or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Bin Laden - Page 15

post #281 of 412

 


surrender.gif

hey - i just want to say thanks to everyone who has participated in this discussion. you all have made this a REALLy interesting read. everyone has brought up really good points, and given me a lot to think about. i think eclipse brought some very interesting questions in regards to how we define terrorism:

Quote:
Originally Posted by eclipse View Post

I also think a big question, and it's one that has been up in the air and never answer to my satisfaction at least since 9/11 - how do we define terrorism? What is the difference between an act of terrorism and an act of war? Are recognized countries and their armies the only people who can participate in war? Can recognized countries and their armies commit acts of terrorism? (and recognized by whom?) Is terrorism only manifested through violence? What about financial terrorism? Political terrorism? How do we view trade sanctions that, inevitably, harm innocent civilians? Is flying airplanes into buildings a "worse" (in terms of morality) war tactic than bombing cities? Does it matter if the bombs are being sent by recognized governments vs rebels vs freedom fighters vs anarchists?


Anyone want to take a stab at defining terrorism or answering any of these questions? These are just great questions and I would love to hear some discussion about it. So what about financial terrorism? Is there an example in history that someone could point to on that one? 

 

I don't think I can define terrorism, but it seems to me, the way the term is used is this: we don't like what someone else has done (i.e., an act of violence), we call it terrorism. but when the US commits an act of violence, we are at war (i.e., "the war on terror"). i know, really crude and overly simplistic, but i hope you get what i mean. 

 

post #282 of 412

MusicianDad - I can interpret evidence however I want, just as you can. I believe the information I do have access to is enough to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that bin Laden was partially responsible for 911. He may have had help, but he did it. I wonder that the leaders of our world have not come out, as you are, saying "Osama was not proven guilty of 911; this was an unlawful kill."  Is that because they're scared of the big bad terrorist bankrupt USA?

post #283 of 412

Wow, this has been such an interesting thread.  I have to say I am happy to see that others are critical thinkers when it comes to our nation's foreign policy. 

 

In terms of defining terrorism vs  an act of war, one person's idea of terrorism can be another's idea of "pre emptive strikes," defense, or acts of war. 

 

As an orphan from Lebanon that spent years malnourished in an orphanage in the 1980s during the invasion of Lebanon, my idea of terrorism is very different from another person's idea for that "war."  I can say truthfully that I can see both sides of the issue, and, in the end, no one was right and the innocent are always the ones that suffer.

 

The world is shades of gray, and there are very few wars that have evil and good sides.  Violence is horrible at anytime and I wish that everyone could just live with tolerance, but I guess that is just wishfull thinking.

 

 

 


Edited by MsBirdie - 5/5/11 at 6:33pm
post #284 of 412
Quote:
Originally Posted by moonfirefaery View Post

MusicianDad - I can interpret evidence however I want, just as you can. I believe the information I do have access to is enough to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that bin Laden was partially responsible for 911. He may have had help, but he did it. I wonder that the leaders of our world have not come out, as you are, saying "Osama was not proven guilty of 911; this was an unlawful kill."  Is that because they're scared of the big bad terrorist bankrupt USA?


They aren't saying "Osama was not proven guilty" because he hasn't been prove innocent either. I wouldn't be surprised if they were afraid of the US too, to be perfectly honest. The US doesn't have a good track record with countries they don't like.

 

As for the rest, well if that is all you need to find someone guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, I can only hope you don't end up with jury duty.

 

post #285 of 412

All I have is plenty, and if a plane crashes into a building killing my son, I hope you don't end up with jury duty for the terrorist who incited the pilot to that violence. Guess we're even.

post #286 of 412



 

Quote:
Originally Posted by moonfirefaery View Post

MusicianDad - I can interpret evidence however I want, just as you can. I believe the information I do have access to is enough to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that bin Laden was partially responsible for 911. He may have had help, but he did it. I wonder that the leaders of our world have not come out, as you are, saying "Osama was not proven guilty of 911; this was an unlawful kill."  Is that because they're scared of the big bad terrorist bankrupt USA?



ummmm, some of them are.

 

http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/nik-aziz-world-is-not-safer-with-osamas-death/

 

http://ahmadiyyatimes.blogspot.com/2011/05/pakistan-ssp-jud-call-osama-bin-laden.html 

 

http://www.canada.com/news/human+rights+boss+questions+legality+Laden+killing/4721045/story.html#ixzz1LV3yyRCp

 

http://english.eluniversal.com/2011/05/03/venezuela-calls-for-an-end-to-the-us-occupation-in-central-asia.shtml

 

 

 

Mamaof Liam,  Some good examples of Financial Terrorism are the ways in which te World Bank offers loans to nations in trouble such as Argentina and then when the nation in question cannot pay back the loan they levee outrageous interest rates and basically financially OWN them.  They tried this in Argentina and Argentina told them to go screw themselves, but not all impoverished nations have been so ballsy.  Most acquiesce and find their ability to get out of debt nearly impossible.  Many of the nations in the middle east are in these sort of positions, Kuwait, Iran and Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Syria, are all financially ensalved in many ways to not only the US but also the World Bank which is funded by private companies largely in the US, UK and the EU (not to mention the UAE).  Other forms of financial terrorism are the sanctions placed on countries whose policies we don't like, like Cuba to name a most famous example.  By ostracizing them from trade and commerce in the area we cut them off from their main market and as a result sent a whole nation into a state of financial poverty wherein the people became dependant on the social systems of a nation ruled by a despot.  But we have done the same to North Korea, most recently, pulling aid.  A third form of financial terrorism, is when we back selected entities in their violence against others.  If I buy my friend a gun on the black market and that gun is unlike any gun anyone in the area can afford or lay their hands on and the fire power of that gun is far superior to anything their opponents have, I'm like a violence pimp.  I am financially supporting the violence of others...but the world turns a blind eye to our violence.  Unlike Osama who is being held responsible for crimes both which was indicted for and those which he was not, the US government carries on with total impunity.  And no I do not think it is just our enormous arsenal that keeps us safe.  It keeps us safe from the pipsqueaks, but not from the UN and the like.

 

I have a theory which will probably be poo-pooed as conspiracy, but I believe one of the reasons the US is not sanctioned and held responsible for our actions is that despite our economy being in the toilet (not actually bankrupt yet but pretty close) is that our ethos as consumers is so deeply ingrained that even a whole community as whaky and out there as ours here at MDC can't counter act the mass consumption we achieve.  We stand, for the members of the World Bank, as a model world citizen, each of us willing to become indebted for life to belong through perceived ownership of STUFF (we make up 5% of the world's population but consume 30% of it's stuff -- www.thestoryofstuff.org).  It is our massive buying power, and with that our incredibly massive credit debt that keeps the PTB saying to the world, "look the other way.  Nothing to see here but a beautiful country living the American dream."  Because for whatever reason, as the first to shirk the empire of the British throne, we have come to embody a global idealism that cannot be shook for all the hateful actions we could take and have ever taken. And as a result the world is obsessed with our TV shows, our music videos, our movies and our ads and the products that go along with all of that.  The largest US export is US media and with it the value system of buy buy buy more more more. If they sanctioned our country now in any of the myriad ways the UN has sanctioned war criminal nations of the past, our buying power would not just be diminished it would disappear.  We're talking epic depression like not even the likes of the Great Depression saw.  The whole world would reel.

 

That's my thoughts on the matter. 

 

Maybe on domestic issues I have to concede that there are some issues being pushed through in the Obama Admin, just not the ones I thought.  When I hear Universal healthcare I think free healthcare for everyone, not mandatory purchasing of healthcare.  Colombia and Argentina both have far poorer banks than the US even in its current state and yet they both manage to afford quality healthcare for free to anyone who shows up on the hospital steps.  ANYONE.  I had my son for free in the Argentina public hospital.  It was clean, safe, top quality care...okay I had to bring my own bed sheets, but I had a week long stay and traumatic birth that wound up in a C-section....and not a single penny.  I was thinking closer to that sort of thing...but baby steps, right? From what I see they let him push through a few concillatory items, to appease the voters, but foreign policy issues haven't changed much and if anything have grown more absurd.  Visa requirements are stricter than ever.  Relationships with many nations have not grown better but more tense (Venezuela to name one) and his Obi-wan zen like presence that drew the world to his side has really seemed to wane this week.  I am disappointed and I know most of my friends here in latin America are too. 

 

Can I ask why no over-draw fee is a GOOD thing?  Isn't it supposed to be a deterrant to stop you from going over your account balance so that you remember not to get into debt and handle your money better? Why would a I trade 120 dollars a year for that if I already know how to balance my check book?  And who uses check books anymore anyway?  That doesn't see like a good deal to me, to be honest, but maybe I am missing something.  Domestic finance has never been my strong point.  I'll take free checking and a calculator please and give me back the 120 bucks...that's a lot of money.  That's my groceries for about two weeks.

 


Edited by hakeber - 5/5/11 at 7:48pm
post #287 of 412
Quote:
Originally Posted by hakeber View Post

 

 

Can I ask why no over-draw fee is a GOOD thing?  Isn't it supposed to be a deterrant to stop you from going over your account balance so that you remember not to get into debt and handle your money better? Why would a I trade 120 dollars a year for that if I already know how to balance my check book?  And who uses check books anymore anyway?  That doesn't see like a good deal to me, to be honest, but maybe I am missing something.  Domestic finance has never been my strong point.  I'll take free checking and a calculator please and give me back the 120 bucks...that's a lot of money.  That's my groceries for about two weeks.

 


I'm wondering this too. I think it already started at my bank, but I haven't noticed any charges to our accounts yet. I'm worried, because that is a lot of money, and if we see a charge, we will probably close all of our accounts with this bank, and try to find real free checking (and that's really going to suck for paying bills)

 

post #288 of 412

Mamaof Liam,

 

For what it is worth I define terrorism in my Peace and conflict classes as an act or acts which serve to terrorize (incite fear and submission) a group of people in their civilian lives with the goal of sending a message (these range from, shut up and toe the line to give us back our homeland).

 

Both nations and rogue states/entities can be guilty of this and have been throughout history. 

 

I believe in my heart that the only way to destroy terrorism is to transform the need for terrorism to exist, not through violence but through conflict transformation.  Standing up and fighting doesn't need to include brute force as the only tactic, nor does it need to include more passive forms of violence as Eclipse has mentioned before.  You can't fight terror with terror, no matter how legal it may or may not be, all you wind up doing is creating more fear.  Fear, as we MDC parents all know, is never a long term valid motivation to keep the peace and motivate positive action.  It only serves to repress agression, not resolve it.  Repressing violence is not a good enough solution for me.  We can do better, IMO.

 

Moonfire,

 

if I were on the jury of a terrorist's trial, I would weight all the evidence of both the prosecutors AND the defendants and make a decision without prejudice and hope I made the right choice.  But of course you have to be indicted to have a trial. orngtongue.gif

 



OFF TOPIC

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amatullah0 View Post




I'm wondering this too. I think it already started at my bank, but I haven't noticed any charges to our accounts yet. I'm worried, because that is a lot of money, and if we see a charge, we will probably close all of our accounts with this bank, and try to find real free checking (and that's really going to suck for paying bills)

 



You need a checking account to pay bills?  We have to pay ours either at the supermarket cash register or at the company office if we are late...I didn't even think people HAD checking accounts anymore.  I haven't had one in about 10 years.  I out everything on my debit card linked to my savings account.  Do you actually have a check book?  like with paper checks?

 

post #289 of 412
Quote:
Originally Posted by hakeber View Post

You need a checking account to pay bills?  We have to pay ours either at the supermarket cash register or at the company office if we are late...I didn't even think people HAD checking accounts anymore.  I haven't had one in about 10 years.  I out everything on my debit card linked to my savings account.  Do you actually have a check book?  like with paper checks?


Sticking with the OT stuff - my Mexican bills get paid in cash at the super market, the liquor store, or the company office. Except my rent, which is paid in US dollars deposited into my Mexican landlord's US account lol.gif. I could do that in cash, but a check makes it easier. US bills that we still have come out as debits, but some things still require checks - some children's activities for example. The thing is, some banks will process point of sale debit transactions even if you don't have the money in your account (and they know you don't) and then charge you overdraft/bounced check fees. And of course they process all the transactions in order from largest to smallest, so "bouncing" one transaction will then bounce a bunch more, regardless of the order you actually made the transactions. It's a great racket.
post #290 of 412
And back on topic (sort of), Amatullah0, to continue our discussion from yesterday about the house/compound - I read a quote today from one of the Pakistani intelligence big shots and he said basically what you and I were commenting on - the house wasn't out of place for it's location. It was a relatively affluent neighborhood, and it was the type of house that would reasonably be built/purchased by someone with a decent amount of money.
post #291 of 412
Quote:
Originally Posted by hakeber View Post

 



You need a checking account to pay bills?  We have to pay ours either at the supermarket cash register or at the company office if we are late...I didn't even think people HAD checking accounts anymore.  I haven't had one in about 10 years.  I out everything on my debit card linked to my savings account.  Do you actually have a check book?  like with paper checks?

 


What bills do you pay at the cash register?

 

I didn't think of paying bills at the company office, but the offices are all very far away from us. We used to actually MAIL IN our checks to pay the bills. This was just last year or maybe the year before that when we switched to auto pay/online bill pay. We pay our rent with a paper check. 

 

We only have a checking account. Paper checks and all! We don't have a saving's account, because our religion doesn't allow us to pay or receive interest (we also have 0 credit card debt, so that definitely has it's benefits).

 

I honestly don't know as much as I probably should about the financial world (and banks are so sneaky, they really don't want you to know anything) If anyone knows of any other options for fee and interest free banking, PM me, please! I haven't been able to figure anything out.

 

post #292 of 412

 

Quote:
Can I ask why no over-draw fee is a GOOD thing?



First of all, the over-draw fee has not been eliminated. What has been added is the ability to opt out of automatic overdraft services on your debit card. This means when you open a bank account, you get asked this question: when you don't have enough money, shall we pay your transactions on this card or deny them? Before, they simply assumed you wanted your card transactions approved even if it was going to put you in the hole the amount of the charge plus a fee or possibly several fees depending on how many transactions overdraw you--or what order the transactions post in. It is a good thing because there is no cap on the number of fees a bank can charge you in the day, and many banks design their posting order to maximize the number of overdraft fees they can charge you. What this means is that perfect people who never make a mistake have nothing to fear, but an elderly woman who lives off of social security and makes a mistake of even five dollars can wind up paying a $35 overdraft fee because of that. If two $2 transactions overdraw her, she will pay two fees. If she cannot pay until her next social security check comes in, she may even pay a fee every 5-7 days while she waits for that check to come in. Many mistakenly believe debit cards will automatically decline when funds aren't available. That is not the case. It is now, though, unless you specifically opt in to that feature.
 

 

Quote:
Isn't it supposed to be a deterrant to stop you from going over your account balance so that you remember not to get into debt and handle your money better?


That's the reason banks give for it, but fees--overdraft fees specifically--bring in a significant amount of profit for banks. Roughly 30% of profit comes from fees, and banks will lose some of that fee profit because of these changes.
 

 

Quote:
Why would a I trade 120 dollars a year for that if I already know how to balance my check book?



What does that have to do with a debit card thief being able to spend not only the balance of a customer's account, but also to take that account deeply into debt? What does that have to do with clients who receive fees due to posting order, check holds, etc? Do you know what a chargeback is? It's when someone writes a check to you, you deposit it into your account, and the check doesn't pay, so the bank takes that money back. If this causes your transactions to be returned with the applicable return charge or to overdraw your account, tough. You can pay us back for the transactions, plus a fee for each transaction, plus the chargeback fee. Chargebacks may happen due to stop payments, invalid checks, insufficient funds, and other reasons. Many times when I encounter a chargeback, it was a check from the client's employer. Did you know that at some banks, when items are about to be returned unpaid, a hold is placed on those funds? These holds may make the available balance show negative, cause other transactions to decline for insufficient funds that SHOULD be available, and even cause OD fees & more returned items with return charges from the bank AND the companies who didn't get paid. And guess what.. it's not bank error, so you're paying. If you think that only people who can't balance their checkbook receive overdraft fees, you're wrong.
 

 

Quote:
And who uses check books anymore anyway?


Do you want an honest answer? Old people, for the most part. But many people still use checks to pay their bills, especially rent.
 

 

Quote:
That doesn't see like a good deal to me, to be honest, but maybe I am missing something.


Seeing that you seem to think Reg E means "no overdraw fee," yes, you probably are missing something. See the above explanation of why it isn't just people who can't manage money who wind up with overdraft fees.
 

 

Quote:
I'll take free checking and a calculator please and give me back the 120 bucks.


Free checking is not worth allowing people to overdraft their account with a card most people believe will automatically decline when funds are insufficient, because the banks don't bother to tell them upfront that it won't. Now banks have to do that and give them the option to turn that feature off; before, banks could even refuse to turn the feature off. Anyone, even you, can make a financial mistake, either through mathematical error, human error, or an unexpected banking situation such as a hold or chargeback. Luckily, there are still financial institutions that offer free checking, and many have made their OD-policies more customer-friendly. If the check my employer gives me charges back, I'd sure like to have my debit card STOP approving transactions rather than keep letting me spend money that I don't know isn't there anymore because I haven't received the chargeback notification letter yet and the banks don't typically call.

Savings accounts, by federal law, are limited to 6 electronic transactions in a month. This includes debit card purchases. Many banks do not allow debit cards to be funded primarily by savings because of this; they generally allow debit cards to access the account only at an ATM. If you are using your savings accounts to pay bills, you are fine if you have more than one savings account to juggle or less than six bills to pay a month. Starting with and after the 7th electronic transaction, your bank is required to start charging you a fee for each additional one.

Company policy requires me to state that these views are my own and do not reflect the views of my employer. [The explanations regarding Reg E change are fact, not opinion, though.]

Amatullah - Some banks have started charging fees, or changed the amounts of their current fees. Others are still operating with no fees at all. The change to your account is simply that, upon account opening, you must decide to opt in or out of overdraft services for everyday ATM & debit card transactions. Basically, when you're trying to withdraw $300 that isn't available for whatever reason, do you want to be given that money and charged the fee or do you want to be told "No way, Jose?" Also... free checking is a lie. Even banks that don't have a maintenance fee charge you fees for other "services" they provide, from using their online banking and automated system to using another bank's ATM machine.

post #293 of 412
Quote:
Originally Posted by eclipse View Post



Quote:
Originally Posted by hakeber View Post

You need a checking account to pay bills?  We have to pay ours either at the supermarket cash register or at the company office if we are late...I didn't even think people HAD checking accounts anymore.  I haven't had one in about 10 years.  I out everything on my debit card linked to my savings account.  Do you actually have a check book?  like with paper checks?



 The thing is, some banks will process point of sale debit transactions even if you don't have the money in your account (and they know you don't) and then charge you overdraft/bounced check fees. And of course they process all the transactions in order from largest to smallest, so "bouncing" one transaction will then bounce a bunch more, regardless of the order you actually made the transactions. It's a great racket.


Yes. That's right. And the change that Obama's administration has made prevents them from doing that, at least for your debit card purchases, without your permission. If you don't want them to pay card transactions into the negative... they can't.

post #294 of 412
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amatullah0 View Post




What bills do you pay at the cash register?

I can only answer for me, but in Mexico, you can pay pretty much any bill at the register - phone, cable, electric, water, etc. I think many of the banks and other credit organizations (like ones that finance electronics or furniture type purchases) also allow you to pay at the checkstand. Some stores charge a nominal fee - I think the OXXO (like 7/11) charges something like 7 pesos (65 cents or so, depending on the exchange rate) to pay there, but the grocery store lets you do it for free. I don't think it's possible to do this anymore in the US, but I remember my mom paying some bills at Safeway because she didn't have a checking account.
post #295 of 412

eclipse, there are some places in the US where you can pay bills at the register. Wal-Mart has began offering the service for certain companies.

post #296 of 412
And I meant to say that hakeber is in Colombia - I would imagine it works in a similar way there.
Edited by eclipse - 5/5/11 at 9:22pm
post #297 of 412
Quote:
Originally Posted by moonfirefaery View Post

eclipse, there are some places in the US where you can pay bills at the register. Wal-Mart has began offering the service for certain companies.


Interesting to know! When I first moved here, I thought it was a weird way to do things, but I actually really like it. Mexican postal service is notoriously bad (most companies just hire private couriers), so mailing a check would end up with me lightless, waterless, phoneless, etc. And security on Mexican websites is dubious, at best, so while I could pay some bills online with my credit card, it wouldn't really be safe. It's nice to be able to be going shopping anyway and take care of the water bill while I'm there.
post #298 of 412
Quote:
Originally Posted by eclipse View Post



Quote:
Originally Posted by moonfirefaery View Post

eclipse, there are some places in the US where you can pay bills at the register. Wal-Mart has began offering the service for certain companies.




Interesting to know! When I first moved here, I thought it was a weird way to do things, but I actually really like it. Mexican postal service is notoriously bad (most companies just hire private couriers), so mailing a check would end up with me lightless, waterless, phoneless, etc. And security on Mexican websites is dubious, at best, so while I could pay some bills online with my credit card, it wouldn't really be safe. It's nice to be able to be going shopping anyway and take care of the water bill while I'm there.


You should make online purchases using a prepaid debit card; then your loss is limited to only whatever you have placed on the card. And for most banks, changing your card number is simpler than your account number, and debit card fraud is a simpler matter than check fraud. You're at risk for both, so you're making the right choice but I'm just pointing this out for other people's benefit. :)

post #299 of 412


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MsBirdie View Post

As an orphan from Lebanon that spent years malnourished in an orphanage in the 1980s during the invasion of Lebanon, my idea of terrorism is very different from another person's idea for that "war."  I can say truthfully that I can see both sides of the issue, and, in the end, no one was right and the innocent are always the ones that suffer.

 

The world is shades of gray, and there are very few wars that have evil and good sides.  Violence is horrible at anytime and I wish that everyone could just live with tolerance, but I guess that is just wishfull thinking.

 

 


I completely agree with you Ms Birdie. I really think that at the end of the day, there are very few, if any "good" vs "evil" scenarios. To tell you the truth I don't even know if I believe there is such a thing as good and evil. I don't believe that someone wakes up one day and decides "hey I'm going to be a terrorist," there is so much more to it than that. And to write someone off as a terrorist, without trying to understand where and how they got there (to the point of being a terrorist) is a cop out IMO. So what I'm trying to say is that there is a lot to be learned by trying to understand the reasoning and/or motivations behind acts of a "terrorist" as opposed to just saying they are  "evil" and lets wipe them off the face of the earth. Because like other pp's have said, terrorist org's are like hydras and when one head is lopped off another will grow in it's place. 

 

Hakebar - thank you for all those links. I've been really interested in reading media with some outside perspective, i.e., outside mainstream US media, on this whole Osama situation. Each time you have written in this thread you have given me a lot to think about. ANd your last posts are no different. winky.gif

 

The quote button isn't working, but here is your quote on how you define terrorism:

 

For what it is worth I define terrorism in my Peace and conflict classes as an act or acts which serve to terrorize (incite fear and submission) a group of people in their civilian lives with the goal of sending a message (these range from, shut up and toe the line to give us back our homeland).

 

According to this definition I don't see how we don't see ourselves as the terrorists. I honestly feel so ashamed of the things our country has done. Especially over these past 10 years. I don't understand why more people in our country don't see how wrong we've been in so many cases. I'm wondering if maybe the geography of the US is a contributing factor? Do you think our geographic isolation has helped lead to our egocentric views? Granted we have the internet and all that, but we only have 2 nations on our borders with a lot of space in between. I don't know, just a thought...

 

 

post #300 of 412

eclipse and hakebar - where you live do you have the option of paying your bills online through a bank? maybe you already said this and i missed it, but i don't think i saw it. to me it seems really strange to pay bills at a register like the grocery store, but i imagine i'd get used to it. just like using checks seems strange to you ;P. what do you do if you are out of town for awhile? i pay all my bills online through bill pay with my bank. i like it a lot b/c i just setup when i want them to be paid (weeks in advance sometimes) and then i don't have to think about it anymore. i used to use checks, but online bill pay is sooo much easier. 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Activism and News