Anti Gov Quotes

On January 17, 1991 and for the 43 days that followed, I watched CNN’s live coverage of SCUD missiles and bombs fall over Baghdad like rain; then the 12 ½ years of unjust sanctions that killed approximately a million Iraqis, half of which were children under the age of five; then an unjust attack in 2003 that opened the borders to terrorists from all over the world and reduced the cradle of civilization to piles of rubble. The gov. asked us to support their plan or else be considered anti-American and undemocratic and they ask of us the same today, 25 years later, even though history proved they were pro-profit not pro-life.

While the US stumped for the Bosnians, Russians defended the interests of Milošević (as distinct from the Bosnian Serb leader) and Germans supported Croats. .....Srebrenica itself was indefensible as Izetbegović admitted to a senior UN official 22 Sep 1994. ....Silajdžić indicated that if the Serbs traded Sarajevo for the enclaves he would be prepared to go to Srebrenica and explain to the people that they had to leave. ....The envoy said Izetbegović was ready to discuss a trade-off of the eastern enclaves for Sarajevo on the condition that Milošević was prepared to recognize BiH. Although the Bosnian government and Western gov all privately admitted that ultimately Srebrenica and Žepa would go to the Serbs, no government was prepared to be seen publicly making territorial deals with the Serbs. After all, would not such a move be perceived as a rewarding of the ethnic cleansing and aggression? Dilemma was especially acute for countries where public opinion was strongly anti-Serbian - post pointedly the US, Germany and NL. .... Clinton administration in particular did not want to be publicly associated with any diplomatic proposal that ceded the enclaves to the Serbs.

Where & How to Buy Verified PayPal Accounts: Country-wise Rules — What’s Legal ➥➥If you want to more information just contact now. ➥➥ 24 Hours Reply/Contact ➥➤ WhatsApp:+1(272)4173584 ➥➤ Telegram:@seo2smm0 ➥➤Email: supportseo2smm@gmail.com Executive summary Buying or selling someone else’s verified payment account contradicts the trust model of modern payments. Payment providers bind identity to accounts to prevent fraud, money-laundering, and financial crime; circumventing that binding is a red flag in nearly every jurisdiction. Across major markets—North America, the European Union, the United Kingdom, India, the Gulf, and parts of Africa—anti-money-laundering (AML) and know-your-customer (KYC) rules tighten the legal exposure of anyone who transacts through accounts divorced from their legitimate owner. Platforms like PayPal expressly forbid transferring or selling accounts without prior, documented consent and often reserve the right to freeze or reclaim accounts that appear misused. (PayPal) This article explains why that is so, outlines the statutory and platform reasons why buying accounts is dangerous or illegal country by country, and offers lawful alternatives for achieving verified payment capability. The universal baseline: platforms, KYC and AML Before diving into national differences, note two nearly universal rules: Payment platforms’ user agreements bind an account to a named individual or legal entity; transfers or sales typically breach those agreements. PayPal’s user contract is explicit about account control and residency requirements and empowers the company to take corrective action. (PayPal) National AML/KYC frameworks require financial service providers (and many fintechs) to identify and verify beneficial owners and to report suspicious activity. These regulatory frameworks mean that accounts without proper, traceable ownership are likely to trigger investigations, freezes, and legal exposure for people who use them knowingly or unknowingly. (FinCEN.gov) Taken together, platform rules plus public law make the market for bought accounts risky, fragile, and often unlawful. United States — strict enforcement and criminal exposure In the U.S., AML obligations derive from statutes such as the Bank Secrecy Act and are enforced by agencies including FinCEN and federal prosecutors. Firms that fail to comply with registration and reporting requirements face civil fines and criminal penalties; individuals implicated in schemes to obscure beneficial ownership or to traffic in payment credentials can face prosecution. The regulatory apparatus also supports vigorous private enforcement and platform-level security measures. (FinCEN.gov) Practical implication: purchasing a verified PayPal account in order to receive or move funds risks account reclamation, frozen funds, suspicious activity reports, civil suits, and potentially criminal exposure—particularly where the account was verified with fraudulent or stolen documents. Safe alternatives in the U.S.: complete platform KYC; set up an LLC or corporation and open a business payment account; use authorized merchant services or payment facilitators; consult a payments-law attorney. United Kingdom — FCA oversight and money-laundering rules The UK’s regulatory framework emphasizes due diligence and risk-based controls for payment and e-money services. Firms must comply with the Money Laundering Regulations and are supervised by the FCA and other bodies. Regulators also scrutinize financial exclusion practices, but that does not mean bypassing KYC is legal—rather, it signals that authorities want firms to find compliant ways to serve legitimate but underserved customers. (FCA) Practical implication: buying an account sidesteps those safeguards and may expose both buyer and seller to regulatory action. Because the FCA focuses on systemic integrity,