War in Israel (2 Viewers)

[Joe Bryant]

And maybe we should take my post to the Religion thread as I don't want to get off track here.

But it's a very tough, and difficult teaching Jesus lays out for Christians.

 

[Stoneworker]

On a tangential side, there's a good bit of talk in my world and my Christian friends about revenge.

IMO what Israel is doing isn't about revenge.

It's about protecting its borders and attempting to permanently eliminate a perpetual national security threat.

That's an appropriate response for a government on behalf of its constituents.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I will also say I'm thankful I'm not making decisions for Israel as it's very easy for me to quote a verse like I did when it's not my family that's affected.

I want to be clear I'm not saying that's what I'd be able to do.

But it does seem pretty clear on what Jesus said to do.

And it's hard to get my head around it.

 

[Terminalxylem]

Yes they were God's chosen people and Jesus was Jewish, but the practicing Jews of today have rejected Jesus and are further outside of my faith than an atheist.

Thanks for the summary, @Jayrod. Most of what you wrote makes sense, except the excerpt above.

I don’t pretend to fully understand the relationship between the Abrahamic religions, but aren’t they all interrelated, sharing the same god?

Is viewing Jesus as a human prophet, and not an extension of God, really worse than denying God altogether?

Loosely related, why do you believe Jews more rightfully deserve Israel than descendants of the Canaanites (not Jewish, as far as I can tell)?

Again, all these topics are pretty new to me, so forgive my simple understanding.

I could answer this question with a long history of Zionism, how the Jews broke their backs irrigating the land, how the bulk of the Palestinians came to what is now Israel AFTER Jewish emigration, etc etc.

But in truth none of it matters anymore. Who deserves to be there is just as irrelevant, frankly, as who deserves to be here. The Israelis ARE there and they’re not going anywhere. The Palestinians are in Gaza and the West Bank and they’re not going anywhere. That’s the reality both sides have to live with.

Fair enough. I’m just trying to understand the underpinnings of the conflict, and the legitimacy of the respective “sides”.

 

[The Z Machine]

Improving the material conditions of the residents of Gaza would help a lot here obviously. It's a lot easier for people to get over the Hatfield-McCoy stuff if their living standards are rising.

Wasn't that the plan that Netanyahu had? Let them have external aid and hopefully not have to really make any progress on a 2 state solution.

 

[SWC]

Yes they were God's chosen people and Jesus was Jewish, but the practicing Jews of today have rejected Jesus and are further outside of my faith than an atheist.

Thanks for the summary, @Jayrod. Most of what you wrote makes sense, except the excerpt above.

I don’t pretend to fully understand the relationship between the Abrahamic religions, but aren’t they all interrelated, sharing the same god?

Is viewing Jesus as a human prophet, and not an extension of God, really worse than denying God altogether?

Loosely related, why do you believe Jews more rightfully deserve Israel than descendants of the Canaanites (not Jewish, as far as I can tell)?

Again, all these topics are pretty new to me, so forgive my simple understanding.

I could answer this question with a long history of Zionism, how the Jews broke their backs irrigating the land, how the bulk of the Palestinians came to what is now Israel AFTER Jewish emigration, etc etc.

But in truth none of it matters anymore. Who deserves to be there is just as irrelevant, frankly, as who deserves to be here. The Israelis ARE there and they’re not going anywhere. The Palestinians are in Gaza and the West Bank and they’re not going anywhere. That’s the reality both sides have to live with.

Fair enough. I’m just trying to understand the underpinnings of the conflict, and the legitimacy of the respective “sides”.

the original quote here is not mine that is jayrod i think take that to the bank brohans

 

[The Z Machine]

Also, is Israel really going to materially invest in Gaza after they raze it? Are they going to pour billions into infrastructure there? Are they going to see Gazans as their partners or will they be enemies? I wasn't alive during the years after WWII, so I can't comment on how Americans saw their German and Japanese counterparts during the reinvestment into those countries.

 

[Stoneworker]

Improving the material conditions of the residents of Gaza would help a lot here obviously. It's a lot easier for people to get over the Hatfield-McCoy stuff if their living standards are rising.

Wasn't that the plan that Netanyahu had? Let them have external aid and hopefully not have to really make any progress on a 2 state solution.

The bolded plus 20,000 work permits for Gazans to work in Israel.

 

[jm192]

On a tangential side, there's a good bit of talk in my world and my Christian friends about revenge.

IMO what Israel is doing isn't about revenge.

It's about protecting its borders and attempting to permanently eliminate a perpetual national security threat.

That's an appropriate response for a government on behalf of its constituents.

Agree with this.

It’s not a justice issue. It’s a survival issue. Governments should protect their citizens from Terrorists.

 

[jm192]

I will also say I'm thankful I'm not making decisions for Israel as it's very easy for me to quote a verse like I did when it's not my family that's affected.

I want to be clear I'm not saying that's what I'd be able to do.

But it does seem pretty clear on what Jesus said to do.

And it's hard to get my head around it.

I said this in another post, but wanted to point out:

This isn’t about revenge IMO. Hamas represents an existential threat to Israelis. This is about protecting their own people. This is about survival.

 

[Terminalxylem]

Yes they were God's chosen people and Jesus was Jewish, but the practicing Jews of today have rejected Jesus and are further outside of my faith than an atheist.

Thanks for the summary, @Jayrod. Most of what you wrote makes sense, except the excerpt above.

I don’t pretend to fully understand the relationship between the Abrahamic religions, but aren’t they all interrelated, sharing the same god?

Is viewing Jesus as a human prophet, and not an extension of God, really worse than denying God altogether?

Loosely related, why do you believe Jews more rightfully deserve Israel than descendants of the Canaanites (not Jewish, as far as I can tell)?

Again, all these topics are pretty new to me, so forgive my simple understanding.

I could answer this question with a long history of Zionism, how the Jews broke their backs irrigating the land, how the bulk of the Palestinians came to what is now Israel AFTER Jewish emigration, etc etc.

But in truth none of it matters anymore. Who deserves to be there is just as irrelevant, frankly, as who deserves to be here. The Israelis ARE there and they’re not going anywhere. The Palestinians are in Gaza and the West Bank and they’re not going anywhere. That’s the reality both sides have to live with.

Fair enough. I’m just trying to understand the underpinnings of the conflict, and the legitimacy of the respective “sides”.

the original quote here is not mine that is jayrod i think take that to the bank brohans

I know, and I’m sorry if my misquote confused matters. Hopefully, the bank-less verbiage was enough of a tell to avoid besmirching your standing, brohan.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

I will also say I'm thankful I'm not making decisions for Israel as it's very easy for me to quote a verse like I did when it's not my family that's affected.

I want to be clear I'm not saying that's what I'd be able to do.

But it does seem pretty clear on what Jesus said to do.

And it's hard to get my head around it.

I said this in another post, but wanted to point out:

This isn’t about revenge IMO. Hamas represents an existential threat to Israelis. This is about protecting their own people. This is about survival.

Why not both?

Israel's minister of strategic affairs was on CNN saying (paraphrased) "This is like our 9/11. Imagine if people asked you for a measured response after 9/11, your people wouldn't accept it".

 

[jm192]

I will also say I'm thankful I'm not making decisions for Israel as it's very easy for me to quote a verse like I did when it's not my family that's affected.

I want to be clear I'm not saying that's what I'd be able to do.

But it does seem pretty clear on what Jesus said to do.

And it's hard to get my head around it.

I said this in another post, but wanted to point out:

This isn’t about revenge IMO. Hamas represents an existential threat to Israelis. This is about protecting their own people. This is about survival.

Why not both?

Israel's minister of strategic affairs was on CNN saying (paraphrased) "This is like our 9/11. Imagine if people asked you for a measured response after 9/11, your people wouldn't accept it".

He’s right. We wouldn’t have accepted it.

But I think most people wanted safety—not “justice.”

Maybe there’s some that feel the need for revenge or justice. But there’s a safety component to this you can’t remove.

That’s why Jesus telling us to turn the other cheek doesn’t apply in this instance. Turn the other cheek to terrorists and they will kill more of your people.

 

[massraider]

Brussels shooting: 'Europe shaken' after two Swedes shot dead

A football match between Belgium and Sweden is called off after two Swedes are killed.

www.bbc.com

Two Swedish nationals have been shot dead and a third person injured in Brussels, in an attack which prosecutors are treating as terrorism.
The Belgium-Sweden Euro 2024 qualifier football match being played in the city was abandoned.
Brussels is on its highest terror alert as the gunman, who appeared to have an assault rifle, remains at large.
French President Emmanuel Macron, who was on a visit to Albania, said: "Europe has been shaken."

A spokesman for the Belgian federal prosecutor, Eric van Duyse, urged the public to "go home and stay at home as long as the threat has not been eradicated".
He said a man claiming to be the attacker had said in a video on social media he had been inspired by the Islamic State group.

A video shows an Arabic-speaking man saying he carried out the attack in the name of God and that he killed three people.
The video and others uploaded during the attack are being verified by police, the BBC has been told.
Federal prosecutors say a terrorism inquiry has been opened over the shooting on the Boulevard d'Ypres.

 

[Orange&Blue]

Nothing in history is inevitable. Our occupation of Germany and Japan were both great successes. Our occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq were not. Israel occupied Gaza from 1967 to the late 1990s. That was a failure.

I don’t think it’s inevitable that another Israeli invasion of Gaza will be a failure. But I also think that it’s neither lazy nor unreasonable to assume that it will be. Already as I write this the vast majority of the Muslim world is incensed by the images of children being killed, families forced to leave their homes. I don’t believe this is a promising portent of things to come…

comparing the occupations of germany/japan to iraq/Afghanistan/etc is incorrect.

Germany and japan were thoroughly destroyed both as a country but also their will fight.

That simply wasn't the case in Iraq/Afghanistan. it was a quick victory and we purposely avoided non-military targets. so the average citizens will to fight back or whatever still existed. hell, most of their army just disappeared and would come back later.

 

[Orange&Blue]

i think how we helped japan and germany and made them an ally through aid and compassion instead of an enemy through isolation and blockades take that to the bank brohans

Just to be clear, the "aid and compassion" part didn't come until after Germany and Japan had been vanquished as a hostile threat.

There wasn't a whole lot of compassion in the U.S. after Pearl Harbor was attacked, and rightly so.

There was also not hundreds of years of conflict and religious underpinnings attached to the US/Japan conflicts.

that as well

 

[(HULK)]

Let’s put aside for the moment the question of whether or not Israel is justified in how it is choosing to retaliate against Gaza- it’s an emotional question that is leading to a lot of hard feeling.

I would instead ask all those who believe that Israel is justified an even more important question, IMO: how do these actions make Israel safer in the long run? Currently I am convinced that they will do the opposite and make things even worse for Israel.

Hamas wants to destroy Israel. They sent terrorists in to rape and murder innocent civilians. If, what many people say is true, and the run of the mill Palestinian holds no ill-will toward Israel or Jews in general, then the complete and total annihilation of Hamas would of course maker them safer. Unfortunately in order to actually accomplish this, they will have to go scorched earth, which is why they are telling civilians to get out of the north. I'm not sure how destroying Hamas would make things worse.

Because you can’t destroy Hamas without also destroying the homes of nearly 2 million people. What then? In addition Hezbollah is warning they will get involved. In addition, it could bring about an overthrow of Fatah in the West Bank, in addition it will be very costly, bloody and difficult and the consequences are impossible to fully predict,

I’m not saying that Israel is making the wrong decision here necessarily. I’m saying that I’m worried about it and I don’t like what I’m seeing.

Yeah war is awful. Israel didn’t start this but they will finish it. Destroy what needs to be destroyed and then help to rebuild. You can’t allow Hamas to continue because you’re afraid of creating new Hamas members.

Like @IvanKaramazov said pages back, we were able to do this in Germany w/r/t the nazis without much self doubt. This situation is not much different but for some reason a lot of people regard it much differently.

And as I pointed out in response to Ivan we were able to do it in Germany because we treated the Germans humanely. The Russians didn’t treat them humanely and their occupation of East Germany was a 40 year tragedy as bad for the Russians as it was for the Germans. And THAT is the lesson we can take from that experience ,

Ok? They should of course treat non-combatants civilly and giving a heads up to people prior to bombing a Hamas location is an example that they are doing just that. None of this should preclude them from destroying Hamas.

It should if it involves them committing massive crimes against humanity. Which it will. And with our American tax dollars no less.

Goes without saying that what Hamas did was horrible. But it doesn't justify an insane bombing campaign against Palestinian civilians.

There is no bombing campaign against Palestinian civilians.

 

[BigJim®]

Just a depressing situation. I hate the violence and destruction, but I don’t know what the world is supposed to do when a Gaza, through their elected leaders, insists on a pursuit of martyrdom for a society of 2M people.

Yes, most of these people are victims. Yet, they have a participatory role tolerating (at best) and/or enabling (at worst) their terrorist leaders to provoke war and hide among them. Maybe collectively distancing themselves from a course of terrorism and martyrdom, and seeking peaceful cohabitation, is asking too much. If it is, we’re back to ‘it’s nearly impossible to stop those who choose martyrdom as their fate.’

 

[HellToupee]

although I don’t always agree with Peter Zeihan I enjoy listening to his insight . In the 30 minutes he breaks down his take on Israel/ Gaza as well as Russia/China & Iran. Really good episode

Peter Zeihan: What’s Really Going on in Israel - Danger Close with Jack Carr

Today’s guest on this special episode of Danger Close is an expert on geopolitics with unique insights into global conflicts. Peter Zeihan is a geopolitical ...

youtu.be

 

[jm192]

Let’s put aside for the moment the question of whether or not Israel is justified in how it is choosing to retaliate against Gaza- it’s an emotional question that is leading to a lot of hard feeling.

I would instead ask all those who believe that Israel is justified an even more important question, IMO: how do these actions make Israel safer in the long run? Currently I am convinced that they will do the opposite and make things even worse for Israel.

Hamas wants to destroy Israel. They sent terrorists in to rape and murder innocent civilians. If, what many people say is true, and the run of the mill Palestinian holds no ill-will toward Israel or Jews in general, then the complete and total annihilation of Hamas would of course maker them safer. Unfortunately in order to actually accomplish this, they will have to go scorched earth, which is why they are telling civilians to get out of the north. I'm not sure how destroying Hamas would make things worse.

Because you can’t destroy Hamas without also destroying the homes of nearly 2 million people. What then? In addition Hezbollah is warning they will get involved. In addition, it could bring about an overthrow of Fatah in the West Bank, in addition it will be very costly, bloody and difficult and the consequences are impossible to fully predict,

I’m not saying that Israel is making the wrong decision here necessarily. I’m saying that I’m worried about it and I don’t like what I’m seeing.

Yeah war is awful. Israel didn’t start this but they will finish it. Destroy what needs to be destroyed and then help to rebuild. You can’t allow Hamas to continue because you’re afraid of creating new Hamas members.

Like @IvanKaramazov said pages back, we were able to do this in Germany w/r/t the nazis without much self doubt. This situation is not much different but for some reason a lot of people regard it much differently.

And as I pointed out in response to Ivan we were able to do it in Germany because we treated the Germans humanely. The Russians didn’t treat them humanely and their occupation of East Germany was a 40 year tragedy as bad for the Russians as it was for the Germans. And THAT is the lesson we can take from that experience ,

Ok? They should of course treat non-combatants civilly and giving a heads up to people prior to bombing a Hamas location is an example that they are doing just that. None of this should preclude them from destroying Hamas.

It should if it involves them committing massive crimes against humanity. Which it will. And with our American tax dollars no less.

Goes without saying that what Hamas did was horrible. But it doesn't justify an insane bombing campaign against Palestinian civilians.

They haven't even really started anything and you're already accusing them of crimes against humanity.

They were just the victims of a terrorist attack. They have the nerve to go after the people that did it, and you're calling it "insane" and a "bombing campaign against Palestinian civilians."

They're doing what any rational country would do. If Hamas continues to put citizens in harms way, that is ultimately on them. I hope Israel tries like heck to avoid unnecessary civilian casualties. But a few weeks after they were the victims of a terrorist attack--this reads like they're the bad guys for something you think they'll do.

Correct me if I'm wrong--but we gave money to Iran who gave money to Hamas. So American Tax dollars went to the Terrorist attacks? Should our tax dollars only be on that side of the conflict?

There's this HUGE emphasis being placed on protecting Palestinian lives. I agree that is important. I pray that the Israeli military will do that. But I also think the same grace must be extended to Israeli lives. And at this moment in time, it would appear that not eliminating Hamas means more Israeli lives will be lost. There's no good solution. But I can certainly understand taking the action you believe saves the lives of your own people.

 

[The Duff Man]

As someone who was ignorant of this situation before last week my main hope was that effort would be made to save innocent lives.

How many people living in Gaza don’t support what Hamas did? Based on what I have read and my belief that most people are not evil, I think it is a lot. And these people are worth trying to save.

The initial edict that people get out of Dodge within 24 hours didn’t seem reasonable. I am not sure many of these people have the means to leave and also have no where to go.

It seems like Israel’s plan has changed and they are doing the best they can to minimize civilian casualties, beyond that I am in no position to judge what they will do next.

I am not sure if there is any course of action that is going to lead to long term peace for Israel, I don’t think the surrounding countries will ever allow it.

I can’t see any scenario where I would want my family to live in a part of the world like this if I had any means whatsoever to leave.

 

[Redwes25]

Let’s put aside for the moment the question of whether or not Israel is justified in how it is choosing to retaliate against Gaza- it’s an emotional question that is leading to a lot of hard feeling.

I would instead ask all those who believe that Israel is justified an even more important question, IMO: how do these actions make Israel safer in the long run? Currently I am convinced that they will do the opposite and make things even worse for Israel.

Hamas wants to destroy Israel. They sent terrorists in to rape and murder innocent civilians. If, what many people say is true, and the run of the mill Palestinian holds no ill-will toward Israel or Jews in general, then the complete and total annihilation of Hamas would of course maker them safer. Unfortunately in order to actually accomplish this, they will have to go scorched earth, which is why they are telling civilians to get out of the north. I'm not sure how destroying Hamas would make things worse.

Because you can’t destroy Hamas without also destroying the homes of nearly 2 million people. What then? In addition Hezbollah is warning they will get involved. In addition, it could bring about an overthrow of Fatah in the West Bank, in addition it will be very costly, bloody and difficult and the consequences are impossible to fully predict,

I’m not saying that Israel is making the wrong decision here necessarily. I’m saying that I’m worried about it and I don’t like what I’m seeing.

Yeah war is awful. Israel didn’t start this but they will finish it. Destroy what needs to be destroyed and then help to rebuild. You can’t allow Hamas to continue because you’re afraid of creating new Hamas members.

Like @IvanKaramazov said pages back, we were able to do this in Germany w/r/t the nazis without much self doubt. This situation is not much different but for some reason a lot of people regard it much differently.

And as I pointed out in response to Ivan we were able to do it in Germany because we treated the Germans humanely. The Russians didn’t treat them humanely and their occupation of East Germany was a 40 year tragedy as bad for the Russians as it was for the Germans. And THAT is the lesson we can take from that experience ,

Ok? They should of course treat non-combatants civilly and giving a heads up to people prior to bombing a Hamas location is an example that they are doing just that. None of this should preclude them from destroying Hamas.

It should if it involves them committing massive crimes against humanity. Which it will. And with our American tax dollars no less.

Goes without saying that what Hamas did was horrible. But it doesn't justify an insane bombing campaign against Palestinian civilians.

They haven't even really started anything and you're already accusing them of crimes against humanity.

They were just the victims of a terrorist attack. They have the nerve to go after the people that did it, and you're calling it "insane" and a "bombing campaign against Palestinian civilians."

They're doing what any rational country would do. If Hamas continues to put citizens in harms way, that is ultimately on them. I hope Israel tries like heck to avoid unnecessary civilian casualties. But a few weeks after they were the victims of a terrorist attack--this reads like they're the bad guys for something you think they'll do.

Correct me if I'm wrong--but we gave money to Iran who gave money to Hamas. So American Tax dollars went to the Terrorist attacks? Should our tax dollars only be on that side of the conflict?

There's this HUGE emphasis being placed on protecting Palestinian lives. I agree that is important. I pray that the Israeli military will do that. But I also think the same grace must be extended to Israeli lives. And at this moment in time, it would appear that not eliminating Hamas means more Israeli lives will be lost. There's no good solution. But I can certainly understand taking the action you believe saves the lives of your own people.

You are wrong, we did not give money to fund a terrorist attack on Israel

 

[Snotbubbles]

My biggest fear is that this will drag the United States in a war with the Arab Nations.

If one subscribes to the idea of "perception is reality" we are already here as far as the arab nations are concerned. It's just a matter of degree at this point.

A degree I would personally like to avoid is to have a suicide bomber show up at my local gym while I'm working out or at a restaurant while I'm out with my family eating.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

You are wrong, we did not give money to fund a terrorist attack on Israel

The US did not cut Iran a check with "this is for terrorist attacks in Israel" handwritten in the memo line. Nobody is saying otherwise. The US did, however, "give" $6 billion to Iran. (These are Iranian funds that were confiscated, because we've confiscated a lot of Iranian funds because of they're a state sponsor of terrorism). The stated purpose of this program was to provide humanitarian assistance to Iran in exchange for them releasing a few Americans, but of course money is fungible and every dollar that Iran doesn't have to spend on food is another dollar that it can spend on killing Israelis.

Here's an article from before the attack that describes what this was all about. I imagine the Biden administration will figure out a way to roll this back either directly or indirectly. They obviously wouldn't agree to this knowing what they know now.

Edit: Yep, to nobody's surprise, the US has reversed course on the humanitarian-aid-to-Iran policy. Good decision.

 

[Redwes25]

You are wrong, we did not give money to fund a terrorist attack on Israel

The US did not cut Iran a check with "this is for terrorist attacks in Israel" handwritten in the memo line. Nobody is saying otherwise. The US did, however, "give" $6 billion to Iran. (These are Iranian funds that were confiscated, because we've confiscated a lot of Iranian funds because of they're a state sponsor of terrorism). The stated purpose of this program was to provide humanitarian assistance to Iran in exchange for them releasing a few Americans, but of course money is fungible and every dollar that Iran doesn't have to spend on food is another dollar that it can spend on killing Israelis.

Here's an article from before the attack that describes what this was all about. I imagine the Biden administration will figure out a way to roll this back either directly or indirectly. They obviously wouldn't agree to this knowing what they know now.

They already have rolled it back. Nothing but a made up talking point

 

[Snotbubbles]

You are wrong, we did not give money to fund a terrorist attack on Israel

The US did not cut Iran a check with "this is for terrorist attacks in Israel" handwritten in the memo line. Nobody is saying otherwise. The US did, however, "give" $6 billion to Iran. (These are Iranian funds that were confiscated, because we've confiscated a lot of Iranian funds because of they're a state sponsor of terrorism). The stated purpose of this program was to provide humanitarian assistance to Iran in exchange for them releasing a few Americans, but of course money is fungible and every dollar that Iran doesn't have to spend on food is another dollar that it can spend on killing Israelis.

Here's an article from before the attack that describes what this was all about. I imagine the Biden administration will figure out a way to roll this back either directly or indirectly. They obviously wouldn't agree to this knowing what they know now.

Edit: Yep, to nobody's surprise, the US has reversed course on the humanitarian-aid-to-Iran policy. Good decision.

What the Biden Administration did with that $6B is put a price tag on American hostages.

Now the question I have is the Hamas leaders are hanging out in a cushy hotel in Qatar. Why aren't we, and our allies putting pressure on Qatar to give these guys up to the Israeli authorities or just sending in Leon to pay them a visit.

 

[Jayrod]

As someone who was ignorant of this situation before last week my main hope was that effort would be made to save innocent lives.

How many people living in Gaza don’t support what Hamas did? Based on what I have read and my belief that most people are not evil, I think it is a lot. And these people are worth trying to save.

The initial edict that people get out of Dodge within 24 hours didn’t seem reasonable. I am not sure many of these people have the means to leave and also have no where to go.

It seems like Israel’s plan has changed and they are doing the best they can to minimize civilian casualties, beyond that I am in no position to judge what they will do next.

I am not sure if there is any course of action that is going to lead to long term peace for Israel, I don’t think the surrounding countries will ever allow it.

I can’t see any scenario where I would want my family to live in a part of the world like this if I had any means whatsoever to leave.

The call for people to leave North Gaza and head South was not ever going to be immediately followed by some scorched earth bombing campaign.

They want the area as empty as possible because they are planning to go door to door and will clear the area manually.

My point being, just because someone couldn't or didn't leave doesn't mean they are going to automatically die. There will be more risk as the Israeli troops move in, but it isn't like Israel is just going to kill everyone they see.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

You are wrong, we did not give money to fund a terrorist attack on Israel

The US did not cut Iran a check with "this is for terrorist attacks in Israel" handwritten in the memo line. Nobody is saying otherwise. The US did, however, "give" $6 billion to Iran. (These are Iranian funds that were confiscated, because we've confiscated a lot of Iranian funds because of they're a state sponsor of terrorism). The stated purpose of this program was to provide humanitarian assistance to Iran in exchange for them releasing a few Americans, but of course money is fungible and every dollar that Iran doesn't have to spend on food is another dollar that it can spend on killing Israelis.

Here's an article from before the attack that describes what this was all about. I imagine the Biden administration will figure out a way to roll this back either directly or indirectly. They obviously wouldn't agree to this knowing what they know now.

They already have rolled it back. Nothing but a made up talking point

"Made up" implies that it's something that didn't happen. This did actually happen. I provided the links that that you didn't have to.

 

[Redwes25]

You are wrong, we did not give money to fund a terrorist attack on Israel

The US did not cut Iran a check with "this is for terrorist attacks in Israel" handwritten in the memo line. Nobody is saying otherwise. The US did, however, "give" $6 billion to Iran. (These are Iranian funds that were confiscated, because we've confiscated a lot of Iranian funds because of they're a state sponsor of terrorism). The stated purpose of this program was to provide humanitarian assistance to Iran in exchange for them releasing a few Americans, but of course money is fungible and every dollar that Iran doesn't have to spend on food is another dollar that it can spend on killing Israelis.

Here's an article from before the attack that describes what this was all about. I imagine the Biden administration will figure out a way to roll this back either directly or indirectly. They obviously wouldn't agree to this knowing what they know now.

They already have rolled it back. Nothing but a a made up talking point

You are wrong, we did not give money to fund a terrorist attack on Israel

The US did not cut Iran a check with "this is for terrorist attacks in Israel" handwritten in the memo line. Nobody is saying otherwise. The US did, however, "give" $6 billion to Iran. (These are Iranian funds that were confiscated, because we've confiscated a lot of Iranian funds because of they're a state sponsor of terrorism). The stated purpose of this program was to provide humanitarian assistance to Iran in exchange for them releasing a few Americans, but of course money is fungible and every dollar that Iran doesn't have to spend on food is another dollar that it can spend on killing Israelis.

Here's an article from before the attack that describes what this was all about. I imagine the Biden administration will figure out a way to roll this back either directly or indirectly. They obviously wouldn't agree to this knowing what they know now.

They already have rolled it back. Nothing but a made up talking point

"Made up" implies that it's something that didn't happen. This did actually happen. I provided the links that that you didn't have to.

What are talking about. They reversed the decision.

 

[Redwes25]

I see you have now edited your post to point out the reversal.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Now the question I have is the Hamas leaders are hanging out in a cushy hotel in Qatar. Why aren't we, and our allies putting pressure on Qatar to give these guys up to the Israeli authorities or just sending in Leon to pay them a visit.

For real, these guy are 100% not safe, and they know it. If you want a good article describing how stuff like this works, here you go. This isn't the sort of thing you plan out over a weekend, but I'm sure they're working through options on how to accomplish exactly this sort of assassination.

 

[jm192]

Let’s put aside for the moment the question of whether or not Israel is justified in how it is choosing to retaliate against Gaza- it’s an emotional question that is leading to a lot of hard feeling.

I would instead ask all those who believe that Israel is justified an even more important question, IMO: how do these actions make Israel safer in the long run? Currently I am convinced that they will do the opposite and make things even worse for Israel.

Hamas wants to destroy Israel. They sent terrorists in to rape and murder innocent civilians. If, what many people say is true, and the run of the mill Palestinian holds no ill-will toward Israel or Jews in general, then the complete and total annihilation of Hamas would of course maker them safer. Unfortunately in order to actually accomplish this, they will have to go scorched earth, which is why they are telling civilians to get out of the north. I'm not sure how destroying Hamas would make things worse.

Because you can’t destroy Hamas without also destroying the homes of nearly 2 million people. What then? In addition Hezbollah is warning they will get involved. In addition, it could bring about an overthrow of Fatah in the West Bank, in addition it will be very costly, bloody and difficult and the consequences are impossible to fully predict,

I’m not saying that Israel is making the wrong decision here necessarily. I’m saying that I’m worried about it and I don’t like what I’m seeing.

Yeah war is awful. Israel didn’t start this but they will finish it. Destroy what needs to be destroyed and then help to rebuild. You can’t allow Hamas to continue because you’re afraid of creating new Hamas members.

Like @IvanKaramazov said pages back, we were able to do this in Germany w/r/t the nazis without much self doubt. This situation is not much different but for some reason a lot of people regard it much differently.

And as I pointed out in response to Ivan we were able to do it in Germany because we treated the Germans humanely. The Russians didn’t treat them humanely and their occupation of East Germany was a 40 year tragedy as bad for the Russians as it was for the Germans. And THAT is the lesson we can take from that experience ,

Ok? They should of course treat non-combatants civilly and giving a heads up to people prior to bombing a Hamas location is an example that they are doing just that. None of this should preclude them from destroying Hamas.

It should if it involves them committing massive crimes against humanity. Which it will. And with our American tax dollars no less.

Goes without saying that what Hamas did was horrible. But it doesn't justify an insane bombing campaign against Palestinian civilians.

They haven't even really started anything and you're already accusing them of crimes against humanity.

They were just the victims of a terrorist attack. They have the nerve to go after the people that did it, and you're calling it "insane" and a "bombing campaign against Palestinian civilians."

They're doing what any rational country would do. If Hamas continues to put citizens in harms way, that is ultimately on them. I hope Israel tries like heck to avoid unnecessary civilian casualties. But a few weeks after they were the victims of a terrorist attack--this reads like they're the bad guys for something you think they'll do.

Correct me if I'm wrong--but we gave money to Iran who gave money to Hamas. So American Tax dollars went to the Terrorist attacks? Should our tax dollars only be on that side of the conflict?

There's this HUGE emphasis being placed on protecting Palestinian lives. I agree that is important. I pray that the Israeli military will do that. But I also think the same grace must be extended to Israeli lives. And at this moment in time, it would appear that not eliminating Hamas means more Israeli lives will be lost. There's no good solution. But I can certainly understand taking the action you believe saves the lives of your own people.

You are wrong, we did not give money to fund a terrorist attack on Israel

Right. We gave them money for other causes and they used it for badness.

We're not giving money to Israel for "an insane bombing campaign against Palestinian Civilians" They could use the money for that. But that's not our intent. That's my point. You can't act like we're funding Israeli evil without saying we're funding Hamas evil. You can't cut it both ways.

 

[unckeyherb]

You are wrong, we did not give money to fund a terrorist attack on Israel

The US did not cut Iran a check with "this is for terrorist attacks in Israel" handwritten in the memo line. Nobody is saying otherwise. The US did, however, "give" $6 billion to Iran. (These are Iranian funds that were confiscated, because we've confiscated a lot of Iranian funds because of they're a state sponsor of terrorism). The stated purpose of this program was to provide humanitarian assistance to Iran in exchange for them releasing a few Americans, but of course money is fungible and every dollar that Iran doesn't have to spend on food is another dollar that it can spend on killing Israelis.

Here's an article from before the attack that describes what this was all about. I imagine the Biden administration will figure out a way to roll this back either directly or indirectly. They obviously wouldn't agree to this knowing what they know now.

They already have rolled it back. Nothing but a a made up talking point

You are wrong, we did not give money to fund a terrorist attack on Israel

The US did not cut Iran a check with "this is for terrorist attacks in Israel" handwritten in the memo line. Nobody is saying otherwise. The US did, however, "give" $6 billion to Iran. (These are Iranian funds that were confiscated, because we've confiscated a lot of Iranian funds because of they're a state sponsor of terrorism). The stated purpose of this program was to provide humanitarian assistance to Iran in exchange for them releasing a few Americans, but of course money is fungible and every dollar that Iran doesn't have to spend on food is another dollar that it can spend on killing Israelis.

Here's an article from before the attack that describes what this was all about. I imagine the Biden administration will figure out a way to roll this back either directly or indirectly. They obviously wouldn't agree to this knowing what they know now.

They already have rolled it back. Nothing but a made up talking point

"Made up" implies that it's something that didn't happen. This did actually happen. I provided the links that that you didn't have to.

What are talking about. They reversed the decision.

did they reverse it ahead of these attacks or in response to these attacks. Because the timing is really, really important. The whole “money is fungible” concept seems to be being ignored by you and the Biden admin. If Iran expected $6 billion in aid funds then they very easily can reallocate $6 billion for any other venture they may want to undertake. Surely you understand that.

 

[jm192]

You are wrong, we did not give money to fund a terrorist attack on Israel

The US did not cut Iran a check with "this is for terrorist attacks in Israel" handwritten in the memo line. Nobody is saying otherwise. The US did, however, "give" $6 billion to Iran. (These are Iranian funds that were confiscated, because we've confiscated a lot of Iranian funds because of they're a state sponsor of terrorism). The stated purpose of this program was to provide humanitarian assistance to Iran in exchange for them releasing a few Americans, but of course money is fungible and every dollar that Iran doesn't have to spend on food is another dollar that it can spend on killing Israelis.

Here's an article from before the attack that describes what this was all about. I imagine the Biden administration will figure out a way to roll this back either directly or indirectly. They obviously wouldn't agree to this knowing what they know now.

They already have rolled it back. Nothing but a a made up talking point

You are wrong, we did not give money to fund a terrorist attack on Israel

The US did not cut Iran a check with "this is for terrorist attacks in Israel" handwritten in the memo line. Nobody is saying otherwise. The US did, however, "give" $6 billion to Iran. (These are Iranian funds that were confiscated, because we've confiscated a lot of Iranian funds because of they're a state sponsor of terrorism). The stated purpose of this program was to provide humanitarian assistance to Iran in exchange for them releasing a few Americans, but of course money is fungible and every dollar that Iran doesn't have to spend on food is another dollar that it can spend on killing Israelis.

Here's an article from before the attack that describes what this was all about. I imagine the Biden administration will figure out a way to roll this back either directly or indirectly. They obviously wouldn't agree to this knowing what they know now.

They already have rolled it back. Nothing but a made up talking point

"Made up" implies that it's something that didn't happen. This did actually happen. I provided the links that that you didn't have to.

What are talking about. They reversed the decision.

I'm not here to bad mouth the Biden admin for "funding terrorism."

Someone made the point that "Our tax dollars are going to slaughter Palestinians."
Well, we gave Iran money that was used for a terrorist attack.

Does that mean we're complicit? I don't think so. And I don't think giving Israel financial aid means we're helping to slaughter Palestinian civilians.

 

[Redwes25]

Let’s put aside for the moment the question of whether or not Israel is justified in how it is choosing to retaliate against Gaza- it’s an emotional question that is leading to a lot of hard feeling.

I would instead ask all those who believe that Israel is justified an even more important question, IMO: how do these actions make Israel safer in the long run? Currently I am convinced that they will do the opposite and make things even worse for Israel.

Hamas wants to destroy Israel. They sent terrorists in to rape and murder innocent civilians. If, what many people say is true, and the run of the mill Palestinian holds no ill-will toward Israel or Jews in general, then the complete and total annihilation of Hamas would of course maker them safer. Unfortunately in order to actually accomplish this, they will have to go scorched earth, which is why they are telling civilians to get out of the north. I'm not sure how destroying Hamas would make things worse.

Because you can’t destroy Hamas without also destroying the homes of nearly 2 million people. What then? In addition Hezbollah is warning they will get involved. In addition, it could bring about an overthrow of Fatah in the West Bank, in addition it will be very costly, bloody and difficult and the consequences are impossible to fully predict,

I’m not saying that Israel is making the wrong decision here necessarily. I’m saying that I’m worried about it and I don’t like what I’m seeing.

Yeah war is awful. Israel didn’t start this but they will finish it. Destroy what needs to be destroyed and then help to rebuild. You can’t allow Hamas to continue because you’re afraid of creating new Hamas members.

Like @IvanKaramazov said pages back, we were able to do this in Germany w/r/t the nazis without much self doubt. This situation is not much different but for some reason a lot of people regard it much differently.

And as I pointed out in response to Ivan we were able to do it in Germany because we treated the Germans humanely. The Russians didn’t treat them humanely and their occupation of East Germany was a 40 year tragedy as bad for the Russians as it was for the Germans. And THAT is the lesson we can take from that experience ,

Ok? They should of course treat non-combatants civilly and giving a heads up to people prior to bombing a Hamas location is an example that they are doing just that. None of this should preclude them from destroying Hamas.

It should if it involves them committing massive crimes against humanity. Which it will. And with our American tax dollars no less.

Goes without saying that what Hamas did was horrible. But it doesn't justify an insane bombing campaign against Palestinian civilians.

They haven't even really started anything and you're already accusing them of crimes against humanity.

They were just the victims of a terrorist attack. They have the nerve to go after the people that did it, and you're calling it "insane" and a "bombing campaign against Palestinian civilians."

They're doing what any rational country would do. If Hamas continues to put citizens in harms way, that is ultimately on them. I hope Israel tries like heck to avoid unnecessary civilian casualties. But a few weeks after they were the victims of a terrorist attack--this reads like they're the bad guys for something you think they'll do.

Correct me if I'm wrong--but we gave money to Iran who gave money to Hamas. So American Tax dollars went to the Terrorist attacks? Should our tax dollars only be on that side of the conflict?

There's this HUGE emphasis being placed on protecting Palestinian lives. I agree that is important. I pray that the Israeli military will do that. But I also think the same grace must be extended to Israeli lives. And at this moment in time, it would appear that not eliminating Hamas means more Israeli lives will be lost. There's no good solution. But I can certainly understand taking the action you believe saves the lives of your own people.

You are wrong, we did not give money to fund a terrorist attack on Israel

Right. We gave them money for other causes and they used it for badness.

We're not giving money to Israel for "an insane bombing campaign against Palestinian Civilians" They could use the money for that. But that's not our intent. That's my point. You can't act like we're funding Israeli evil without saying we're funding Hamas evil. You can't cut it both ways.

This 6 billion deal happened less than a month ago to release 5 American hostages. Hamas had been planing this attack and stockpiling weapons for years for this. Hamas/Iran didn’t do this because they got money for some humanitarian aid in the middle of September. Even so access to these funds for humanitarian aid was reversed a couple of days after the attack. The money was also South Korean money frozen in South Korean and then transfer to Qatar where it is released to pay for humanitarian aid.

This is a made up political talking point and nothing more. The way it is spun is exactly how your first post describes it that US tax dollars funding terrorist. That is not true.

 

[Redwes25]

You are wrong, we did not give money to fund a terrorist attack on Israel

The US did not cut Iran a check with "this is for terrorist attacks in Israel" handwritten in the memo line. Nobody is saying otherwise. The US did, however, "give" $6 billion to Iran. (These are Iranian funds that were confiscated, because we've confiscated a lot of Iranian funds because of they're a state sponsor of terrorism). The stated purpose of this program was to provide humanitarian assistance to Iran in exchange for them releasing a few Americans, but of course money is fungible and every dollar that Iran doesn't have to spend on food is another dollar that it can spend on killing Israelis.

Here's an article from before the attack that describes what this was all about. I imagine the Biden administration will figure out a way to roll this back either directly or indirectly. They obviously wouldn't agree to this knowing what they know now.

They already have rolled it back. Nothing but a a made up talking point

You are wrong, we did not give money to fund a terrorist attack on Israel

The US did not cut Iran a check with "this is for terrorist attacks in Israel" handwritten in the memo line. Nobody is saying otherwise. The US did, however, "give" $6 billion to Iran. (These are Iranian funds that were confiscated, because we've confiscated a lot of Iranian funds because of they're a state sponsor of terrorism). The stated purpose of this program was to provide humanitarian assistance to Iran in exchange for them releasing a few Americans, but of course money is fungible and every dollar that Iran doesn't have to spend on food is another dollar that it can spend on killing Israelis.

Here's an article from before the attack that describes what this was all about. I imagine the Biden administration will figure out a way to roll this back either directly or indirectly. They obviously wouldn't agree to this knowing what they know now.

They already have rolled it back. Nothing but a made up talking point

"Made up" implies that it's something that didn't happen. This did actually happen. I provided the links that that you didn't have to.

What are talking about. They reversed the decision.

did they reverse it ahead of these attacks or in response to these attacks. Because the timing is really, really important. The whole “money is fungible” concept seems to be being ignored by you and the Biden admin. If Iran expected $6 billion in aid funds then they very easily can reallocate $6 billion for any other venture they may want to undertake. Surely you understand that.

Yes timing is important. They spent years planning this attack.

 

[Redwes25]

You are wrong, we did not give money to fund a terrorist attack on Israel

The US did not cut Iran a check with "this is for terrorist attacks in Israel" handwritten in the memo line. Nobody is saying otherwise. The US did, however, "give" $6 billion to Iran. (These are Iranian funds that were confiscated, because we've confiscated a lot of Iranian funds because of they're a state sponsor of terrorism). The stated purpose of this program was to provide humanitarian assistance to Iran in exchange for them releasing a few Americans, but of course money is fungible and every dollar that Iran doesn't have to spend on food is another dollar that it can spend on killing Israelis.

Here's an article from before the attack that describes what this was all about. I imagine the Biden administration will figure out a way to roll this back either directly or indirectly. They obviously wouldn't agree to this knowing what they know now.

They already have rolled it back. Nothing but a a made up talking point

You are wrong, we did not give money to fund a terrorist attack on Israel

The US did not cut Iran a check with "this is for terrorist attacks in Israel" handwritten in the memo line. Nobody is saying otherwise. The US did, however, "give" $6 billion to Iran. (These are Iranian funds that were confiscated, because we've confiscated a lot of Iranian funds because of they're a state sponsor of terrorism). The stated purpose of this program was to provide humanitarian assistance to Iran in exchange for them releasing a few Americans, but of course money is fungible and every dollar that Iran doesn't have to spend on food is another dollar that it can spend on killing Israelis.

Here's an article from before the attack that describes what this was all about. I imagine the Biden administration will figure out a way to roll this back either directly or indirectly. They obviously wouldn't agree to this knowing what they know now.

They already have rolled it back. Nothing but a made up talking point

"Made up" implies that it's something that didn't happen. This did actually happen. I provided the links that that you didn't have to.

What are talking about. They reversed the decision.

I'm not here to bad mouth the Biden admin for "funding terrorism."

Someone made the point that "Our tax dollars are going to slaughter Palestinians."
Well, we gave Iran money that was used for a terrorist attack.

Does that mean we're complicit? I don't think so. And I don't think giving Israel financial aid means we're helping to slaughter Palestinian civilians.

It is not our tax dollars. Never was it was South Korean money used to purchase Iranian oil that was frozen before it could be wired to Iran.

 

[The Commish]

You are wrong, we did not give money to fund a terrorist attack on Israel

The US did not cut Iran a check with "this is for terrorist attacks in Israel" handwritten in the memo line. Nobody is saying otherwise. The US did, however, "give" $6 billion to Iran. (These are Iranian funds that were confiscated, because we've confiscated a lot of Iranian funds because of they're a state sponsor of terrorism). The stated purpose of this program was to provide humanitarian assistance to Iran in exchange for them releasing a few Americans, but of course money is fungible and every dollar that Iran doesn't have to spend on food is another dollar that it can spend on killing Israelis.

Here's an article from before the attack that describes what this was all about. I imagine the Biden administration will figure out a way to roll this back either directly or indirectly. They obviously wouldn't agree to this knowing what they know now.

They already have rolled it back. Nothing but a a made up talking point

You are wrong, we did not give money to fund a terrorist attack on Israel

The US did not cut Iran a check with "this is for terrorist attacks in Israel" handwritten in the memo line. Nobody is saying otherwise. The US did, however, "give" $6 billion to Iran. (These are Iranian funds that were confiscated, because we've confiscated a lot of Iranian funds because of they're a state sponsor of terrorism). The stated purpose of this program was to provide humanitarian assistance to Iran in exchange for them releasing a few Americans, but of course money is fungible and every dollar that Iran doesn't have to spend on food is another dollar that it can spend on killing Israelis.

Here's an article from before the attack that describes what this was all about. I imagine the Biden administration will figure out a way to roll this back either directly or indirectly. They obviously wouldn't agree to this knowing what they know now.

They already have rolled it back. Nothing but a made up talking point

"Made up" implies that it's something that didn't happen. This did actually happen. I provided the links that that you didn't have to.

What are talking about. They reversed the decision.

I'm not here to bad mouth the Biden admin for "funding terrorism."

Someone made the point that "Our tax dollars are going to slaughter Palestinians."
Well, we gave Iran money that was used for a terrorist attack.

Does that mean we're complicit? I don't think so. And I don't think giving Israel financial aid means we're helping to slaughter Palestinian civilians.

The only distinction we should be making here is that the funds given to Iran were given BACK to Iran after we had frozen them. Those were not our tax dollars. For me, this distinction doesn't matter a whole lot one way or the other in practical terms. In my view, this whole "conversation" is picking nits and just a political distraction that we should try and avoid. If you look at things from far enough away, they all begin to look the same.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

As someone who was ignorant of this situation before last week my main hope was that effort would be made to save innocent lives.

How many people living in Gaza don’t support what Hamas did? Based on what I have read and my belief that most people are not evil, I think it is a lot. And these people are worth trying to save.

The initial edict that people get out of Dodge within 24 hours didn’t seem reasonable. I am not sure many of these people have the means to leave and also have no where to go.

It seems like Israel’s plan has changed and they are doing the best they can to minimize civilian casualties, beyond that I am in no position to judge what they will do next.

I am not sure if there is any course of action that is going to lead to long term peace for Israel, I don’t think the surrounding countries will ever allow it.

I can’t see any scenario where I would want my family to live in a part of the world like this if I had any means whatsoever to leave.

Some interviews Lex Fridman did in the West Bank two months ago: https://youtu.be/dZWngkjrFxw?si=Kw1m0R21mpofSd69

I’ve no idea who Lex Fridman is, just saw this on twitter and thought it was a worthwhile perspective.

 

[belljr]

You are wrong, we did not give money to fund a terrorist attack on Israel

The US did not cut Iran a check with "this is for terrorist attacks in Israel" handwritten in the memo line. Nobody is saying otherwise. The US did, however, "give" $6 billion to Iran. (These are Iranian funds that were confiscated, because we've confiscated a lot of Iranian funds because of they're a state sponsor of terrorism). The stated purpose of this program was to provide humanitarian assistance to Iran in exchange for them releasing a few Americans, but of course money is fungible and every dollar that Iran doesn't have to spend on food is another dollar that it can spend on killing Israelis.

Here's an article from before the attack that describes what this was all about. I imagine the Biden administration will figure out a way to roll this back either directly or indirectly. They obviously wouldn't agree to this knowing what they know now.

They already have rolled it back. Nothing but a a made up talking point

You are wrong, we did not give money to fund a terrorist attack on Israel

The US did not cut Iran a check with "this is for terrorist attacks in Israel" handwritten in the memo line. Nobody is saying otherwise. The US did, however, "give" $6 billion to Iran. (These are Iranian funds that were confiscated, because we've confiscated a lot of Iranian funds because of they're a state sponsor of terrorism). The stated purpose of this program was to provide humanitarian assistance to Iran in exchange for them releasing a few Americans, but of course money is fungible and every dollar that Iran doesn't have to spend on food is another dollar that it can spend on killing Israelis.

Here's an article from before the attack that describes what this was all about. I imagine the Biden administration will figure out a way to roll this back either directly or indirectly. They obviously wouldn't agree to this knowing what they know now.

They already have rolled it back. Nothing but a made up talking point

"Made up" implies that it's something that didn't happen. This did actually happen. I provided the links that that you didn't have to.

What are talking about. They reversed the decision.

I'm not here to bad mouth the Biden admin for "funding terrorism."

Someone made the point that "Our tax dollars are going to slaughter Palestinians."
Well, we gave Iran money that was used for a terrorist attack.

Does that mean we're complicit? I don't think so. And I don't think giving Israel financial aid means we're helping to slaughter Palestinian civilians.

The only distinction we should be making here is that the funds given to Iran were given BACK to Iran after we had frozen them. Those were not our tax dollars. For me, this distinction doesn't matter a whole lot one way or the other in practical terms. In my view, this whole "conversation" is picking nits and just a political distraction that we should try and avoid. If you look at things from far enough away, they all begin to look the same.

Not for nothing but they didn't release it. It's under US supervision and can only be used for humanitarian aid. It has not been tapped and they recently put a hold on it again

Redirect Notice

The $6 billion in Iranian oil revenue was freed up last month as part of the U.S.-Iranian prisoner swap in which five American citizens were freed. It was made available solely for humanitarian purposes and is under strict U.S. oversight.


The White House on Thursday repeatedly stressed that Iran has not yet tapped this humanitarian fund

So this is all basically noise

 

[Redwes25]

You are wrong, we did not give money to fund a terrorist attack on Israel

The US did not cut Iran a check with "this is for terrorist attacks in Israel" handwritten in the memo line. Nobody is saying otherwise. The US did, however, "give" $6 billion to Iran. (These are Iranian funds that were confiscated, because we've confiscated a lot of Iranian funds because of they're a state sponsor of terrorism). The stated purpose of this program was to provide humanitarian assistance to Iran in exchange for them releasing a few Americans, but of course money is fungible and every dollar that Iran doesn't have to spend on food is another dollar that it can spend on killing Israelis.

Here's an article from before the attack that describes what this was all about. I imagine the Biden administration will figure out a way to roll this back either directly or indirectly. They obviously wouldn't agree to this knowing what they know now.

They already have rolled it back. Nothing but a a made up talking point

You are wrong, we did not give money to fund a terrorist attack on Israel

The US did not cut Iran a check with "this is for terrorist attacks in Israel" handwritten in the memo line. Nobody is saying otherwise. The US did, however, "give" $6 billion to Iran. (These are Iranian funds that were confiscated, because we've confiscated a lot of Iranian funds because of they're a state sponsor of terrorism). The stated purpose of this program was to provide humanitarian assistance to Iran in exchange for them releasing a few Americans, but of course money is fungible and every dollar that Iran doesn't have to spend on food is another dollar that it can spend on killing Israelis.

Here's an article from before the attack that describes what this was all about. I imagine the Biden administration will figure out a way to roll this back either directly or indirectly. They obviously wouldn't agree to this knowing what they know now.

They already have rolled it back. Nothing but a made up talking point

"Made up" implies that it's something that didn't happen. This did actually happen. I provided the links that that you didn't have to.

What are talking about. They reversed the decision.

I'm not here to bad mouth the Biden admin for "funding terrorism."

Someone made the point that "Our tax dollars are going to slaughter Palestinians."
Well, we gave Iran money that was used for a terrorist attack.

Does that mean we're complicit? I don't think so. And I don't think giving Israel financial aid means we're helping to slaughter Palestinian civilians.

The only distinction we should be making here is that the funds given to Iran were given BACK to Iran after we had frozen them. Those were not our tax dollars. For me, this distinction doesn't matter a whole lot one way or the other in practical terms. In my view, this whole "conversation" is picking nits and just a political distraction that we should try and avoid. If you look at things from far enough away, they all begin to look the same.

Not for nothing but they didn't release it. It's under US supervision and can only be used for humanitarian aid. It has not been tapped and they recently put a hold on it again

Redirect Notice

The $6 billion in Iranian oil revenue was freed up last month as part of the U.S.-Iranian prisoner swap in which five American citizens were freed. It was made available solely for humanitarian purposes and is under strict U.S. oversight.


The White House on Thursday repeatedly stressed that Iran has not yet tapped this humanitarian fund

So this is all basically noise

Exactly. Thanks

 

[Desert_Power]

So this is all basically noise

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Not for nothing but they didn't release it. It's under US supervision and can only be used for humanitarian aid. It has not been tapped and they recently put a hold on it again

Redirect Notice

The $6 billion in Iranian oil revenue was freed up last month as part of the U.S.-Iranian prisoner swap in which five American citizens were freed. It was made available solely for humanitarian purposes and is under strict U.S. oversight.


The White House on Thursday repeatedly stressed that Iran has not yet tapped this humanitarian fund

So this is all basically noise

If it was actually just noise, the administration wouldn't have reversed course. This was an actual policy decision that was made by actual flesh-and-blood people. Those folks have since realized that this was a mistake, and they've learned from it. We should learn from it too.

(In case somebody needs this to be said out loud, the lesson is "Iran gets its assets frozen for a reason.")

Also, sorry to put it this way but I don't have any other choice. "This money can only be used for humanitarian purposes" is a bad argument made by naive people who don't understand how budgets work. When somebody makes an argument like this, you should go back and lower your estimation of every argument that person has ever made. Seriously. They're not going to be wrong about literally everything, but they are thinking about the world using a fundamentally broken model of how organizations operate. For example, I am working under a very strict rule that says that I cannot spend state funds on alcohol. Later tonight, I will be attending an on-campus event with faculty and friends of the university at which wine will be served. Breaking the law? No, we have another pot of money we can use for stuff like this. Just because one pot of money is highly-restricted doesn't mean that all pots of money are similarly restricted. Give people a special fund labeled "Humanitarian Purposes Only" and they'll just cut their food and medicine budgets and transfer those funds to the terror budget to compensate.

 

[jm192]

Let’s put aside for the moment the question of whether or not Israel is justified in how it is choosing to retaliate against Gaza- it’s an emotional question that is leading to a lot of hard feeling.

I would instead ask all those who believe that Israel is justified an even more important question, IMO: how do these actions make Israel safer in the long run? Currently I am convinced that they will do the opposite and make things even worse for Israel.

Hamas wants to destroy Israel. They sent terrorists in to rape and murder innocent civilians. If, what many people say is true, and the run of the mill Palestinian holds no ill-will toward Israel or Jews in general, then the complete and total annihilation of Hamas would of course maker them safer. Unfortunately in order to actually accomplish this, they will have to go scorched earth, which is why they are telling civilians to get out of the north. I'm not sure how destroying Hamas would make things worse.

Because you can’t destroy Hamas without also destroying the homes of nearly 2 million people. What then? In addition Hezbollah is warning they will get involved. In addition, it could bring about an overthrow of Fatah in the West Bank, in addition it will be very costly, bloody and difficult and the consequences are impossible to fully predict,

I’m not saying that Israel is making the wrong decision here necessarily. I’m saying that I’m worried about it and I don’t like what I’m seeing.

Yeah war is awful. Israel didn’t start this but they will finish it. Destroy what needs to be destroyed and then help to rebuild. You can’t allow Hamas to continue because you’re afraid of creating new Hamas members.

Like @IvanKaramazov said pages back, we were able to do this in Germany w/r/t the nazis without much self doubt. This situation is not much different but for some reason a lot of people regard it much differently.

And as I pointed out in response to Ivan we were able to do it in Germany because we treated the Germans humanely. The Russians didn’t treat them humanely and their occupation of East Germany was a 40 year tragedy as bad for the Russians as it was for the Germans. And THAT is the lesson we can take from that experience ,

Ok? They should of course treat non-combatants civilly and giving a heads up to people prior to bombing a Hamas location is an example that they are doing just that. None of this should preclude them from destroying Hamas.

It should if it involves them committing massive crimes against humanity. Which it will. And with our American tax dollars no less.

Goes without saying that what Hamas did was horrible. But it doesn't justify an insane bombing campaign against Palestinian civilians.

They haven't even really started anything and you're already accusing them of crimes against humanity.

They were just the victims of a terrorist attack. They have the nerve to go after the people that did it, and you're calling it "insane" and a "bombing campaign against Palestinian civilians."

They're doing what any rational country would do. If Hamas continues to put citizens in harms way, that is ultimately on them. I hope Israel tries like heck to avoid unnecessary civilian casualties. But a few weeks after they were the victims of a terrorist attack--this reads like they're the bad guys for something you think they'll do.

Correct me if I'm wrong--but we gave money to Iran who gave money to Hamas. So American Tax dollars went to the Terrorist attacks? Should our tax dollars only be on that side of the conflict?

There's this HUGE emphasis being placed on protecting Palestinian lives. I agree that is important. I pray that the Israeli military will do that. But I also think the same grace must be extended to Israeli lives. And at this moment in time, it would appear that not eliminating Hamas means more Israeli lives will be lost. There's no good solution. But I can certainly understand taking the action you believe saves the lives of your own people.

You are wrong, we did not give money to fund a terrorist attack on Israel

Right. We gave them money for other causes and they used it for badness.

We're not giving money to Israel for "an insane bombing campaign against Palestinian Civilians" They could use the money for that. But that's not our intent. That's my point. You can't act like we're funding Israeli evil without saying we're funding Hamas evil. You can't cut it both ways.

This 6 billion deal happened less than a month ago to release 5 American hostages. Hamas had been planing this attack and stockpiling weapons for years for this. Hamas/Iran didn’t do this because they got money for some humanitarian aid in the middle of September. Even so access to these funds for humanitarian aid was reversed a couple of days after the attack. The money was also South Korean money frozen in South Korean and then transfer to Qatar where it is released to pay for humanitarian aid.

This is a made up political talking point and nothing more. The way it is spun is exactly how your first post describes it that US tax dollars funding terrorist. That is not true.

Again, I'm not saying "We funded terrorism." I'm actually saying that we didn't. It was in response to "Israel is going to slaughter innocent people with US $$$."

You've decided to really focus on one side of this and ignore the context.

The POINT is that supporting Israel would not be "giving money to slaughter innocent people" the same as giving money to Iran wasn't "funding terrorism." I was being a bit facetious in my wording in the original post about tax dollars on both sides of the conflict.

 

[jm192]

You are wrong, we did not give money to fund a terrorist attack on Israel

The US did not cut Iran a check with "this is for terrorist attacks in Israel" handwritten in the memo line. Nobody is saying otherwise. The US did, however, "give" $6 billion to Iran. (These are Iranian funds that were confiscated, because we've confiscated a lot of Iranian funds because of they're a state sponsor of terrorism). The stated purpose of this program was to provide humanitarian assistance to Iran in exchange for them releasing a few Americans, but of course money is fungible and every dollar that Iran doesn't have to spend on food is another dollar that it can spend on killing Israelis.

Here's an article from before the attack that describes what this was all about. I imagine the Biden administration will figure out a way to roll this back either directly or indirectly. They obviously wouldn't agree to this knowing what they know now.

They already have rolled it back. Nothing but a a made up talking point

You are wrong, we did not give money to fund a terrorist attack on Israel

The US did not cut Iran a check with "this is for terrorist attacks in Israel" handwritten in the memo line. Nobody is saying otherwise. The US did, however, "give" $6 billion to Iran. (These are Iranian funds that were confiscated, because we've confiscated a lot of Iranian funds because of they're a state sponsor of terrorism). The stated purpose of this program was to provide humanitarian assistance to Iran in exchange for them releasing a few Americans, but of course money is fungible and every dollar that Iran doesn't have to spend on food is another dollar that it can spend on killing Israelis.

Here's an article from before the attack that describes what this was all about. I imagine the Biden administration will figure out a way to roll this back either directly or indirectly. They obviously wouldn't agree to this knowing what they know now.

They already have rolled it back. Nothing but a made up talking point

"Made up" implies that it's something that didn't happen. This did actually happen. I provided the links that that you didn't have to.

What are talking about. They reversed the decision.

I'm not here to bad mouth the Biden admin for "funding terrorism."

Someone made the point that "Our tax dollars are going to slaughter Palestinians."
Well, we gave Iran money that was used for a terrorist attack.

Does that mean we're complicit? I don't think so. And I don't think giving Israel financial aid means we're helping to slaughter Palestinian civilians.

It is not our tax dollars. Never was it was South Korean money used to purchase Iranian oil that was frozen before it could be wired to Iran.

I give up man.

My only point was that supporting Israel isn't supporting slaughter of the innocents. You're really hammering a lot of points that I wasn't trying to make.

I'm just going to disengage as it's not the conversation/argument I was going for.

 

[parasaurolophus]

How about the fact that the Palestinian authority (not Hamas, just the non Hamas super innocent Palestinians) pays money to people that kill Israelis or pays the family if the terrorist dies while killing Israelis?

Hakim Award receives 14k a year as a reward for killing a family of five. Plenty more examples.

Does the US give aid to Palestine? Yes or no question.

 

[Redwes25]

Not for nothing but they didn't release it. It's under US supervision and can only be used for humanitarian aid. It has not been tapped and they recently put a hold on it again

Redirect Notice

The $6 billion in Iranian oil revenue was freed up last month as part of the U.S.-Iranian prisoner swap in which five American citizens were freed. It was made available solely for humanitarian purposes and is under strict U.S. oversight.


The White House on Thursday repeatedly stressed that Iran has not yet tapped this humanitarian fund

So this is all basically noise

If it was actually just noise, the administration wouldn't have reversed course. This was an actual policy decision that was made by actual flesh-and-blood people. Those folks have since realized that this was a mistake, and they've learned from it. We should learn from it too.

(In case somebody needs this to be said out loud, the lesson is "Iran gets its assets frozen for a reason.")

Also, sorry to put it this way but I don't have any other choice. "This money can only be used for humanitarian purposes" is a bad argument made by naive people who don't understand how budgets work. When somebody makes an argument like this, you should go back and lower your estimation of every argument that person has ever made. Seriously. They're not going to be wrong about literally everything, but they are thinking about the world using a fundamentally broken model of how organizations operate. For example, I am working under a very strict rule that says that I cannot spend state funds on alcohol. Later tonight, I will be attending an on-campus event with faculty and friends of the university at which wine will be served. Breaking the law? No, we have another pot of money we can use for stuff like this. Just because one pot of money is highly-restricted doesn't mean that all pots of money are similarly restricted. Give people a special fund labeled "Humanitarian Purposes Only" and they'll just cut their food and medicine budgets and transfer those funds to the terror budget to compensate.

There is a policy/political discussion to be had on hostages and what we as a country should do. I personally would not give anything to release someone foolish enough to go to Iran which appears to be the case with these 5 released hostages.

However, the Iranians never got any actual money in this scenario as Blinken has said Iran never got access to the money (though they would have in the future) which makes the whole discussion a made up talking point as it relates to this conflict.

 

[Jayrod]

Here is another article on the neighboring Arab nations refusing to take on Palestinian refugees.

What are the reasons for the continued refusal by essentially every single Arabic nation on the planet? Is there not one willing to take these people in? If not, why not?

 

[Jayrod]

Here is another article on the neighboring Arab nations refusing to take on Palestinian refugees.

What are the reasons for the continued refusal by essentially every single Arabic nation on the planet? Is there not one willing to take these people in? If not, why not?

Looks like a lot of Gazans are trying to get out into Egypt, but aren't being allowed. Egypt is refusing to let them out unless Israel will let the aid trucks in? Yet Egypt controls that side of the border completely, why do they need Israel's permission exactly? This isn't really adding up and feels like either something nefarious or it is just posturing.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Not for nothing but they didn't release it. It's under US supervision and can only be used for humanitarian aid. It has not been tapped and they recently put a hold on it again

Redirect Notice

The $6 billion in Iranian oil revenue was freed up last month as part of the U.S.-Iranian prisoner swap in which five American citizens were freed. It was made available solely for humanitarian purposes and is under strict U.S. oversight.


The White House on Thursday repeatedly stressed that Iran has not yet tapped this humanitarian fund

So this is all basically noise

If it was actually just noise, the administration wouldn't have reversed course. This was an actual policy decision that was made by actual flesh-and-blood people. Those folks have since realized that this was a mistake, and they've learned from it. We should learn from it too.

(In case somebody needs this to be said out loud, the lesson is "Iran gets its assets frozen for a reason.")

Also, sorry to put it this way but I don't have any other choice. "This money can only be used for humanitarian purposes" is a bad argument made by naive people who don't understand how budgets work. When somebody makes an argument like this, you should go back and lower your estimation of every argument that person has ever made. Seriously. They're not going to be wrong about literally everything, but they are thinking about the world using a fundamentally broken model of how organizations operate. For example, I am working under a very strict rule that says that I cannot spend state funds on alcohol. Later tonight, I will be attending an on-campus event with faculty and friends of the university at which wine will be served. Breaking the law? No, we have another pot of money we can use for stuff like this. Just because one pot of money is highly-restricted doesn't mean that all pots of money are similarly restricted. Give people a special fund labeled "Humanitarian Purposes Only" and they'll just cut their food and medicine budgets and transfer those funds to the terror budget to compensate.

Good point.

Ultimately, geopolitics is hard. Diplomacy is really hard. War is hard. None of this is easy. Take away all the entire history of this specific issue and it's still not easy. Add the historical issues and everything else and its damn near impossible.