• Saik0A
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Listing data for 2023 as proof of me lying. Cute. How about going back a couple of years?

      Nothing in that link shows SWIFT blocked Cuba. Quite the contrary, I’ve done a relatively exhaustive search… SWIFT has NEVER blocked Cuba. So yes… you’re lying.

      tort law link

      In the common law of most English-speaking countries, there is no general duty to come to the rescue of another.[1]

      Literally the first line in regards to “common law system”.

      Remittance nonsense

      What does this have to do with anything? This doesn’t cover any point regarding any supposed “blockade” (contrarily proves there is no blockade). Doesn’t show that there’s some form of US stranglehold over Cuba (Contrarily shows that USD can make it’s way back to Cuba from Cuban migrants to the USA)… This is all evidence that you’re argument is bullshit.

      • Krause [he/him]@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Nothing in that link shows SWIFT blocked Cuba. Quite the contrary, I’ve done a relatively exhaustive search… SWIFT has NEVER blocked Cuba. So yes… you’re lying.

        Why are you so hell bent on defending the American empire against the Cuban people?

        No, you haven’t done a “relatively exhaustive search”, if you had you would have learned that SWIFT has indeed blocked Cuba in the past.

        https://www.dw.com/en/swift-could-slow-trumps-iran-sanctions/a-46119092

        Based in Belgium, SWIFT claims political neutrality, but has bowed to US influence in the past, blocking transactions to Cuba and Iran.

        The SWIFT software manual even admits to auto flagging payments that contain the word “Cuba” even if they’re not related to Cuba (the country) at all 🤣

        https://www.swift.com/sites/default/files/documents/swift_iso20022_thirdpartytoolkit_final.pdf (Page 13)

        In the MT example, it’s highly likely the payment would be one of the 10% typically stopped by a sanctions filter, triggering an investigation. This is because the word ‘Cuba’ appears in the name and address and it’s otherwise unclear where the payment is going.

        In the common law of most English-speaking countries, there is no general duty to come to the rescue of another.

        Demonic worldview, just because your law books used to legitimize slavery would you also practice it?

        • Saik0A
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          10
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Why are you so hell bent on defending the American empire against the Cuban people?

          I actually don’t particularly care… I just hate looking at these shitty arguments on the topic. When it’s so easily refuted.

          No, you haven’t done a “relatively exhaustive search”, if you had you would have learned that SWIFT has indeed blocked Cuba in the past.

          Oh shit… so we’ve got one instance 22 years ago… And we’re harping on it still today? Are you shitting me?

          The SWIFT software manual even admits to auto flagging payments that contain the word “Cuba” even if they’re not related to Cuba (the country) at all 🤣

          Every financial institution is required to make sure that they’re not violations of actual sanctions/embargos. Also… notice that this says “Investigation” not block. eg… Swift would then have to check that the transaction isn’t with a US-based or US vested company.

          Demonic worldview, just because your law books used to legitimize slavery would you also practice it?

          Nope, but I feel it’s a worse violation of rights to mandate that people do something. I’d rather live somewhere where people are willingly helpful. But you don’t get there by mandating it… Nor do you get there by demanding that “help” under the guise of stating that someone is committing literal genocide, when they’re factually not. Accepting the premise of this “article” is literally the “demonic worldview” to me.

        • Saik0A
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          11
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yeah… I should probably stop.

          I kind of have a thing where I can help but put the blatant evidence out there that breaks their whole argument in front of them. I like to watch the meltdown…

          Them: “There’s a blockade!!!”… Me:“So where’s the ships?” Sort of thing…