Since it is more than clear to most Americans at this point that America's continued presence in the Middle East in both Iraq and Afghanistan is not at all primarily as a response and defensive mission with respect to the attacks on this country by Osama bin Laden and the Taliban in September 2001, but for purely economic reasons - i.e., oil and the "jobs and the economies" of selected government military contractors, I recently stumbled across some rather interesting facts which has complicated my theories about why we are continuing to fight this "no win" war against an enemy whose entire belief system is based upon martyrdom for their cause, and also the silence in the media for now six long years in the amount of civilian and other casualities which have been the result of this engagement.

After discovering this new information, my views on the absurdity of the continuation of U.S. involvement in the Middle East outside capturing bin Laden became even more pronounced.

I had believed that the U.S. did intend to redress 9/11 bringing bin Laden and all who may have been directly involved to justice even after the lie of weapons of mass destruction was revealed. I also believed that the recent crisis in Gaza were separate and isolated events involving two different hot spot issues, and two splinter terrorist organiations. However, after my research my questions changed to (1) Is it possible that the gist of the ongoing strife in the Middle East as also exhibited by the recent bombings in Gaza could be much more complex than simple disputes over land and territory? (2) Could it be also that there are fundamental religious differences that impact the economy of these countries that make any resolution or compromise tenuous at best, and that the U.S.'s support for Israel, right or wrong, might have also a self-serving aspect to it for not simply needed oil, but further economic reasons due to Washington's shift from "national" interests to an increasingly "global" one per the One World Government agendas of the CFR and UN's Resolutions?

In researching the current financial collapse and banking crisis in the United States, and the amounts of rising banking interests rates in this country due in large part to lack of any adequate regulation at either the federal or state level of banking practices in this country, I came across some interesting information from Wiki. It involved interest rates made between creditors and debtors, the fundamental history of which lie also in religion and the differences between Christians, Jews and Muslims with respect to usury (or "use" fees, i.e., interest) for borrowed monies.

It appears that the collection of usury on loans or debts has always had a rather contentious past in all three religions insofar as whether it should be charged at all on borrowed sums from banking institutions, or if so, the amounts and whether or not if the principal amounts are repaid, the usury amount remaining is still a true "debt," once that principal is repaid in the event of bankruptcy. In the U.S., interest rates on credit debt were routinely written off or slashed in federal bankruptcy court actions.

This was the case until several years ago the corporate banking attorneys lobbied for and were successful in getting the U.S. bankruptcy laws changed in order to make such write offs much more difficult. This was attempted under the Clinton Administration, very much a pro-Israel Administration but failed.

And yet, this year petitioned our Congress for their own "bankruptcy" bailout instead at the American people's expense. This fundamental bankruptcy code revision two years ago with respect to credit outstanding has further increased their profits and reduced their risks, while making citizen bankruptcy actions inordinately expensive and so complex at this point it takes the assistance of an attorney to muddle through from those who I have spoken with who have since gone through the process.

This revision was tossed around as indicated in the Clinton Administration before Bush, but Bush was a busy man and a great many monumental revisions in Washington occurred during his administration. Banks in this country now, if delinquent, in some states can raise interest rates, and in addition can and have assessed late charges and over limit fees on credit debt. In addition, it was only the past 10 years or so during the housing boom and post Keating that these creative ARMs were sold to homeowners, many of which were based on London LIBOR market rates exclusively instead of being based on U.S. prime which has also been a contributing factor in all the recent foreclosures left unsaid by the press.

Many were "usury only" or "interest only" loans, in effect merely a "use" right and not property purchase at all. Indy Mac, one such lender which went under used the London market for many loans.

The most interesting fact in my research was that under Muslim law and in Muslim countries, there are no "usury" rates per se as it is forbidden due to their religious beliefs. This would and could present a problem in countries such as Israel where the banks would charge fees on borrowed sums that the Muslim community would find religiously intolerable, and an abomination on their religious beliefs. Thus, the Muslim community have established their own banks inside Israel.

There was also an article recently in Reuters with respect to the largest Islamic bank in Gaza being caught in the middle of the conflict there with respect to suspected monies which Israel claimed may be in their bank and being deposited and held for or on behalf of Hamas members. The U.S. also joined Israel in placing pressure on the Islamic banks to cease any and all transactions for or with Hamas, as did the international banking community.

There has been much publicized recently in the past several years since the first Bush Administration about a "One World Government," and the global economy, with an eventual centralized bank in this global socialistic ideal. The ownership of most of the major banking institututions are held by Jewish banking houses, the result of the historic religious disparities between the three major religions with respect to usury, both the Christian and Islamic faiths opposing usury on religious grounds, which then forced the original Israelites and the modern day Jews to serve as the "moneychangers" and "tax collectors" in days of old.

As time passed in this country, due to the separation of church and state provisions of our Constitution and granting to our Congress the power to issue and regulate our coin and currency (this was the church's job in ancient history), those Christian "usury" objections and/or rates were left primarily to the states to determine and not the federal government.

Thus, the "legal interest rate" may be different from one state to another. The only legislation at the federal level has been with respect to federally chartered savings and loans, and installment companies which were exempted from usury restrictions as "private" contracts, not regulated at all. Which is why you will find a great number of credit card companies and banks incorporated in states with higher legal interest rates. Late payment fees and increases in usury or interest rates are now added on top of the original usury rates for delinquencies as stated above, plus also many times reductions occur in the credit lines themselves. A triple whammy profit for one late payment is pretty profitable for the bankers. And until I believe a recent class action suit, after reducing credit lines of late payees, many banks were then assessing overlimit fees which they themselves manipulated after reducing the credit lines on delinquent accounts.

The founder's would be apalled at the "loan shark" rates now charged by many U.S. banks and their total "usury" rates and fees, as not "Christian" at all.

It was telling and enlightening to read that since the Islamic faith at this point is the only faith that has strict religious prohibitions against usury contrary to the practices of all the private international banking communities with the exception of their own Islamic banks, the continued strife in the Middle East appears far more complex in the religious disparities than simply territorial disputes, nor would they be willing participants in any global world government dependent upon a non-Muslim centralized global banking system.

Below is the relevant information from Wiki, followed by the link to the article recently published in Reuters and the Islamic bank in Gaza:.

USURY RATES IN THE UNITED STATES:

Each U.S.state has its own statute which dictates how much interest can be charged before it is considered usurious or unlawful.

If a lender charges above the lawful interest rate, a court will not allow the lender to sue to recover the debt because the interest rate was illegal anyway. In some states (such as New York) such loans are voided ab-initio[18]

However, there are separate rules applied to most banks. The U.S. Supreme Court held unanimously in the 1978 Marquette Nat. Bank of Minneapolis v. First of Omaha Service Corp. case that the National Banking Act of 1863 allowed nationally-chartered banks to charge the legal rate of interest in their state regardless of the borrower's state of residence.[19] In 1980, due to inflation, Congress passed the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act exempting federally chartered savings banks, installment plan sellers and chartered loan companies from state usury limits . This effectively overrode all state and local usury laws.[20][21] The 1968 Truth in Lending Act does not regulate rates, except in the cases of some mortgages, but it does require uniform or standardized disclosure of costs and charges.[22]

Avoidance mechanisms

Interest-free banks

The JAK members bank represents an example of how it is possible to create a usury-free saving and loaning system, offering a feasible financial tool to all its members. Other examples of interest-free banking come from the Islamic banking used in the Muslim world.

Islamic banking

Main article: Islamic banking

In a partnership or joint venture where money is lent, the creditor only provides the capital yet is guaranteed a fixed amount of profit. The debtor, however, puts in time and effort, but is made to bear the risk of loss. Muslim scholars argue that such practice is unjust.[23] As an alternative to usury, Islam strongly encourages charity and direct investment in which the debtor shares whatever profit or loss the business may incur.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSL30214571