Iran Sympathizers in Biden Admin Leak Intelligence on Israel Attack Plans

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: WeMustCare

That was frozen bank assets that we had for part of the nuclear deal.

It was failed diplomacy, but we didn’t “give” them money. We unfroze it.

If someone else has your money and is refusing to let you have it, then they change their mind and let you have it, they are giving you the money. It's literally the definition of the word "give."

The fact that you're having to twist yourself into such an embarrassing pretzel to defend it tells me you yourself know it was a bigger problem than you're prepared to admit here, for obvious partisan reasons as are always your motives here.

You just tried (and failed) to change the definition of a word because you had no other option. That's not a position you'd find yourself in if the facts were on your side.

a reply to: YourFaceAgain

I don’t see it as twisting words, more providing context.

Iran Sympathizers in Biden Admin Leak Intelligence on Israel Attack Plans

Here’s your thread title, yet your source says the intel was privy to all of five eyes.

I’m not discounting the possibility it was in our admin who leaked it. But we don’t know, and I don’t see how we can confidently state that as a matter of fact.

You made a lot of proclamations as a matter of fact, and once they’re disputed, you’re implying that I’m twisting the narrative (which was already a loaded deck from the OP). Or defending Biden, who I don’t support and didn’t vote for.

The only R or D presidential candidate I’ve voted for is Trump.

This is why both parties struggle winning independents, they feel like they can say things as a matter of fact because they have moral high ground and know how to read between the lines, then get upset when people ask for evidence.

It’s a smack in the face to the American people that we helped create the nation of Israel, provide them with more aid than any other nation in our countries history, and send troops and our most valuable assets in the region as a show of force. Yet many would have us believe our nation is Iran apologists.

I don’t have a domestic political agenda with this topic. If anything, I’ve shown this problem is decades old and far more nuanced than Biden or Trump.

Not only that, I noted I believe those attempts at diplomacy were clearly failed.

When we believed the USSR was going to end the world, we still talked to them from time to time. We assisted with Chernobyl and other disasters they had. Sometimes diplomacy works, sometimes it doesn’t. But to act as if un-freezing some of their assets or loosening a few sanctions is friendlier than the support we give Israel doesn’t check out to me.

Keep in mind, we have our interests to measure too. And so don’t see how a full scale war with Iran serves our interest. I’d hope any administration in power would at least attempt to avoid that.

a reply to: YourFaceAgain
As an outsider, I read these texts and think to myself, yes, there is someone like me who can see things in a more differentiated way. But that doesn't mean you.

I think you're looking at it the wrong way round. If the government freezes your money, it still belongs to you. Otherwise it would have been confiscated. As you yourself said so beautifully, words and their meaning. Right? It's just that access to it is denied. If this access is made possible again, has the government really given you the money?

To do that, it has to take it away from you first, right? Or does it? Makes sense? Do you see the error in your logic?

The gentleman hasn't tried to change the definition either, you are the one who is fixated on the word "give" and simply ignores the fact that a "take" also took place before that.

It's not that difficult to understand, is it?

originally posted by: YourFaceAgain

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: WeMustCare

That was frozen bank assets that we had for part of the nuclear deal.

It was failed diplomacy, but we didn’t “give” them money. We unfroze it.

If someone else has your money and is refusing to let you have it, then they change their mind and let you have it, they are giving you the money. It's literally the definition of the word "give."

The fact that you're having to twist yourself into such an embarrassing pretzel to defend it tells me you yourself know it was a bigger problem than you're prepared to admit here, for obvious partisan reasons as are always your motives here.

You just tried (and failed) to change the definition of a word because you had no other option. That's not a position you'd find yourself in if the facts were on your side.

Right. The U.S. SEIZED Iran's assets, just like DHS seizes Cartel assets (drugs, money). Only crooks looking for a kick-back will return the assets, for a price. (Trump will show Obama-Biden-Kerry and a few others, were kick-back crooks.)

a reply to: WeMustCare
Wrong! Simply wrong!

Freezing is an action that temporarily suspends rights over the asset and for example, may apply to bank accounts which are fungible. Seizure is an action to temporarily restrain an asset or put it into the custody of the government.

US releases $6bn in frozen Iran funds for prisoner swap

Words have meaning and especially for me as a non-English speaker I am very surprised why no value is placed on them.

originally posted by: Naftalin
a reply to: YourFaceAgain
As an outsider, I read these texts and think to myself, yes, there is someone like me who can see things in a more differentiated way. But that doesn't mean you.

I think you're looking at it the wrong way round. If the government freezes your money, it still belongs to you. Otherwise it would have been confiscated. As you yourself said so beautifully, words and their meaning. Right? It's just that access to it is denied. If this access is made possible again, has the government really given you the money?

To do that, it has to take it away from you first, right? Or does it? Makes sense? Do you see the error in your logic?

The gentleman hasn't tried to change the definition either, you are the one who is fixated on the word "give" and simply ignores the fact that a "take" also took place before that.

It's not that difficult to understand, is it?

Which time? There were different circumstances each time they’ve received money?

a reply to: KrustyKrab

I am referring here to the one linked above, see my last post. The largest transaction known to me to date and the one that - in my opinion - most people are referring to. Here or on X, when people say that money was given to Iran, the 6 billion figure is often cited as the first example.

One does not exclude the other and I may well be wrong here. But where I am definitely right is the difference between freezing and confiscating or seizing. There should be a distinction here.

originally posted by: Naftalin
a reply to: KrustyKrab

I am referring here to the one linked above, see my last post. The largest transaction known to me to date and the one that - in my opinion - most people are referring to. Here or on X, when people say that money was given to Iran, the 6 trillion figure is often cited as the first example.

One does not exclude the other and I may well be wrong here. But where I am definitely right is the difference between freezing and confiscating or seizing. There should be a distinction here.

The one you’re speaking of is 6 billion, not 6 trillion. I think you made a mistake.

My point was not all the money has come from unfrozen funds. Such as the 1.7 billion, 400 million of that was unfrozen but the remaining 1.3 billion came out of a US treasury fund set up for litigation payouts. It was a settlement for interest on the 400 million. So they say. A lot of their reasoning is blurry in many of these cases. Who knows about the 50-150 billion deal.

Just saying, it’s not all previously frozen Iran assets and funds that’s going to Iran.

a reply to: YourFaceAgain
I don't know how legit this is but-
There is speculation that the leaker is a pentagon aide-the Iranian Ariane Tabatabai-who was allowed to keep her top level security clearance even after being named as part of a covert influence campaign run by Tehran.

old.reddit.com...

Amazing if its her-she already got busted as an Iranian agent,and was still able to access secret information on Irans main stated enemy.

Mind boggling incompetance?

a reply to: KrustyKrab

The one you’re speaking of is 6 billion, not 6 trillion. I think you made a mistake.

That was the translator's fault. What is a trillion in English is a billion in Germany. So the translator changed my "billion" to an English "trillion". I changed it straight away, thanks for the tip.

Just saying, it’s not all previously frozen Iran assets and funds that’s going to Iran.

Good that you pointed that out to me. Nevertheless, the 6 bill1on (outsmarting the translator) were frozen, most people are upset about it, in the context that I mentioned.

a reply to: Naftalin

. . . . unless a lawsuit and court order says it goes to somebody else. 😊

a reply to: xuenchen
which is not the case here, or is it?

originally posted by: Naftalin
a reply to: xuenchen
which is not the case here, or is it?

IDK, do you think so? 😬

originally posted by: onestonemonkey
a reply to: YourFaceAgain
I don't know how legit this is but-
There is speculation that the leaker is a pentagon aide-the Iranian Ariane Tabatabai-who was allowed to keep her top level security clearance even after being named as part of a covert influence campaign run by Tehran.

old.reddit.com...

Amazing if its her-she already got busted as an Iranian agent,and was still able to access secret information on Irans main stated enemy.

Mind boggling incompetance?

Yes, that’s insane. We pay these people lots of money to be incompetent clueless tools. Our government is a 🤡 show.

Right on time again . . . . . . 🤣 perfect ball buster 😝

Harris-Biden PROMOTES Iranian Spy Accused of Leaking Israel’s Top Secret Israeli-Iran Attack Plan

The Biden-Harris administration has promoted the senior Pentagon employee who was outed as a member of an Iranian government-run influence operation. Ariane Tabatabai is now a deputy assistant secretary of defense within Defense Secretary Lloyd Autin’s office, where she will lead its force education and training division. Tabatabai, according to Politico, was offered the promotion last month.

You all got it backwards!

The US is spending trillions of dollars because of Israel!
After 9-11 attacking those country's (the enemy's from Israel) Netanyahu so desperately sold in the US congress right after 9-11, saying only good things will come when the US would do that for the whole region! (after that we know better, and explosion of terrorists and with millions of deaths and again spending trillions!)>

The lefties, lol. Is the US warmachine left? They ( left a BIG spending hole, and now the US is spending 1.1 trillion/year on the interest on the debt (and increasing fast!), more than on defense each year! Ever since these wars against Terrorism the spending went out of control basically.

With both the interest on the debt and defense spending you looking at about 44% of the total income of the US!

But yea Iran is still left on the list of the Axis of Evil after 9-11, spend some more (with taking out Iran) for this unholy nation Israel! What did Israel do ever for the US!?

I know the answer, making it bankrupt and morally KAPUT!!!

LOL Israel bombing Iran right now anyway 😄

originally posted by: onestonemonkey
a reply to: YourFaceAgain
I don't know how legit this is but-
There is speculation that the leaker is a pentagon aide-the Iranian Ariane Tabatabai-who was allowed to keep her top level security clearance even after being named as part of a covert influence campaign run by Tehran.

old.reddit.com...

Amazing if its her-she already got busted as an Iranian agent,and was still able to access secret information on Irans main stated enemy.

Mind boggling incompetance?

Mind boggling incompetence is pretty much the definition of modern progressives.

a reply to: Plugit

The overwhelming majority of our debt is from domestic spending. The wars were expensive but they make up a small fraction of the debt.

You appear to have consumed a lot of progressive "# the military" propaganda. They hate the military because we get a lot of the benefits they think they should be entitled to but haven't earned.

originally posted by: YourFaceAgain
a reply to: Plugit

The overwhelming majority of our debt is from domestic spending. The wars were expensive but they make up a small fraction of the debt.

You appear to have consumed a lot of progressive "# the military" propaganda. They hate the military because we get a lot of the benefits they think they should be entitled to but haven't earned.

Sure, I was talking about when it went wrong/started the crazy spending.

It is estimated that, since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the global war on terror will cost the United States government just over 5.4 trillion U.S. dollars. This figure includes estimates of all budgetary spending related to the war on terror between FY 2001 and FY 2020.
This figure of 5.4 trillion does not include the ongoing medical and disability expenditure for veterans beyond FY 2020, which is estimated to cost an additional one trillion U.S. dollars by FY 2059.

So then the fast increase of debt started and with more debt more money spend to finance the debt.
Under Bush II the debt was only about 6 trillion, Obama 10 trillion and now 35 trillion!

Nah I don't dislike the military perse but it's not used for defense but misused for world control and being Israel's buddy.
The US never get attacked or is in danger but war is needed!! It's just the biggest industry with many lobbyists (many warmongers in government/congress!!).