30 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

As I said, they likely knew the money was on the way, yes? 

 

And surly you agree the spending on the has only started, yes? 

 

And that now all that money is available for "humanitarian" aid, which frees up more money the help hamas eradicate the Jews. 

 

I'll concede that Joe Biden is the greatest President in American history, but do you want to respond or not? It's not just the money, it's also the Afghanistan debacle, Ukraine weapons , and the fact that the current administration is much friendlier and accommodating to Iran and Palestine than the previous administration was/would have been. 

 

Incidentally, I was pleasantly surprised at how strongly President Biden came out against hamas, and was disappointed with Trump's dumbass response.

 

 

You are grasping at straws.

 

This was planned long ago. There would be no reliance of funds that might or might not be released in the future. And anyway, there was no need for the 'released' funds in order to carry out the attack.

 

I don't think Biden is a great President, so 'concede' doesn't come into it. Not sure why you think that addressing a specific point related to the topic implies all-things-Biden must be addressed as well.

4 minutes ago, Morch said:

You are grasping at straws.

 

This was planned long ago. There would be no reliance of funds that might or might not be released in the future. And anyway, there was no need for the 'released' funds in order to carry out the attack.

 

I don't think Biden is a great President, so 'concede' doesn't come into it. Not sure why you think that addressing a specific point related to the topic implies all-things-Biden must be addressed as well.

Is it your position that the money did not, and will not help Iran fund hamas and hezbollah? 

 

Surly you agree the spending on the has only started, yes? 

 

And money is NOW available for "humanitarian" aid, which frees up more money the help hamas eradicate the Jews, correct? 

 

And It's not just the money, it's also the Afghanistan debacle, Ukraine weapons , and the fact that the current administration is much friendlier and accommodating to Iran and Palestine than the previous administration was/would have been, correct? 

 

 

8 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Is it your position that the money did not, and will not help Iran fund hamas and hezbollah? 

 

Surly you agree the spending on the has only started, yes? 

 

And money is NOW available for "humanitarian" aid, which frees up more money the help hamas eradicate the Jews, correct? 

 

And It's not just the money, it's also the Afghanistan debacle, Ukraine weapons , and the fact that the current administration is much friendlier and accommodating to Iran and Palestine than the previous administration was/would have been, correct? 

 

 

 

No, my position was limited to the relevance of the funds 'released' to the recent attack.

 

I have no idea what, exactly, the 'released' funds will be used for. I don't think that they will be specifically allocated to one thing  (as in, all being used for terrorism etc.). Presenting it like that is misleading.

 

You're overestimating how much this attack should have cost, it's speck on Iran's national budget.

 

I don't know how 'friendly' comes into it. American foreign policy is about interests. IMO, USA interests were not positively served by Trump's policies in the ME (and Israel's as well).

25 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

No, my position was limited to the relevance of the funds 'released' to the recent attack.

 

I have no idea what, exactly, the 'released' funds will be used for. I don't think that they will be specifically allocated to one thing  (as in, all being used for terrorism etc.). Presenting it like that is misleading.

What the spicific funds are used for does not really make any difference. I one gives money to the ku-klux-klan, but stipulates the money only be used for office supplies, it still helps the KKK fund their other operations. 

25 minutes ago, Morch said:

You're overestimating how much this attack should have cost, it's speck on Iran's national budget.

No I am not. The monetary cost of the attack is not significant in comparison to what the overall monetary cost will be when it is all said and done. It is only starting. 

25 minutes ago, Morch said:

I don't know how 'friendly' comes into it. American foreign policy is about interests. IMO, USA interests were not positively served by Trump's policies in the ME (and Israel's as well).

And they are better served now? 

 

You were against the Abraham Accords?

23 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

What the spicific funds are used for does not really make any difference. I one gives money to the ku-klux-klan, but stipulates the money only be used for office supplies, it still helps the KKK fund their other operations. 

No I am not. The monetary cost of the attack is not significant in comparison to what the overall monetary cost will be when it is all said and done. It is only starting. 

And they are better served now? 

 

You were against the Abraham Accords?

Well, with regard to the monies, I'll have to disagree with what I see as a weak argument, which there's no concrete way of supporting.

 

The current administration's ME policy had to contend with Trump's legacy - renovations and salvage work at progress, is my take, and during a storm to boot. It's better, IMO, than Trump's in the sense that it's more constant. Trump's was unpredictable, which regardless of what some might think, is not usually a good thing. See his recent comments on the situation at hand, for example.

 

I was for the Abraham Accords, without exaggerating their significance. 

 

 

 

On 10/12/2023 at 6:51 PM, NickyLouie said:

When you have a cancer do you leave a little bit when inside cutting?

Usually better to blast and burn the entire body?

What exactly does Benjamin Netanyahu 's nickname "Bibi 'mean ?

13 minutes ago, Jim Blue said:

What exactly does Benjamin Netanyahu 's nickname "Bibi 'mean ?

Nothing much, I think. In Hebrew Benjamin will be pronounced Binyamin.

2 hours ago, Morch said:

Well, with regard to the monies, I'll have to disagree with what I see as a weak argument, which there's no concrete way of supporting.

 

The current administration's ME policy had to contend with Trump's legacy - renovations and salvage work at progress, is my take, and during a storm to boot. It's better, IMO, than Trump's in the sense that it's more constant. Trump's was unpredictable, which regardless of what some might think, is not usually a good thing. See his recent comments on the situation at hand, for example.

 

I was for the Abraham Accords, without exaggerating their significance. 

 

 

 

Arguing giving money to Iran will help them is a weak argument? 

 

That's hilarious. 

 

5 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Arguing giving money to Iran will help them is a weak argument? 

 

That's hilarious. 

 

Yes. Because it doesn't say much about what things the money is used for, what value it represents, and how much of it goes to whom. There's no indication of how significant is the sum in question vs. Iran's annual budget, for example.

 

This topic deals with the current situation, ie the Hamas attack. The issue of the 'released' funds was brought up (rightly or not) in that context. I have already addressed the point of this 'release' not being directly tied to the attack. You now seek to expand the argument further, and way beyond the scope of my comments.

 

Hilarious to think Iran's actions and options rely on the monies referred to. They managed quite fine in doing all sort of stuff even during Trump's term as well.

2 hours ago, Morch said:

Yes. Because it doesn't say much about what things the money is used for, what value it represents, and how much of it goes to whom. There's no indication of how significant is the sum in question vs. Iran's annual budget, for example.

 

This topic deals with the current situation, ie the Hamas attack. The issue of the 'released' funds was brought up (rightly or not) in that context. I have already addressed the point of this 'release' not being directly tied to the attack. You now seek to expand the argument further, and way beyond the scope of my comments.

 

Hilarious to think Iran's actions and options rely on the monies referred to. They managed quite fine in doing all sort of stuff even during Trump's term as well.

That's what I thought, thanks!