Obama Admin Lies About Paying Ransom to Iran

Honestly, quit.

The problem isn't the partisan cries of "ransom!" - BUT THAT WE ACTUALLY PAID A RANSOM, AND NOW HAVE A HISTORY OF DOING SO.

So, you are saying that it was a ransom? Or not?

As to your last line:

 

They did not pay a ransom. They announced the settling of that matter back when the Americans were freed. He openly said it was done at the same time because the dialogue was there and it needed to be settled when this first suddenly became a thing months later even though it was announced at the time. And now the State Dept says the timing was deliberate-- no shit.

The money was what was owed for a deal that never occurred, very favorably adjusted for inflation. It isn't a ransom if it was already owed.

I'm saying falsely labeling it a ransom creates-- CREATES-- the very "concern" some people allegedly have about paying a ransom.

In other words, it wasn't a ransom but it might as well have been one now thanks to partisan foolishness.

 

Holy silliness. We aren't paying anyone that took hostages. I suspect we told them

Ignoring hat this was a ransom and babbling about endangerment is idiotic.

 

I'd the release of prisoners was contingent on the payment, it was ransom, no matter what the history was behind it.

 

If not a classic quid pro quo ransom, please explain why the plane full of Swiss and Euro cash wasn't allowed to take off for Tehran until the hostages were confirmed to be on an outbound plane.

Of course, you must know (don't know if you can admit it) that there have been absolutely no substantive or recent changes in the case of the money for arms deal, and which essentially remains in the same stage as it's been since 1979. So, with that, I'll ask again - why now, if not directly linked to the release of hostages? Why not a month ago? Why not next month? Why not in 1994? Why not 2054? Or, how about "never"?

If the payment isn't directly linked and clearly predicated on the confirmed release of to the hostages, why would it matter when either took off? Your argument boils down to believing that no such link existed, and that the timing was purely coincidental?

Is that your position - pure coincidence? I think you're merely assuming the atypical liberal stance here, IP, meaning, whenever faced with easily provable but inconvenient facts, you first try to muddy the issue by pure obfuscation (as if intentionally confusing the facts somehow removes or alters them in any way), and where even that Houdini-like escapism fails, and the matter remains both clear and irrefutable, you simply become obstinate in refusing to acknowledge them, or to properly and fully weigh their meaning, purely out of simple silliness. And finally, you simply wait until everyone grows tired of hammering you, and instead just walks away, thereby allowing you to claim a draw (or even a win) and later assert that the issue was somehow less than settled, and remained open for further debate of two equally competing ideas.

That's not only grotesquely disparate to the unblinking eye of unbiased thought and strict adherence to path of pure reasoning which you oft-cite as slavishly following - and which you routinely (and sometimes quite rightfully) excoriate others for any perceptibly similar failing to do the same - but is just so much of the same dogmatic bullshit which you so vigorously detest and rush to reject when others holding an oppositional view to your own are perceived, or even strongly suspected, of doing the same.

Such simpleton semantics should be beneath you, and it is both genuinely and personally disappointing to me that it clearly is not.

You're on record as claiming it wasn't a ransom, I am on record saying it absolutely was a ransom, and everyone can read or ignore our reasoning, and draw their own conclusions.

 

Interesting. Settling pre-existing debts is now ransom.


The payment of debt wasn't going to happen if Iran was not going to follow through with the negotiated release. The payment wasn't for release. It was for the debt. It was two distinct issues, both of which were being resolved together-- as was stated months ago and no one gave a shit.


There is no point in responding to you, Tenny. You're now asking if I think it is coincidence. I never said it was. Neither did Obama. We didn't have official conversations with Iran until very recently. This was a clearing of business. No, it wasn't a coincidence. It wasn't a conspiracy or done in the shadows, either.

I'm fine with your appeals to "everyone." I will get a laugh the first time "everyone" runs afoul of your view and you no longer champion "everyone's" opinion.

 

Pre-existing debts are collected via shady methods all the time.

 

I've said all that I can say, IP. We can just agree to disagree. People can read it, and our respective positions / reasoning, and reach their own conclusions.

 

Ransomed, I guess.

 

The old debt commentary is recycled trash from chief clown supporters. We paid a ransom for them taking hostages. That is entirely against our policies. It's entirely against our approach to dealing with terrorists.

 

This is entirely fantasy.

Here's what the State Dept said:

Obama said the same thing- the deals came together near simultaneously. He even explained why. In January, they announced both the 400 million payment and release simultaneously.

This wasn't a ransom. There is no cover-up. This is manufactured. If you don't like Obama or like the idea of diplomatic relations with Iran, cool. Understandable. Calling this ransom is a bridge too far and any look at PRIMARY sources on the issue reflect that.

 

Oh, well crap, this administration wouldn't lie about pandering to Iran.

Diplomatic relations while we're paying to get hostages back? You really are a self righteous moron.

 

I never claimed there is no possible motive to lie, so I don't get what point you're making by stating the obvious. I'm showing that they have been absolutely transparent about what went down and when the entire time. I.e. the facts are not in dispute, thus there is not ransom. Unless you are claiming we didn't take Iran's money on a weapons deal we never delivered on.

How am I being self righteous? I will assume Tenny will magically miss the "moron" bit, since no one calls anyone names here according to him. So I'll just magically miss the personal shots too.

 

I mean, I'm not sure what else you'd call it if I kidnapped your mother and wouldn't release her until I got my money. If the release was contingent on the money, it was a ransom.

 

ran·som
ˈransəm/Submit
noun
1.
a sum of money or other payment demanded or paid for the release of a prisoner.
synonyms: payoff, payment, sum, price
"they demanded a huge ransom"
verb
1.
obtain the release of (a prisoner) by making a payment demanded.
"the lord was captured in war and had to be ransomed"

 

Pure luck the two things happened almost simultaneously. What are the odds?

 

Nobody said it was pure luck or coincidence. Nobody. We didn't have diplomatic relations with them for like 40 years.

 

Thank you. The money was for a deal that never happened and had to be returned. Not for prisoners.

 

Would the money have been paid had there not been prisionera?

Further, did Iran state as a stipulation it had to be paid if the prisoners were to be returned?

If it was paid in negotiations to release the prisioners, it was ransom.

 

To KPTs earlier point. Lets say that you owe me money but refuse to pay, promise to pay, are slow to pay, etc. I take your mother. I won't return her until you pay. You telling me that's not a Ransom?