1 minute ago, we_gotta_believe said:

So you're saying the attack wouldn't have happened if the money was never released? Have I got that right, Bill?

No, what I’m saying is that you’re incompetent when it comes to finance. 

2 minutes ago, Bill said:

No, what I’m saying is that you’re incompetent when it comes to finance. 

 Yeah? This should be fun

So tell me Bill, if the money wasn't needed for the attack, then how exactly was it a factor?

1 minute ago, we_gotta_believe said:

 Yeah? This should be fun

So tell me Bill, if the money wasn't needed for the attack, then how exactly was it a factor?

 

 

The factor is that it telegraphed weakness and provided Iran with geopolitical opportunity. Given the tactics and planning used Hamas had outside help. Most likely from Iran and Russia via Wagner. As it stands now the US is thought to be weak when it comes to foreign policy, and if not weak, then wavering. (Oddly enough the only country that gives us our due is China. You look at their propaganda and they paint Americans as terrifyingly adept.) The Afghanistan withdrawal was conducted with the level of planning a monkey would use to F a football. (That’s what happens when you let the state department make tactical decisions. Never goes well.) The US material support to Ukraine is anemic, and they know that.  My guess is they looked at how divided the topic of Ukraine aid is here at home, knowing full well it shouldn’t be that divided given the lack of domestic political controversy surrounding Ukraine prior to the re-invasion. US support to Israel has historically been a hot button issue, so my guess is that they took that into account with the planning, assuming a more divided reaction would be had by the west than what actually did happen. Unfortunately for Israeli civilians, from a military standpoint the Hamas terrorists were not at all disciplined at the tactical level, leading to the unimaginable atrocities that occurred.  
 

So you take a country trying to be a regional power player and financing terrorism to do that, who are actively helping the fascist Russians in trying to exterminate the Ukrainian people and state, and you already look weak to begin with, allotting $6b to give them back in an exchange makes you look even weaker and emboldens them, regardless of whether or not that money did find its way back to them (it would have if not for the recent terrorist attacks).

 

Then the other factor with the $6b is that money is fungible. So even if that $6b didn’t make its way there yet, there is no doubt that the Iranians were anticipating that when factoring their operations. The money planned to be spent on the things the $6b was designed to be spent on can be re-allocated so that they can finance other terrorist activities.  (Obviously you aren’t aware that the budgets of large entities are planned in advance.) The Iranians know that they have an uneasy populace, and that comes with associated costs. It takes things to placate to a certain degree. Those things cost money. The people there are restless, but what makes people even more restless is when basic needs aren’t being met. Their economy is already in the tank, so an infusion of $6b only allows them to further maintain a totalitarian control of their country and continue to be pieces of ish around the world.

The biggest issue with the US is that, given that it is a reluctant superpower that doesn’t want to be an empire is that the US, as a whole, doesn’t like to throw its weight around. Most of the time that’s a good thing, but when it doesn’t work it doesn’t work yet we keep trying. I guess you can thank that general line of thinking for us starting a Navy, as it goes back to the late 18th century when we were trying to pay the Barbary pirates off, and it worked until it didn’t, so we built a Navy and sent the Marines into Tripoli.
 

As Churchill said, America will always do the right thing, after it has exhausted every other possible option. The $6b was not the right thing; it was a possible option. 

There's only one way to fix that

 

57 minutes ago, Bill said:

The factor is that it telegraphed weakness and provided Iran with geopolitical opportunity. Given the tactics and planning used Hamas had outside help. Most likely from Iran and Russia via Wagner. As it stands now the US is thought to be weak when it comes to foreign policy, and if not weak, then wavering. (Oddly enough the only country that gives us our due is China. You look at their propaganda and they paint Americans as terrifyingly adept.) The Afghanistan withdrawal was conducted with the level of planning a monkey would use to F a football. (That’s what happens when you let the state department make tactical decisions. Never goes well.) The US material support to Ukraine is anemic, and they know that.  My guess is they looked at how divided the topic of Ukraine aid is here at home, knowing full well it shouldn’t be that divided given the lack of domestic political controversy surrounding Ukraine prior to the re-invasion. US support to Israel has historically been a hot button issue, so my guess is that they took that into account with the planning, assuming a more divided reaction would be had by the west than what actually did happen. Unfortunately for Israeli civilians, from a military standpoint the Hamas terrorists were not at all disciplined at the tactical level, leading to the unimaginable atrocities that occurred.  
 

So you take a country trying to be a regional power player and financing terrorism to do that, who are actively helping the fascist Russians in trying to exterminate the Ukrainian people and state, and you already look weak to begin with, allotting $6b to give them back in an exchange makes you look even weaker and emboldens them, regardless of whether or not that money did find its way back to them (it would have if not for the recent terrorist attacks).

 

Then the other factor with the $6b is that money is fungible. So even if that $6b didn’t make its way there yet, there is no doubt that the Iranians were anticipating that when factoring their operations. The money planned to be spent on the things the $6b was designed to be spent on can be re-allocated so that they can finance other terrorist activities.  (Obviously you aren’t aware that the budgets of large entities are planned in advance.) The Iranians know that they have an uneasy populace, and that comes with associated costs. It takes things to placate to a certain degree. Those things cost money. The people there are restless, but what makes people even more restless is when basic needs aren’t being met. Their economy is already in the tank, so an infusion of $6b only allows them to further maintain a totalitarian control of their country and continue to be pieces of ish around the world.

The biggest issue with the US is that, given that it is a reluctant superpower that doesn’t want to be an empire is that the US, as a whole, doesn’t like to throw its weight around. Most of the time that’s a good thing, but when it doesn’t work it doesn’t work yet we keep trying. I guess you can thank that general line of thinking for us starting a Navy, as it goes back to the late 18th century when we were trying to pay the Barbary pirates off, and it worked until it didn’t, so we built a Navy and sent the Marines into Tripoli.
 

As Churchill said, America will always do the right thing, after it has exhausted every other possible option. The $6b was not the right thing; it was a possible option. 

How much of the $6B was used to actually fund Hamas directly? Please be specific. If the answer is literally zero (which we know it is), then tell me how much of the $6B was even accessed by Iran to backfill any funding that was hypothetically already spent since August? If the answer is zero again (it's okay, you can say it) then your only option left is to prove that Iran would've ceased or slowed funding to Hamas at some point before August, only to reverse course to continue or increase funding in the last 8 weeks for an attack that was literally in the works for years.

So no, that obviously didn't happen because 99% of the funding for this attack was provided well before August. Hamas doesn't risk the success of something this critical to their cause if they don't already have everything they need to plan and execute this against the Mossad and Shin Bet right under their noses. You don't dot all your I's and cross all your T's with this level of coordination if you don't have everything procured and already in place well in advance. This attack wasn't something thrown together in haste or given the go-ahead on a lark, nor was it contingent in any way on some Iranian cash or equipment thrown their way at the 11th hour. This idea that the mere presence of money (that was never even accessed before being frozen again) in the last two months was enough to factor in on something of this scale is preposterous. And spare me the tired, regurgitated "ThE U.S iS WeAk" horseshit after all we've given Ukraine since Russia decided to FAFO. If Iran wants to F around too, it'd be amusing to see them find out for themselves just how weak we are.

As I've already said, it was a bad deal, the money should've never been released, and it was the right move to freeze it again, but it's a massive leap to turn around and say it had anything to do with this attack. You really think the biggest attack on Israel in 50 years would carry a risk of failure if not for some last minute assistance from Iran? No, because the timeline makes no sense whatsoever. And not when opsec was of the utmost importance. This attack was going forward regardless of what Iran gave or didn't give in the last two months. To claim otherwise is naive at best, and you of all people should know better. Come on, pull your head out of your ass, dude. 

21 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

And spare me the tired, regurgitated "ThE U.S iS WeAk" horseshit after all we've given Ukraine since Russia decided to FAFO.

I’ve seen the anemic response first hand. Don’t turn it into a meme.  It’s disrespectful. 

1 minute ago, Bill said:

I’ve seen the anemic response first hand. Don’t turn it into a meme.  It’s disrespectful. 

You're gonna sit there and say Ukraine would even be as remotely successful if not for all the equipment and intelligence we've provided thus far? It's been an "anemic response" considering the totality of the circumstances? As if Biden can just wave a magic wand on his own and do whatever he wants at the drop of a hat? You can kindly get the F outta here with that horseshit. You're the bizarro WV Mike right now.

1 minute ago, we_gotta_believe said:

You're gonna sit there and say Ukraine would even be as remotely successful if not for all the equipment and intelligence we've provided thus far? It's been an "anemic response" considering the totality of the circumstances? As if Biden can just wave a magic wand on his own and do whatever he wants at the drop of a hat? You can kindly get the F outta here with that horseshit. You're the bizarro WV Mike right now.

They asked for Patriot batteries a long time before they got them, and there was no reason for them not to get them. 
 

Because of that anemia, Ukrainians died. Close to me. Multiple times.
 

So you can get the F out of here. 

6 minutes ago, Bill said:

They asked for Patriot batteries a long time before they got them, and there was no reason for them not to get them. 
 

Because of that anemia, Ukrainians died. Close to me. Multiple times.
 

So you can get the F out of here. 

Oh right, let's not assess the overall response but instead focus on a single aspect to claim we're weak because we didn't send every piece of equipment as fast as it would be necessary to avoid any Ukrainian soldier losing their life. That's not absurd or overly reductionist at all. Solid point, Bill. 

46 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Oh right, let's not assess the overall response but instead focus on a single aspect to claim we're weak because we didn't send every piece of equipment as fast as it would be necessary to avoid any Ukrainian soldier losing their life. That's not absurd or overly reductionist at all. Solid point, Bill. 

Oh, you want more than a single aspect?

No prob, Bob. Let’s go over all the things the US has dragged their feet on or continue to drag their feet on:

M777. M109. 105mm. HIMARS. ATACMS. Patriot. NASAMS. Avenger. F-16. HARM. M1A1. M2A2. Strykers. PGM. Counter battery radars. FiST command vehicles. Pretty much every conceivable piece of engineering equipment you can think of. The delays lead to deaths. Both Ukrainian civilians and soldiers. There’s absolutely no denying that. Whatsoever. Any thought to the contrary is view had by superficial knowledge through rose colored glasses.
 

And who do we have to thank? Jake Sullivan. Because I know if there’s a geopolitical issue the first person I want to call is a Fn lawyer. I’ve read reports that Blinken and Austin have gotten into heated discussions with Sullivan because he has his head up his butt. He’s got one foot on the "ooooh Putin big scare nuke man” wagon and his other foot on the "let’s bleed them out because that super duper really worked the first couple of years we tried it when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan” train.

 

Due to their culture, people in the East, leadership included, only respect and act according to strength, real or perceived.

US policy towards Russia has been anemic every year since ‘92. It’s weakest being from ‘09-‘16. 

 

So yeah, I will say that our response has been anemic, because I’m in a position to make my assessment having seen the anemia first hand, while you’ve only read about things on Twitter.

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/former-hamas-chief-calls-protests-neighbours-join-war-against-israel-2023-10-11/

Today is a "global day of jihad" against Jews apparently. Stay safe out there. 

7 hours ago, Bill said:

Oh, you want more than a single aspect?

No prob, Bob. Let’s go over all the things the US has dragged their feet on or continue to drag their feet on:

M777. M109. 105mm. HIMARS. ATACMS. Patriot. NASAMS. Avenger. F-16. HARM. M1A1. M2A2. Strykers. PGM. Counter battery radars. FiST command vehicles. Pretty much every conceivable piece of engineering equipment you can think of. The delays lead to deaths. Both Ukrainian civilians and soldiers. There’s absolutely no denying that. Whatsoever. Any thought to the contrary is view had by superficial knowledge through rose colored glasses.
 

And who do we have to thank? Jake Sullivan. Because I know if there’s a geopolitical issue the first person I want to call is a Fn lawyer. I’ve read reports that Blinken and Austin have gotten into heated discussions with Sullivan because he has his head up his butt. He’s got one foot on the "ooooh Putin big scare nuke man” wagon and his other foot on the "let’s bleed them out because that super duper really worked the first couple of years we tried it when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan” train.

 

Due to their culture, people in the East, leadership included, only respect and act according to strength, real or perceived.

US policy towards Russia has been anemic every year since ‘92. It’s weakest being from ‘09-‘16. 

 

So yeah, I will say that our response has been anemic, because I’m in a position to make my assessment having seen the anemia first hand, while you’ve only read about things on Twitter.

 WTF are you even talking about? We sent HIMARS within months of the invasion and they were absolutely crucial from the get-go. There's literally memes of how effective they've been. But I know, I know, woe is me because there weren't enough of them and they should've arrrived within weeks not months, right? Like, who cares if we can secure the delivery and arrrival of US made equipment we're sending, let's just do it blindly because that's worked out so well in the past even as you just literally bashed us for failing to ensure they don't fall into the wrong hands like they did in Afghansitan. No of course you want to have it both ways because you somehow don't realize how diametrically opposed those two positions are.

I mean, you keep acting like all the equipment and intel are marginal factors. Go ahead and try to claim the result would be the same if we sit on the sidelines instead of providing as much as we have so far. I'd love to see you say it.

"Anemic response". GTFO dude, you're acting like an absolute clown right now. Yeah we've been so weak in our response toward Russia. Nope, no strength exhibited at all, we've clearly emboldened "the people in the East" as a result of our actions.  If Trump's in office, Ukraine gets a big middle finger and then where would they be? Talk about the ulitmate epitome of biting the hand that feeds you. Oh boo hoo, we need more SAMs but let's ignore that wIth our help, Ukraine's AA capability is another big reason for why the skies are so contested, but you're acting like we left them high and dry there with just a few sticks and some rocks to fend off the Russian Air Force. And as I said when the topic came up last time, I'm really interested to see which airfield they think is actually suitable enough to stage and launch F-16s from and exactly how effective they'll be from there.

 

10 hours ago, Bill said:

The factor is that it telegraphed weakness and provided Iran with geopolitical opportunity. Given the tactics and planning used Hamas had outside help. Most likely from Iran and Russia via Wagner. As it stands now the US is thought to be weak when it comes to foreign policy, and if not weak, then wavering. (Oddly enough the only country that gives us our due is China. You look at their propaganda and they paint Americans as terrifyingly adept.) The Afghanistan withdrawal was conducted with the level of planning a monkey would use to F a football. (That’s what happens when you let the state department make tactical decisions. Never goes well.) The US material support to Ukraine is anemic, and they know that.  My guess is they looked at how divided the topic of Ukraine aid is here at home, knowing full well it shouldn’t be that divided given the lack of domestic political controversy surrounding Ukraine prior to the re-invasion. US support to Israel has historically been a hot button issue, so my guess is that they took that into account with the planning, assuming a more divided reaction would be had by the west than what actually did happen. Unfortunately for Israeli civilians, from a military standpoint the Hamas terrorists were not at all disciplined at the tactical level, leading to the unimaginable atrocities that occurred.  

China's propaganda makes us look awesome.

We do look weak, because we're divided at home by a bunch of pacifists who never studied history. 

On Ukraine, splitting the difference like we are is the worst of both worlds. If we provided Ukraine with the support they need to truly win, we would be on the winning side of a conflict that has pretty clear good and bad guys. (there's no sinless "good guy" in history, but while Ukraine has its problems, in this conflict it's very clear which side is in "the right")

18 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

 WTF are you even talking about? We sent HIMARS within months of the invasion and they were absolutely crucial from the get-go. There's literally memes of how effective they've been. But I know, I know, woe is me because there weren't enough of them and they should've arrrived within weeks not months, right? I mean, who cares if we can secure the delivery and arrrival of US made equipment we're sending, let's just do it blindly because that's worked out so well in the past even as you just literally bashed us for failing to ensure they don't fall into the wrong hands like they did in Afghansitan. No of course you want to have it both ways because you somehow don't realize how diametrically opposed those two positions are.

I mean, you keep acting like all the equipment and intel are marginal factors. Go ahead and try to claim the result would be the same if we sit on the sidelines instead of providing as much as we have so far. I'd love to see you say it.

"Anemic response". GTFO dude, you're acting like an absolute clown right now. Yeah we've been so weak in our response toward Russia. Nope, no strength exhibited at all, we've clearly emboldened "the people in the East" as a result of our actions.  If Trump's in office, Ukraine gets a big middle finger and then where would they be? Talk about the ulitmate epitome of biting the hand that feeds you. Oh boo hoo, we need more SAMs but let's ignore that wIth our help, Ukraine's AA capability is another big reason for why the skies are so contested, but you're acting like we left them high and dry there with just a few sticks and some rocks to fend off the Russian Air Force. And as I said when the topic came up last time, I'm really interested to see which airfield they think is actually suitable enough to stage and launch F-16s from and exactly how effective they'll be from there.

 

eh, Bill's more right than wrong on this. often when we've sent these weapons it's been months after they would have made a really big difference. it's not that they aren't helping, but had we been sending cluster munitions, jumped earlier on the F-16s, Abrams, and specifically mine-clearing tech earlier it would have absolutely saved Ukrainian lives. 

some of this sloth on the part of western partners is what gave Russia far too much time to prepare defenses. ideally Ukraine would have been able to press its advantages following the sweep eastward last fall. instead Russia had ample time to put a mine in every square meter which is why Ukraine's summer offensive has made less progress than anyone would have liked. 

10 hours ago, we_gotta_believe said:

So you're saying the attack wouldn't have happened if the money was never released? Have I got that right, Bill?

Nah, liberals don't know how money works. Let's hand the country back over to the guy working on his 27th bankruptcy instead.

5 hours ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

eh, Bill's more right than wrong on this. often when we've sent these weapons it's been months after they would have made a really big difference. it's not that they aren't helping, but had we been sending cluster munitions, jumped earlier on the F-16s, Abrams, and specifically mine-clearing tech earlier it would have absolutely saved Ukrainian lives. 

some of this sloth on the part of western partners is what gave Russia far too much time to prepare defenses. ideally Ukraine would have been able to press its advantages following the sweep eastward last fall. instead Russia had ample time to put a mine in every square meter which is why Ukraine's summer offensive has made less progress than anyone would have liked. 

Sorry, but you're never gonna convince me that we've been anemic in how we've responded to this since the invasion started. You're never gonna convince me that our actions in support of Ukraine have projected "weakness". I honestly don't know how anyone could observe everything that's transpired and still say that with a straight face. Nah, it's literally the exact opposite. We're stepping in and upholding the Budapest Agreement despite the obvious risks involved. And it's not just equipment alone, the intel has clearly been invaluable. Does the Moskva get sunk without it? Of course not. All the support and equipment allowed the skies to be contested as soon as they were, which made a mockery of this supposedly great russian air force. Come on now, what are we even talking about? "Projecting weakness", nah GTFO if you're gonna use those terms to characterize our support of Ukraine thus far.

5 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

 "Projecting weakness", nah GTFO if you're gonna use those terms to characterize our support of Ukraine thus far.

You could use it if you're talking about about all of the people and politicians protesting the aid to Ukraine. That's pretty damn weak.

But yes, this argument is hilarious considering we're at risk of losing the ability to aid Ukraine at all in a few election cycles 

Interesting, Hamas leaders have said that this attack was more than a year in the planning. 

Seems they used some Sun Tzu in the planning. They are small, Israel is big, they move fast, Israel moves slow. Strike where they are weakest and retreat, reasses. 

The weakness projected comes from those in our country who support scum like Putin.

 

Given how many of them hold positions of power, this is not surprising. Given a third or more of the country are dopey cultists who pretend elections were stolen, and Trump is Godly.

18 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

it's not that they aren't helping, but had we been sending cluster munitions, jumped earlier on the F-16s, Abrams, and specifically mine-clearing tech earlier it would have absolutely saved Ukrainian lives. 

None of that is easy to deploy  Aside from the logistics of physically moving the equipment, there is a ton of training involved to operate and maintain equipment. It takes years of classroom and on the job training to get qualified aircraft maintenance technicians, let alone training pilots to fly them in combat. 

2 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Sorry, but you're never gonna convince me that we've been anemic in how we've responded to this since the invasion started. You're never gonna convince me that our actions in support of Ukraine have projected "weakness". I honestly don't know how anyone could observe everything that's transpired and still say that with a straight face. Nah, it's literally the exact opposite. We're stepping in and upholding the Budapest Agreement despite the obvious risks involved. And it's not just equipment alone, the intel has clearly been invaluable. Does the Moskva get sunk without it? Of course not. All the support and equipment allowed the skies to be contested as soong as they were, which made a mockery of this supposedly great russian air force. Come on now, what are we even talking about? "Projecting weakness", nah GTFO if you're gonna use those terms to characterize our support of Ukraine thus far.

Some of that probably goes to far as far as projecting weakness, but there's truth that our support has been "headline strong" but on the ground it's been overly cautious and delivered later than optimal. 

Biden started off very strong on Ukraine, getting allies lined up in support and signaling to Russia that any incursion into Ukraine was going to be met with a united West. But in terms of material support, he's been too conservative in delivering the kinds of weapons Ukraine needs in the timeframe that they need them. He absolutely could and should do better there, despite criticism at home - THAT would be showing strength. 

A siege occurs when an attacker encounters a city or fortress that cannot be easily taken by a quick assault, and which refuses to surrender. Sieges involve surrounding the target to block provision of supplies and reinforcement or escape of troops (a tactic known as "investment). This is typically coupled with attempts to reduce the fortifications by means of siege engines, artillery bombardment, mining (also known as sapping), or the use of deception or treachery to bypass defenses.

Failing a military outcome, sieges can often be decided by starvation, thirst, or disease, which can afflict either the attacker or defender. This form of siege, though, can take many months or even years, depending upon the size of the stores of food the fortified position holds.

WW2

The most important siege was the siege of Leningrad, that lasted over 29 months, about half of the duration of the entire Second World War. The siege of Leningrad resulted in the deaths of some one million of the city's inhabitants.^[31] Along with the Battle of Stalingrad, the siege of Leningrad on the Eastern Front was the deadliest siege of a city in history.

18 minutes ago, Toastrel said:

The weakness projected comes from those in our country who support scum like Putin.

This.  It telegraphs to the world that we're not the country we once were and we're not interested in promoting democracy around the world.  And the push back on funding the war in Ukraine with very clear right and wrong battle lines has given the radical elements around the world a green to do want with little fear of repercussion on our part.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/were-israeli-babies-beheaded-hamas-231800102.html

Article tracking down the previous report