• Saik0@lemmy.saik0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      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
        0
        ·
        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?