Tag Archives: banks

s_i11_19021847

Time to sue Henry Ford for complicity in car bombings

There’s an absolute stinker of an article in today’s New York Times, emotively talking up an terrible lawsuit. When stripped of irrelevant interviews with soldiers’ widows and scary quotes from showboating neoconservative lawyers, here’s the actual story.

The US didn’t take the news very well when its puppet state in Iran had a revolution in 1979. The affront was exacerbated by Iranian revolutionaries’ decision, after the US gave asylum to their murderous and corrupt ex-Shah, to take the remaining US diplomats in Iran hostage. This created a diplomatic crisis which wasn’t resolved until 1981 [1], and more importantly made the US look silly and impotent.

As a direct result, the US government, much as with the Cuban regime that followed a similar drill 20 years previously, has a hatred for Iran that far exceeds its actual wrongdoing [2]. This includes the (completely lawful, although ridiculous) imposition of sanctions on US companies trading in Iran, and the (questionably lawful, and ridiculous) imposition of sanctions on foreign companies trading in Iran.

So banks in Europe – in this suit, HSBC, Barclays, Standard Chartered, the Royal Bank of Scotland and Credit Suisse – continued to trade with companies in Iran. Whether or not you like its current rulers [3], Iran is a nation state with a better human rights and terrorism funding record than many US allies (notably Saudi Arabia, which funded Al Qaeda and the exceptionally inept Islamic State) and non-enemies (China still leads the world in executions). There are no moral grounds for claiming that westerners trading with Iran are more complicit in evil than the westerners who traded with authoritarian China to make the device that you’re reading this on [4].

Next up, in 2003, US launched a humanitarian mission to neighbouring Iraq. You may have heard of it, somewhere, along the way. I chose the picture at the top of this post to remind us all of the mission’s humanitarian nature.

The Iranian government reacted to the collapse of its Iraqi enemy by funding Shia militias (many of which were also funded by the US government at various points, and without which the Sunni militias who later became Islamic State would have been unopposed in ethnically cleansing the Shia). In the course of the humanitarian mission, quite a few US servicemen, who had previously volunteered to sign up and fight whenever the US decided to have a humanitarian mission, were killed or wounded [5], some by Shia militias.

Now, the families of some of these people (the American volunteers, obviously, not the Iraqi victims) are trying to sue the European banks who traded with normal companies in Iran, on the basis that somewhere down the line, the money that was traded might have found its way via the government into the Shia militias’ pockets. As Dsquared notes on Twitter, this is roughly equivalent to suing Kellogg’s because the July 7 bombers had Coco Pops for breakfast, or suing Henry Ford because you were blown up by a car bomber in a Cortina.

One of the piece of evidence in the lawsuit, gleefully seized upon by the New York Times as highlighting the banks’ depravity, is a quote that actually highlights the opposite:

The Times’s editorialising here is a great illustration of the US’s total vanity. Its leading centre-left news outlet – and quite possibly its courts, who ruled for the plaintiffs in a similar, although less farcically indirect case – simply don’t understand that they aren’t the God-ordained rulers of the rest of the world.

[1] Possibly delayed due to incoming president Reagan’s backroom deal with Iran, although I’m sceptical he was bright enough to pull off quite such an intricate conspiracy.

[2] A hatred which has more or less guaranteed the survival of the unpleasant regimes in both countries by undermining local opposition and providing the ruling party with a plethora of patriotic rallying opportunities.

[3] Although if you do like Iran’s current rulers, it seems likely that you are a fairly terrible person.

[4] If you’re reading this on a device which has no components manufactured in authoritarian China, then I am very impressed by your dedication.

[5] Alongside several orders of magnitude more Iraqis, who hadn’t been quite so blessed with the opportunity to choose.

How dare you provide me with goods and services

B3ta’s Question of the Week is on banks and banking. Oddly enough, the consensus is ‘against’. However, someone called ‘Star Wars’ has a rather nice post going against said consensus, which distills most (not all) complaints that people make about retail banks and penalty charges:

I opened a bank account once in the full and reasonable expectation that the banking system existed entirely for my benefit. Because of this, I didn’t bother reading the paperwork I’d signed; nor did I take much notice about my credit cards, overdraft limit, or anything else like that. After all, when the banking system is designed around your personal needs, desires and proclivities, it’s up to the banks to keep up with you.

Or me, in this case.

So I am, of course, full of righteous indignation about the manner in which these huge corporations have utterly failed to give their undivided attention to me, and – worse – the way in which they have utterly failed to read my mind and sort out all my banking requirements on my behalf without my even having to ask them.

I’m also disgusted by the way that these businesses seem to think that they can behave as though it’s important to make a profit. What temerity! What kind of world is it when a bank thinks that it exists to sell goods and services and make money from those sales, just like any other business? After all, I think we’ve already established that the system is for MY benefit, and mine alone. I think it’s disgusting that they should be able to charge me fees just because I really can’t be bothered to look after my own finances. It’s not as if I get anything in return (except interest on my savings and access to loans when I need them – but they don’t count).

I’m steaming with rage about the way in which, that time when the ATM went mad and doled out free £20 notes, I had to repay what I’d been given by accident.

Personally, I blame the Illuminati, the Bildeberg Group (I don’t know what this is, but I’ve heard of it, and it sounds sinister) and the Jews.

Yes, I know that banks can sometimes mess up, lose thousands of pounds of your money, and leave you in the utter shit. This is entirely bad, even though such events are normally sorted out pretty quickly.

However, nearly all the stick they get isn’t from people like that: it’s from people who can’t be bothered to check whether they’re over their overdraft limit, and/or who’ve borrowed silly amounts of money so they can go to Ibiza and have a big TV…

Update note: this isn’t sticking up for investment banks, or mortgage banks who were busted by their innovative financing models. Nor is it criticising people who are angry as taxpayers about the money channelled into banking. That’s fair and right. Blaming the bank when you spend money you’ve not got isn’t.