bush administration, and they are camouflaged as wars against the ill defined war on terrorism."

extended
definition
It is my understanding that the Bush administration wants to extend the definition of intellectual property rights to "Terrorism" and as a consequence to market this intellectual property rights of "Terrorism" by waging monopolistic wars not only on the planet earth but on the sky as well. In fact, Jim Wallis, editor-in-chief of Sojourners, writes that

only
non-states
are
terrorists

"The United States does not want the definition of terrorism to include acts of violence against civilians that are committed by the military forces of recognized states, but only those by individuals or non-state organizations. Acts by states might be violations of international law but are not terrorism, according to the U.S."

US
defines
reality
As I mentioned at the top of this commentary, life is creative coordination of behaviour, and this is the reason why we have to reflect on our social and economic predicament and make ongoing creative changes for the benefit of all the countries and all the people. Therefore, we must reverse the ongoing concentration of intellectual property rights of the Free Market so that we don't need to market the intellectual property rights of terrorism as unilaterally defined by the Bush administration.

References:

Pertinent article in Ensign

o what is terrorism anyway? by Jim Wallis, April 25, 2002 http://www.sojo.net/news/index.cfm/action/display_archives/mode/current_opinion/
article/CO_042502.html

Photo credit: US President George W. Bush and Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah, Crawford Texas, April 25, 2002, by: Kevin Lamarque/Reuters



gap between rich and poor	I subscribe to the notion that life is creative coordination of behaviour, and therefore life is not the destructive struggle for the most powerful to be better off at the expense of others. When I see our divided society and the growing gap between the rich and the poor, and at the same time I see the growing concentration of power in fewer powerful corporations owned by fewer powerful people, I reflect on how wrong are the economic and social policies of the developed countries.

developed raped under developed	The developed countries led by the United States operate under the banner of the "Free Market" while at the same time justifying their raping of the economies of the developing countries. The United States has a chronic foreign trade deficit and they stabilize their supposed 'model' economy and their economic hegemony on the planet by leading the wars against terrorism and by leading the monopolization of intellectual property rights.

	Few days ago I wrote
	`"The war in the Middle East and the war in Afghanistan are muddled with the private interests of the Bush administration, and they are camouflaged as wars against the ill defined war on terrorism."`
extended definition	It is my understanding that the Bush administration wants to extend the definition of intellectual property rights to "Terrorism" and as a consequence to market this intellectual property rights of "Terrorism" by waging monopolistic wars not only on the planet earth but on the sky as well. In fact, Jim Wallis, editor-in-chief of Sojourners, writes that
only non-states are terrorists	`"The United States does not want the definition of terrorism to include acts of violence against civilians that are committed by the military forces of recognized states, but only those by individuals or non-state organizations. Acts by states might be violations of international law but are not terrorism, according to the U.S."`

US defines reality	As I mentioned at the top of this commentary, life is creative coordination of behaviour, and this is the reason why we have to reflect on our social and economic predicament and make ongoing creative changes for the benefit of all the countries and all the people. Therefore, we must reverse the ongoing concentration of intellectual property rights of the Free Market so that we don't need to market the intellectual property rights of terrorism as unilaterally defined by the Bush administration.

References:
	Pertinent article in Ensign

	o what is terrorism anyway? by Jim Wallis, April 25, 2002 http://www.sojo.net/news/index.cfm/action/display_archives/mode/current_opinion/ article/CO_042502.html

	Photo credit: US President George W. Bush and Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah, Crawford Texas, April 25, 2002, by: Kevin Lamarque/Reuters