2 minutes ago, Mike030270 said:

 

And to think, all this could have been avoided by simply passing on mass murder and mayhem.  Ya think maybe some over there are having second thoughts about what they did?  Ya think?

Money by its nature is fungible. It's literally its primary feature.

Even if you earmark, track, and guarantee that specific funds given to Iran or Palestine are used for humanitarian purposes, that funding frees up whatever funds those nations might have otherwise committed to those same causes.

Probably nothing close to 1-to-1, but it has an effect.

If somebody comes into my life and says "I'll pay all your food bills," and I happen to be a psychopath who wants to take down the local government, I'm gonna have that much more money to spend at the guns and ammo shop.

That money was meant to foster a relationship with the US as a matter of diplomacy. To keep the door and a dialog open, and strengthen our level of influence in the region.

Certain presidents squandered that, but that's a separate discussion. 

The general point I'm making is that any level of financial aid, even if it's spent on the intended resources and not directly tied to terrorism, is going to ultimately help free up funds for whatever.

 

29 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said:

Well, that’s not really true. Not sure you’re fully thinking this through if you think the planning is cheap.  There’s the acquisition of all the munitions used for the attack.  There’s the payments for the recruiting, maintenance, and training of the people that are to be taking place in the attack. And as this was a secret attack, there was most likely extra money spent on keeping people’s mouths shut for the past two years.  

 

Most things are "planned” before the financing gets involved. And of course, as repeatedly stated, we gave them billions before it.

2 hours ago, Procus said:

And to think, all this could have been avoided by simply passing on mass murder and mayhem.  Ya think maybe some over there are having second thoughts about what they did?  Ya think?

Mess with the Bull and you get the horns? Perpetrators of crimes face asymmetric reprisal? Leaders didn't give a crap about what would happen to their people because they want to use their senseless deaths as political capital on the world stage? Or. Maybe we just didn't think this through? I  think the answer is, "Never Again" and you might have to have been to Israel to understand that core expression of the culture. 

9 hours ago, DrPhilly said:

Yes, I’m pretty careful normally and surely there is some hard core sensational propaganda material being pushed but this does look to be more raw and gruesome than normal. As always we need to stay patient and allow time for a clear picture to arise. 

Yeah, I'm not into graphic videos, but I like to watch stuff published by thise on the ground to avoid the propaganda like you said. Some of it this time has been too much. You can't unsee or unhear what has been distributed since Saturday. Biden is right there is one side with this.

9 hours ago, DrPhilly said:

Yeah, I'm not really sure I understand what they were after.  I'm reading stuff now that just seems to be on another level even for terrorists.  Its off the charts.

Lot of things flying around about bigger players being involved, but at the end of the day it is hard to make sense of pure evil. You are right it is off the charts. Their humanity is dead inside, and they need to be taken to the train station to quote Yellowstone. 

9 hours ago, Dave Moss said:

 

Triggered you! Too funny. 
 

btw - Thanks for all your contributions of wisdom in this thread.

3 hours ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

Money by its nature is fungible. It's literally its primary feature.

Even if you earmark, track, and guarantee that specific funds given to Iran or Palestine are used for humanitarian purposes, that funding frees up whatever funds those nations might have otherwise committed to those same causes.

Probably nothing close to 1-to-1, but it has an effect.

If somebody comes into my life and says "I'll pay all your food bills," and I happen to be a psychopath who wants to take down the local government, I'm gonna have that much more money to spend at the guns and ammo shop.

That money was meant to foster a relationship with the US as a matter of diplomacy. To keep the door and a dialog open, and strengthen our level of influence in the region.

Certain presidents squandered that, but that's a separate discussion. 

The general point I'm making is that any level of financial aid, even if it's spent on the intended resources and not directly tied to terrorism, is going to ultimately help free up funds for whatever.

 

@Toastrel

One observation is that early on during the incursion Hamas had the initiative. They were beating multiple companies of IDF. Instead of conducting a pursuit or consolidating their gains, they lost the initiative. How did they lose it? Stopping their attack to rape, kill, and kidnap civilians. 
 

Usually when a fighting force is inept, it is so because of a broad lack of skill in the individual soldier (usually ish training) or a lack of skill in the commander (usually Peter principle or just outright a lack of smarts). In their case they lost it because they couldn’t help from being barbaric. 

7 hours ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

Money by its nature is fungible. It's literally its primary feature.

Even if you earmark, track, and guarantee that specific funds given to Iran or Palestine are used for humanitarian purposes, that funding frees up whatever funds those nations might have otherwise committed to those same causes.

Probably nothing close to 1-to-1, but it has an effect.

If somebody comes into my life and says "I'll pay all your food bills," and I happen to be a psychopath who wants to take down the local government, I'm gonna have that much more money to spend at the guns and ammo shop.

That money was meant to foster a relationship with the US as a matter of diplomacy. To keep the door and a dialog open, and strengthen our level of influence in the region.

Certain presidents squandered that, but that's a separate discussion. 

The general point I'm making is that any level of financial aid, even if it's spent on the intended resources and not directly tied to terrorism, is going to ultimately help free up funds for whatever.

 

This attack, which was clearly well planned and funded, had to have already been in motion when the Iran funds in Qatar were agreed to be released. I find it weird that people insist on conflating the two.

 

You can certainly say the money can free up funds for future attacks, and I agree 100%. I am still okay with the deal, I prefer to have the Americans freed.

42 minutes ago, Toastrel said:

You can certainly say the money can free up funds for future attacks, and I agree 100%. I am still okay with the deal, I prefer to have the Americans freed.

There are other options to do that. 

19 minutes ago, Bill said:

There are other options to do that. 

I do hope you are in contact with the powers that be to enlighten them on your options.

5 hours ago, DrPhilly said:

Triggered you! Too funny. 
 

btw - Thanks for all your contributions of wisdom in this thread.

Thanks.  Your posts are helpful too

 

1 hour ago, Toastrel said:

This attack, which was clearly well planned and funded, had to have already been in motion when the Iran funds in Qatar were agreed to be released. I find it weird that people insist on conflating the two.

 

You can certainly say the money can free up funds for future attacks, and I agree 100%. I am still okay with the deal, I prefer to have the Americans freed.

Sure. Drawing a line from those funds isn't sensible. I'm just stating facts so that we are suitably wary when we deliver resources for "humanitarian purposes" and their overall impact. 

Whether it's worth the Americans being freed is up to each individual's calculus. I'm certainly happy to have them freed. Whether it's worth the price remains to be seen.

Had the middle east ended up being devoid of oil or other resources needed by advanced economies, all this would be playing out so differently.

1 minute ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

Sure. Drawing a line from those funds isn't sensible. I'm just stating facts so that we are suitably wary when we deliver resources for "humanitarian purposes" and their overall impact. 

Whether it's worth the Americans being freed is up to each individual's calculus. I'm certainly happy to have them freed. Whether it's worth the price remains to be seen.

Had the middle east ended up being devoid of oil or other resources needed by advanced economies, all this would be playing out so differently.

I agree with all you said. I just disagree with those drawing that line.

This is world politics. Carrots and sticks. I don't like the idea of paying off kidnappers, but I like the idea of dead Americans less.

If it was my child or sibling (the ones I like - they can have a certain a-hole, if they can stand him) I would pay a ransom.

Quote

Hostages from European countries known to pay ransoms are more likely to be released. Hostages from countries such as Austria, France, Germany, Spain, and Switzerland are far more likely to be freed, even when they are held by the terrorist groups that are most likely to murder their hostages. Eighty-one percent of European Union hostages held by jihadist terrorist groups were freed, compared to 25 percent for the United States and 33 percent for the United Kingdom ⁶

Citizens of countries that make concessions such as ransom payments do not appear to be kidnapped at disproportionately high rates. There is no clear link between a nation’s ransom policy and the number of its citizens taken hostage. The United States had the most hostages taken since 2001 with 225, followed by Italy with 148, France with 143, and the United Kingdom with 137. Kidnappings are driven primarily by conditions of general instability in countries such as Iraq, Syria and Yemen, rather than by the targeting of particular nationalities. 

American and British citizens taken hostage by al-Qaeda and ISIS fare worse than continental Europeans taken hostage by these groups. Of the 130 Westerners kidnapped by al-Qaeda and its affiliates, more than three-quarters were freed. Only two of the eight Americans taken by these groups were freed. Three were murdered, one was killed in a U.S. drone strike, one was killed during a rescue attempt, and one remains in captivity. 

 

 

 

6 hours ago, DrPhilly said:

Triggered you! Too funny. 
 

btw - Thanks for all your contributions of wisdom in this thread.

 

43 minutes ago, Dave Moss said:

Thanks.  Your posts are helpful too

 

Will you two just F and get it over with already

44 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

 

Had the middle east ended up being devoid of oil or other resources needed by advanced economies, all this would be playing out so differently.

So what you are saying is, I’m pretty much a hero and champion for peace in the Middle East. 

 

29 minutes ago, paco said:

 

Will you two just F and get it over with already

dude, i been suggesting that since the new board started. if anything there's a good hate F in there. 

1 hour ago, Toastrel said:

I do hope you are in contact with the powers that be to enlighten them on your options.

Looks something like this. 

If Hamas had done this to Russia, Putin would level the city and wouldn't care about civilian deaths. He proved as much in Ukraine. 

Israel goes out of its way to limit civilian deaths. Telling the people to get out before they attack.

Hamas launches rockets next to schools. Israel attacks the terrorists and the school gets damaged and then Israel gets blamed for war crimes. The U.N. Is a tool of the Arabs.

 

1 minute ago, jsdarkstar said:

If Hamas had done this to Russia, Putin would level the city and wouldn't care about civilian deaths. He proved as much in Ukraine. 

Israel goes out of its way to limit civilian deaths. Telling the people to get out before they attack.

Hamas launches rockets next to schools. Israel attacks the terrorists and the school gets damaged and then Israel gets blamed for war crimes. The U.N. Is a tool of the Arabs.

 

Absolutely. Israel gives away any tactical advantage by announcing the target of their strikes in an effort to protect civilian lives, giving Hamas warning to relocate their critical military assets and personnel, and Israel still gets blamed for any civilians that perish or are wounded. All the whole Hamas is capturing Israeli citizens, targeting schools and hospitals, etc. absolutley horrific response on a world stage, and it is repeated with every escalation throughout history. 

The Palestinian supporters are always quick to blame Israel for killing civilians yet they never hold Hamas to the same standard. Hamas is free to slaughter women and children the defenders don't blame them for it. 

1 hour ago, paco said:

So what you are saying is, I’m pretty much a hero and champion for peace in the Middle East. 

 

you and 3YearLetterman will bring peace in our time