or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Bin Laden - Page 16

post #301 of 412
Quote:
Originally Posted by moonfirefaery View Post

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.]

 

I'm assuming you work in/for a bank then? 


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.

I know that it's not entirely free. But I'm happy if I can completely avoid those fees, something you can't do if you have a monthly fee on your account. 

 

Are there still banks that don't charge a maintenance fee? I was looking into it a few months ago, and let me tell you, it's really hard to figure this stuff out.

 



 



Quote:
Originally Posted by MamaofLiam View Post


 

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. 

 

I'm sure there are people like that, but I'm also sure that they have mental illness, and probably choose to terrorize people solo. (i.e. serial killers). But yeah, a lot of people who I've spoken to on this subject don't seem to understand that most "terrorists" have completely valid reasons behind why they do what they do.

 

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...

 

That's a really interesting thought. I've never thought of that before. But, hey, when all of your enemies are very, very, far away, it's probably easy to feel safe enough to be the bully.



And as a side note, I am younger than moonfirefaery, and I use checks, as do most other people I know. They come in handy if you want to write someone a donation, buy girl scout cookies(or whatever else), or need to pay rent (our options for paying rent are check, money order, or online payment through an agency that charges a huge percentage of our rent)

post #302 of 412
Quote:
Originally Posted by moonfirefaery View Post

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.


Yeah, you say that until the jury punishes the wrong man because public opinion had more of an effect on their judgement than facts and the real person responsible goes on the keep killing.

 

Eventually you will gain more experience, think back and realize what I'm trying to say here, which is no matter how much news you watch, or how many political blogs your read, or how many laypersons you talk to, you are never going to have enough information to know if someone is guilty or not unless you were directly involved and even then it's going to always be the case.

 

post #303 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.

 


It's bad for people who just don't care about going over and think they should be able to access overdraft when ever they want. It's good for the single mom who rarely makes enough to cover everything and won't get charged even more money for having no choice but to go into overdraft no matter how well she balances the check book because a $10,000 a year job is never going to be enough where she's living.

 

As for who uses check books? A lot of post secondary students around here use them just because it's easier to cash your student loan with a void check than to have to make to the bank sometime between 9am and 4pm.

 

post #304 of 412


Well, probably we agree more than we think. Your statement bolded below is all I was trying to get at - there there is little qualitative difference between the people loudly celebrating OBL's death and the people who loudly celebrated 9/11. Earlier in the thread you made statements that led me to believe that you thought the two are very different, but maybe it was a misunderstanding.

Quote:
Originally Posted by moonfirefaery View PostWe were attacked primarily because certain people want us out of the Middle East as they feel they're better off without us there, but for al Qaeda to fight the war in the way it does, the hearts of its "soldiers" must be corrupted by fear, hatred, and vengeance. For people to cheer in the streets at the loss of innocent life, there must be fear, hatred, and vengeance in their hearts.  Terrorists believe they are fighting for what's right, and there's no doubt in my mind that they hate the enemy: us. Is that hatred justified? Yes, probably. Does that make terrorism any less evil? NO. I realize this leads to the logical conclusion that those of us cheering in the streets at the loss of bin Laden must have fear, hatred, and vengeance in their hearts... I do not deny that.
post #305 of 412

For those of you looking for free banking services, try a credit union if you are eligible to join one. I bank with one and get free checking, free online billpay, free cash withdrawals from the credit union ATM... of course I have to pay for some services like international wires but it is very reasonable. I *heart* my credit union! :D

post #306 of 412

Regarding the definition of terrorism, I think I would define it fairly narrowly, because I don't think the concept of "terror" (a very strong word) should get watered down. I'd define it as a violent and unexpected action against civilians aimed to cause terror and a feeling of constant insecurity, in order to coerce a political change.

 

Financial coercion of other countries can be bad (I say "can" because certain financial embargos have accomplished good - South Africa being one), but I wouldn't call it terrorism. Financial destruction tends to be more gradual, you can see it coming and try to take steps to cope. Even if it is sudden, like a currency devaluation, it generally takes a while for someone to die from financial trouble. Of course it is bad, but "terror" is something different. Terror is the insecurity of knowing you could be violently attacked and killed at any moment, no matter how much you follow the rules or try to prepare.

 

By this definition, the US of course has committed, financed and exported terrorism at certain points in our history. My guess is most countries have at some time or another. We have also done some really great stuff; we are a huge mass of contradictions. And since that is pretty much the human condition, I assume (yes, I know I'm assuming here!) that other countries/groups that commit terrorist actions aren't really that different from us, they are a huge mass of contradictions too.

post #307 of 412


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by moonfirefaery View Post

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.
 

Okay.  That makes sense.  I genuinely have not lived in a country for over ten years where one CAN overdraw their account without a credit line (which comes with a hefty  interest rate), and I have not held a paper check in my hand is as long.  Everything is done by automatic deposit and withdrawl and I get notifications of my balance and withdrawls for every transaction on my cellphone.  I just assumed the US had moved along those lines too.  I know exactly what my balance is at all times.  If I need more money at the end of the month I have to borrow from a friend, which sometimes means eating nothing but creative combinations of eggs and potatoes for a week or two, or borrow on a line of credit from the local kisko (interest free).  The cards here will automatically decline your transaction.  Sometimes they even decline your transaction when you DO have money because the computers are down and they can't verify your balance. 


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.
 

I always thought of it like a library fee when I lived in the states.  It seemed fair to me.  But you make a good case for it being a total wank job. 



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.
 

Debit card theft?  Check holds?  Charge back?  those are different arguments, aren't they?  My head stopped being able to wrap itself around that whole stopped check thing a long time ago.  when money goes in I get a notice of my balance.  If it doesn't go in on pay day, I don't go to work until they pay me.

 

God the US banking system is like some antiquated dinosaur...honestly...if someone steals my bank card (or holds me up and makes me drain my account ) I am insured...well the BANK is insured and they protect my money.  How the heck is it less safe to have your money in a bank in the US than it to have an account in COLOMBIA!!!!  OMG!  That's funny, no? 

 

I am trying but I do not follow the charge back thing.  See, now you got to make me feel utterly stupid about something...I'll take your word that this development is a good thing, but I think I'll keep my money here in Colombia or in my pension fund on the Isle Wight, nevertheless.


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

I did want any honest answer...these are such a throw back from the past for me.  I seriously have not even seen a paper check (apart from in movies, which I always thought was one of those anachronistic flaws like people not having cellphones and it causing all sorts of confusion and delay and comedy) in over ten years.  I thought they did away with them.  More evidence for me that the banking industry is mostly in control in the States.  What a SCAM! 


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. 

 

I do not even know what "Reg E" stands for or means.  You said no overdraw fee...or so I thought....now I don't know. 

 


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.

 

Yeah...that's how most of the world does it!  I actually cannot think of a single country I have lived in that allows you to spend money you don't have without a credit line that you have to apply for through a lengthy drawn out process that requires a co-signer no matter how rich you are.  I cannot even believe that is legal...the US is so messed up when it comes to money.  God! (I mean I believe it, but I can't believe it!!!  That's horrible!)

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.

 

That is messed up man!

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.]

 

Duly noted.

Amatullah - I pay all my bills (Cable, electric, water, phone) at the supermarket, a bill place, or the pharmacy...most major stores have the equipment to process bills.  If I want to pay a person for something (like school activities, donations, or rent) we go to their bank branch and make a deposit in their account, or give them cash.  You CAN do these things on line, but I keep losing my password and I can't seem to get it set up, so I gave up. 

 

MD the banks here stay open until 8pm most week days and until 5pm on saturday.  In other places I have lived in the world they have at least one day a week opened quite late, and always a Saturday morning at least.  People also typically are excused from work for red tape issues without much hassle.  Employers KNOW it's part of the deal so if I have to go to the post office I get an afternoon off to do so, or at least a full hour for lunch. 


 

The US banking industry is so messed up people think this REG E is awesome, when in the rest of the world it would be fundamentally illegal to give people access to money they do not have without informing them they didn't have it and then charge them for your mistake.  I'm just saying.  Baby steps, I know.

 

(Disclaimer: I get that it's intentional and not a mistake and all, but I just cannot wrap my head around this.)

 

Back to the Osama thread.

post #308 of 412

Question: CNN is now reporting that evidence from the things taken from Bin ladens compound show that he was planning an attack on the rail system on the anniversary of 9/11. Ques. 1- Do you believe this or do you think this is an attempt by the US government to gain understanding and sympathy from the general public in reponse to the outcry from some after learning Bin Laden was unarmed. 2. If you do believe it is true, does it change your perception of what happened (if you were questioning whether or not he should have been killed)

 

I am NOT a conspiracy theorist nor do I generally think the government frequently lies to its people; I simply cannot live such a depressing way of life. However, when I heard that information last night, I thought it was WAY too convenient time wise for this to be announced. And the constant changing of stories regarding what happened has also colored my view of this new information. Just curious about others' opinions.

post #309 of 412
Quote:
Originally Posted by mar123 View Post

Question: CNN is now reporting that evidence from the things taken from Bin ladens compound show that he was planning an attack on the rail system on the anniversary of 9/11. Ques. 1- Do you believe this or do you think this is an attempt by the US government to gain understanding and sympathy from the general public in reponse to the outcry from some after learning Bin Laden was unarmed. 2. If you do believe it is true, does it change your perception of what happened (if you were questioning whether or not he should have been killed)

 

I am NOT a conspiracy theorist nor do I generally think the government frequently lies to its people; I simply cannot live such a depressing way of life. However, when I heard that information last night, I thought it was WAY too convenient time wise for this to be announced. And the constant changing of stories regarding what happened has also colored my view of this new information. Just curious about others' opinions.

 

1 - i'm sure he was planning many attacks, and may well have had notes or ideas where he was living.  From that POV it's possible that he was musing on how to "mark" 9/11 if he could.  I don't think this necessarily means he was definitely going to attack the rail system or for that matter that him being killed would prevent such an attack, if it's already been planned.  It's not like he PERSONALLY went out to do these things.  He was just a puppeteer.

 

2 - i am glad he was killed for one reason only - if he had been arrested i believe there would have been a rash of kidnappings and (probably taped/live/online) executions of more innocent people to try to force his release.  There would have been no way for him to have a fair trial - he already confessed to orchestrating the 9/11 attacks, no jury in the world is going to be "balanced" about it and why should they be.  His death is at least final enough that any backlash will be done in revenge rather than a hopeful attempt to "save" him.  Revenge stems from bitterness and anger which is generally shorter-lived than hope.

 

The constant story-changing (including the fact that the place where it all happened is totally different to the one i saw on the earliest report i saw - the place they're showing now looks fairly nice, the one they showed initially looked like it MAYBE had a tap on the premises) does not surprise me.  I know i cannot and will not know the truth anyway.
 

 

post #310 of 412

Amatullah - I work for the 11th largest bank in the nation. Yes, some banks still offer free checking. Look at their fee schedule before you sign up, though, because even if the account has no monthly fee, there are other fees to look out for.

hakeber - A lot of banks do the notifcations here, but they still find ways to manipulate your balance to where you wind up with fees. Debit card theft is a minor concern for overdraft fees, because most banks will refund them after the investigation. But yes, some will hold checks (paper checks you deposit), especially large ones, sometimes without even bothering to tell you it's on hold. Then you go spend your money, and get an overdraft fee because your check wasn't "available" yet.

And chargebacks... oh God.

Picture this: 25 year-old Molly deposits her paycheck on Monday. We put it on hold. Her MOnday gas transaction causes an overdraft fee. She calls the bank and we explain, maybe even give her a courtesy waiver. She continues to spend with her debit card. Days go by. Molly has no idea that on Friday, the bank received notice that the check wasn't going to pay due to insufficient funds in her employer's account. The bank takes the paycheck out of her account. All of her pending transactions cause overdraft fees. The bank sends her a letter, but she won't get it until the next week. And Molly is young, so she doesn't check her balance all the time. She continues using her card over the weekend.

On Monday, she checks her balance to see where she's at. She is appalled to see that she is $600 negative and that her paycheck is missing. More fees will come, and if she doesn't pay back ASAP, she faces a new fee every five days. Does the bank waive those fees for poor Molly? No. If Molly hadn't checked her balance, she may not have known until she got that letter--as late as ten days after the chargeback occurred. All this time she could be racking up more fees. Her fault for not checking her balance, yes, but if she's keeping her ledger meticulously, she doesn't think she needs to.

Reg E changes mean that her card would decline on Monday...giving her a message right away that something is up. She'd find out about the hold without getting an overdraft fee. Then when the chargeback occurred on Friday, her card would start declining again, and she'd probably find out that day about the chargeback. Then she can stop spending. All of her pending transactions for the week will probably still cause overdraft fees, but at least she won't keep blindly racking up debt all weekend while the bank takes its sweet time notifying her that her paycheck was no good.

Oh and get this... Molly has 60 days to pay back that $600 + the fees that come ever 5-10 days while she tries. If she doesn't, the bank will report her to ChexSystems. Now she can't have a bank account for 7 years. Even if you pay the debt, banks may refuse to work with you. All because your paycheck was no good, you didn't find out for a week, and all the transactions you made in good faith after depositting it caused you fee after fee. Or even because you made a mathematical error. or if someone spent your money, but the bank couldn't find enough evidence to prove it wasn't you so they expect you to pay it back. Etc. :/ Now that rule isn't due to Reg E; that's just what banks do. ChexSystems is also for people who do check fraud.

Reg E is just the law that governs debit card transactions. That shadow line of credit IS illegal now for debit card purchases, unless you opt-in to it, due to the change in policy. That's the beauty of the new Reg E policy: now your card will decline if you want it to when money isn't "there". However... this doesn't apply to checks, reoccurring transactions, and withdrawals using your routing and account #. Most of us still have the shadow line. Most consumers use those other methods for bills, so the shadow line for those who opt-out mostly just pays their bills. People aren't so pissy about paying an overdraft fee to have their lights kept on. What they are pissy about is when their coffee purchase is approved, and then they get a $35 OD fee that could have been saved if the card had declined like they figured it would if money wasn't there.  Now banks cannot just simply give you the shadow line of credit, without notifying you, without letting you turn it off. Now, they HAVE to tell you about it, ask you if you want it, and let you turn it off if you don't--for debit card purchases.

 

Anyways... this is all of track and I'm sorry since I'm the one who brought it up. But Obama's administration pushed this change through, and it's a good change. I see less OD fees now, and I never have to explain to a poor college student "No, your card doesn't just decline when you don't have money; it will let you keep spending and spending, and I can't waive all these fees for you." Now it's "Well, sir, you opted in to this service, you spent more money than you had, and you're being charged a fee that you agreed to pay. I can't waive it."


Edited by moonfirefaery - 5/6/11 at 7:39am
post #311 of 412

And yes, I do believe he was planning more attacks, whether any would come to fruition, I don't know but I do believe they were in the works.

post #312 of 412
Quote:
Originally Posted by mar123 View Post

Question: CNN is now reporting that evidence from the things taken from Bin ladens compound show that he was planning an attack on the rail system on the anniversary of 9/11. Ques. 1- Do you believe this or do you think this is an attempt by the US government to gain understanding and sympathy from the general public in reponse to the outcry from some after learning Bin Laden was unarmed. 2. If you do believe it is true, does it change your perception of what happened (if you were questioning whether or not he should have been killed)

 

I am NOT a conspiracy theorist nor do I generally think the government frequently lies to its people; I simply cannot live such a depressing way of life. However, when I heard that information last night, I thought it was WAY too convenient time wise for this to be announced. And the constant changing of stories regarding what happened has also colored my view of this new information. Just curious about others' opinions.



I am sure there were plans of all sorts. However, I find the release of this information to be conveniently timed and the details to be fishy as well.  I am dubious.

 

FWIW, I do not lead a depressing life.  I believe I lead a much happier life by not swallow every ounce of the BS the US media sells us.  I think I get a much more balanced view of the world when I do not write any group off as crazy, but carefully weigh all sides of an issue.

 

Any decent trial should have a prosecution and a defense.  In the US, and to a large extent the UK as well, there has been a trial by press and the prosecution's side has had a MUCH louder voice and a disproportionate amount of time to speak.  The defense has had to resort to alternative press and smaller press outlets, meaning their voice is hardly heard and often when it is is written off as lunacy.  I am lucky to live abroad and have access to so many different points of view and it definitely shapes my trust issues with the US government.

 

This article http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?267553 Chomsky has a lot to say on the matter of the media influence over the percpetions of Americans, and I have to say from my own observatiosn I whole heartedly agree with his take on matters.  The US has a free press, but the mainstream media does not exercise that right as we expect them to

 

 

 


Edited by hakeber - 5/6/11 at 10:27am
post #313 of 412
Quote:
Originally Posted by mar123 View Post

 CNN is now reporting that evidence from the things taken from Bin ladens compound show that he was planning an attack on the rail system on the anniversary of 9/11. 


I just came to post this

 

http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Bin-Laden-eyed-US-rails-from-his-secret-compound-1366879.php

 

back later with my opinions, and to read the last few posts that I haven't read yet.

post #314 of 412
The rail thing doesn't sound like a real plan. More like a "wouldn't it be cool if we could. . .?"
post #315 of 412
Quote:
Originally Posted by mar123 View Post

Question: CNN is now reporting that evidence from the things taken from Bin ladens compound show that he was planning an attack on the rail system on the anniversary of 9/11. Ques. 1- Do you believe this or do you think this is an attempt by the US government to gain understanding and sympathy from the general public in reponse to the outcry from some after learning Bin Laden was unarmed. 2. If you do believe it is true, does it change your perception of what happened (if you were questioning whether or not he should have been killed)

 

I am NOT a conspiracy theorist nor do I generally think the government frequently lies to its people; I simply cannot live such a depressing way of life. However, when I heard that information last night, I thought it was WAY too convenient time wise for this to be announced. And the constant changing of stories regarding what happened has also colored my view of this new information. Just curious about others' opinions.



1. yes, I'm not sure that I believe that there was, actually a plot, but even if there was, it sounds way too much like it's being brought to our attention to make us feel better about the US gov. I agree that it sounds WAY TOO convenient. There's way too much that just doesn't add up. Including the part about not being on higher security alert due to this. I mean, we were on "higher alert" for YEARS after 9/11, you know? Even though the system has been changed(so I understand) it doesn't make sense that 1. they would come across a credible threat, 2. TELL the american people about it, and 3. Not go crazy on security (like last time).  

 

2. no, it doesn't change my opinion, though I'm not sure I have one. I don't believe killing OBL(if he was even killed.... I'm not sure I believe that yet, and it seems totally plausible that it was someone else's body that they dumped in the freaking ocean) was "justice served," and I don't think it was the US's place to do it without getting the Pakistani government's approval or at least acknowledgement. I don't think that taking down a figurehead can take down an organization like al-qaeda, especially when it seems obvious that he was probably going to die soon anyways, and must have someone to take over for him.

 

I'm also starting to get a little p*ssed off on behalf of Pakistan for some of the reasons mentioned upthread on sovereignty. I would actually like to see pakistan take action on this, but I have serious doubts of that happening eyesroll.gif The rest of the world really needs to "grow some balls."

 

I don't trust the gov for most of my information, especially if they seem to have something to gain by telling it to me (votes, anyone?). I am also one of those people who think that there is more than a small chance that 9/11 was done to benefit the US. In whatever way.


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by GoBecGo View Post



 

1 - i'm sure he was planning many attacks, and may well have had notes or ideas where he was living.  From that POV it's possible that he was musing on how to "mark" 9/11 if he could.  I don't think this necessarily means he was definitely going to attack the rail system or for that matter that him being killed would prevent such an attack, if it's already been planned.  It's not like he PERSONALLY went out to do these things.  He was just a puppeteer.

 

Interesting thought, though I have my doubts.

 

2 - i am glad he was killed for one reason only - if he had been arrested i believe there would have been a rash of kidnappings and (probably taped/live/online) executions of more innocent people to try to force his release.  There would have been no way for him to have a fair trial - he already confessed to orchestrating the 9/11 attacks, no jury in the world is going to be "balanced" about it and why should they be.  His death is at least final enough that any backlash will be done in revenge rather than a hopeful attempt to "save" him.  Revenge stems from bitterness and anger which is generally shorter-lived than hope.

 

I agree with you (and another interesting thought). 

 

The constant story-changing (including the fact that the place where it all happened is totally different to the one i saw on the earliest report i saw - the place they're showing now looks fairly nice, the one they showed initially looked like it MAYBE had a tap on the premises) does not surprise me.  I know i cannot and will not know the truth anyway.
 

And, that's interesting(reminds me of 9/11 winky.gif). Any links?(I haven't really been "following" this story.)



 



Quote:
Originally Posted by hakeber View Post





I am sure there were plans of all sorts. However, I find the release of this information to be conveniently timed and the details to be fishy as well.  I am dubious.

 

FWIW, I do not lead a depressing life.  I believe I lead a much happier life by not swallow every ounce of the BS the US media sells us.  I think I get a much more balanced view of the world when I do not write any group off as crazy, but carefully weigh all sides of an issue.

 

Any decent trial should have a prosecution and a defense.  In the US, and to a large extent the UK as well, there has been a trial by press and the prosecution's side has had a MUCH louder voice and an disproportionate amount of time to speak.  The defense has had to resort to alternative press and smaller press outlets, meaning their voice is hardly heard and often when it is is written off as lunacy.  I am lucky to live abroad and have access to so many different points of view and it definitely shapes my trust issues with the US government.

 

This article http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?267553 Chmosky has a lot to say on the matter of the media influence over the percpetions of Americans, and I have to say from my own observatiosn I whole heartedly agree with his take on matters.  The US has a free press, but the mainstream media does not exercise that right as we expect them to

 

 

 


yeahthat.gif

 

 

 

As a side note, I still find it really frustrating to be a Muslim in the US, in this age. Many of the Muslim organizations that I receive emails from have sent out their "official statement" on the assassination of OBL. The political correctness and genericness really bothers me(along with the fact that they felt the need to HAVE an official statement), because it only reinforces the idea that has been driven into my head that since I am a Muslim in the US, and since a lot of America thinks that Muslims are terrorists, I should be extra patriotic, because I have to prove that I am NOT a terrorist. I (along with most of my friends) have had more than our share of comments, so this really isn't coming from thin air. 

 

It's like this one gas station we have near our house, it is absolutely COVERED in american flags. There are at least 6 pumps, and flags on each pump, and on the store building too, along with stickers on the windows. Most of the arab/pakistani owned businesses have american flags, to make customers think they support the USA. (It's funny, because when we go somewhere new, and we see an american flag sticker, we are about 85% certain that the business will be muslim owned(and if it's not, it's a non-muslim arab, indopaki, or mexican, or an overzealous whiter-than-white-bread american patriot) Many of the (foreign) business owners DO love living in the USA(otherwise they wouldn't be here), and probably don't have any objection to being unconditional american patriots(some do, but most don't). But they ALL installed the flags/stickers, after 9/11, because they felt like they had to prove something. It really sucks.

 

An email I received today:

 

 The Michigan Muslim Democratic Caucus is heartened and relieved by the end of the era of  Osama Bin Laden. Ten years after 9/11, this is a seminal development that we hope will now allow our nation to heal and to appreciate that the Muslim community in America speaks for and represents itself and allow us to move forward as a collective society to address the many important challenges we face here in America such as social injustice, dwindling economic opportunity, inadequate education, and the need for effective access to healthcare.

 

 

 

post #316 of 412

Al Quada has stated that OBL is dead. Yes, they might be saying this to galvanize their own members, but they would be as effective if they announced we had tried and failed, etc.  

 

I do not swallow everything the media says; far from it. I lived through Hurricane Katrina. What I saw on the national news, particularly CNN, in the year following, dumbfounded me. 90% of what they reported wasn't accurate. They spun stories to reflect a belief, whether it was true or not. It is still happening almost 6 years later.

 

What bothers me is the way some people give credence to other countries' media as reliable sources of info- the tendency to automatically disbelieve anything from the US govt or media (when it counters a belief system), but if another country reports something different, they must be right. It's what I call the "Blame America first crowd." Nothing we do is right, everything others do is right.

 

I also find the conspiracy theories around 9/11 ironic. First, Bush is an idiot. Then he masterminded 9/11. Seriously????

post #317 of 412

mar123 - You bring up very good points. I did not like the media portrayal of Katrina or Bush's response. I also second what you've said about the media in other countries and America. I believe al Qaeda is sincere in their recent statement. And yes, Bush is an idiot. How could an idiot mastermind 911? That you point that out gives me second thoughts about that possibility. But not enough to make me certain that he had no part in it at all. Still..yes when you think of this obtuse man masterminding anything...it seems quite farfetched.

post #318 of 412

Pakistan was housing a terrorist...and probably had knowledge of it. If they didn't have knowledge, then they're incredibly incompetent seeing how close he was to several military installations. If they did have knowledge, they harbored a murderer and lied to the world about it. I recognize their sovereignty, but I don't think it reaches so far as to make it wrong for us to remove a murderer of thousands from their country, if they themselves are too incompetent to realize he's there or too dishonest and accepting of his violence to admit he's there. We didn't alert them and ask for permission because we realize this is either the result of dishonesty and incompetence, thus there was a chance they'd tip him off and let him escape. They are harboring a terrorist who killed thousands of citizens not just of America but of the entire world and destroyed buildings that the world had a stake in. Their sovereignty doesn't trump everything else at stake here.

post #319 of 412
Quote:
Originally Posted by moonfirefaery View Post

Pakistan was housing a terrorist...and probably had knowledge of it. If they didn't have knowledge, then they're incredibly incompetent seeing how close he was to several military installations. If they did have knowledge, they harbored a murderer and lied to the world about it. I recognize their sovereignty, but I don't think it reaches so far as to make it wrong for us to remove a murderer of thousands from their country, if they themselves are too incompetent to realize he's there or too dishonest and accepting of his violence to admit he's there. We didn't alert them and ask for permission because we realize this is either the result of dishonesty and incompetence, thus there was a chance they'd tip him off and let him escape. They are harboring a terrorist who killed thousands of citizens not just of America but of the entire world and destroyed buildings that the world had a stake in. Their sovereignty doesn't trump everything else at stake here.


This is the sticking point for me...because legally, yes it does.  Unless the law does not apply to the US?  The end result cannot be just if the means to get there were unjust.

 

post #320 of 412
Quote:
Originally Posted by mar123 View Post

Al Quada has stated that OBL is dead. Yes, they might be saying this to galvanize their own members, but they would be as effective if they announced we had tried and failed, etc.  

 

I do not swallow everything the media says; far from it. I lived through Hurricane Katrina. What I saw on the national news, particularly CNN, in the year following, dumbfounded me. 90% of what they reported wasn't accurate. They spun stories to reflect a belief, whether it was true or not. It is still happening almost 6 years later. Interesting, though I don't doubt it. Would you mind sharing?

 

What bothers me is the way some people give credence to other countries' media as reliable sources of info- the tendency to automatically disbelieve anything from the US govt or media (when it counters a belief system), but if another country reports something different, they must be right. It's what I call the "Blame America first crowd." Nothing we do is right, everything others do is right. I don't automatically believe anything that any government or media tells me. I always take it with a heaping pile of salt. 

 

I also find the conspiracy theories around 9/11 ironic. First, Bush is an idiot. Then he masterminded 9/11. Seriously????



 



Quote:
Originally Posted by moonfirefaery View Post

mar123 - You bring up very good points. I did not like the media portrayal of Katrina or Bush's response. I also second what you've said about the media in other countries and America. I believe al Qaeda is sincere in their recent statement. And yes, Bush is an idiot. How could an idiot mastermind 911? That you point that out gives me second thoughts about that possibility. But not enough to make me certain that he had no part in it at all. Still..yes when you think of this obtuse man masterminding anything...it seems quite farfetched.


I will say this: Bush is certainly an idiot, and I doubt he could have masterminded 9/11 OR keep it a secret. I doubt he was privy to much information about it(whether because it wasn't made available to him, or because he couldn't understand WHAT he was being told. But that doesn't mean that someone else didn't mastermind it on his behalf(or america's behalf, or whoever else stood to actually benefit from it.) 

 

Wouldn't it be HILARIOUS if it turned out that al-qaeda and the US gov were allies? in a terrifying kind of way.......... not so hilarious, really....

 



Quote:
Originally Posted by moonfirefaery View Post

Pakistan was housing a terrorist...and probably had knowledge of it. If they didn't have knowledge, then they're incredibly incompetent seeing how close he was to several military installations. If they did have knowledge, they harbored a murderer and lied to the world about it. I recognize their sovereignty, but I don't think it reaches so far as to make it wrong for us to remove a murderer of thousands from their country, if they themselves are too incompetent to realize he's there or too dishonest and accepting of his violence to admit he's there. We didn't alert them and ask for permission because we realize this is either the result of dishonesty and incompetence, thus there was a chance they'd tip him off and let him escape. They are harboring a terrorist who killed thousands of citizens not just of America but of the entire world and destroyed buildings that the world had a stake in. Their sovereignty doesn't trump everything else at stake here.


 

I can understand the bolded, and I agree with it to a point. Even if they didn't know about the whereabouts of OBL, they would have probably found some way to "screw it up" but I'm not really sure that the US didn't screw it up anyways, or that they even had a right to do what they did.

 

 

It's interesting, because it's hard to imagine that the US gov knew where he was, but PK didn't know, AND that the US managed to go in and "take him down" so easily, after supposing that he was running around in the mountains all this time. 

 

I'm in PK right now, a little ways outside of Islamabad. A neighboring city has a military base in it. We've gone into the most protected neighborhood in that city, an area where people who work for(but not in) the military and they checked under our front bumper with a mirror, and asked the driver for ID. That's it. Nobody else has to show ID. Nobody else has to even show their face. They don't check anything here unless they feel like it, or have reason to believe you're hiding something. There are police checkpoints in other areas too, all over the place, but the police don't usually check anything. There are also usually no women at the checkpoints, not that I've ever seen anyways, and it wouldn't have been difficult for him to wear afghani burka(a lot of women wear it here-it's not unusual) if he had to go through a checkpoint. Plus, bribes here work wonders--just pay off the policeman, and you're good to go. The gov didn't have to know anything, even if other people did know.


Edited by Amatullah0 - 5/6/11 at 12:15pm
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Activism and News