Obama Admin Lies About Paying Ransom to Iran

Discussion in 'The Thunderdome' started by Tenacious D, Aug 3, 2016.

  1. Tenacious D

    Tenacious D The law is of supreme importance, or no importance

    I don't blame the naive amongst us who defended this Administration's decision to negotiate with terrorists in exchanging prisoners for the deserter Bergdahl - you're just ignorant fools - but I do (again) blame this Administration for it, and unsurprisingly, now this.

    There are many and quite damned good reasons why the U.S. initiated a policy of never negotiating with terrorists, and drew a bright line around it for 30+ years. And it had nothing to do with machismo, xenophobia or because it made a snappy campaign ad. It was because it best protected American lives, prevented just these sort of chickens from coming home to roost, and simply - because it was extraordinarily effective. Now pierced, the bell cannot be unrung, and only so much more will follow.

    You Obama apologists didn't have any duty to realize it, but President Obama himself sure as hell should have.

    He is already the worst POTUS in the history of this country - get your reading lists cleared off in the months following the inauguration of our next black President, and believe whatever you read - but I honestly think the guy is trying to push his all-time-worst status even beyond the realm of honest debate, at this point.

    I wouldn't let him, or this Administration, negotiate the sale of a wagon. Nor anyone who continues to prop him up, or plead for a 4-year continuation of his madness, via LCH.

    Link: http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-sent-cash-to-iran-as-americans-were-freed-1470181874
     
  2. fl0at_

    fl0at_ Humorless, asinine, joyless pr*ck

    Iran is a terrorist organization?
     
  3. Tenacious D

    Tenacious D The law is of supreme importance, or no importance

    Yes.

    Next?
     
  4. fl0at_

    fl0at_ Humorless, asinine, joyless pr*ck

    Then this problem should be laid at the feet of Ronald Reagan.
     
  5. VolDad

    VolDad Super Moderator

    I assume there is a reason that I am not allowed to sell anything in the Country:

    ... acknowledges that these products are subject to the U.S. Export Administration Regulations (the “EAR”) and __________ will comply with the EAR. _________ will not export or re-export these products, directly or indirectly, to: (1) any countries that are subject to U.S. export restrictions (currently including, but not necessarily limited to, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Sudan, and Syria);
     
  6. fl0at_

    fl0at_ Humorless, asinine, joyless pr*ck

    Ok, so now Cuba is a terrorist organization? Because of embargoes? But ISIS isn't a terrorist organizatoin, because there isn't an embargo to the portion of Iraq that they are in control of?

    Where the hell am I?
     
  7. Tenacious D

    Tenacious D The law is of supreme importance, or no importance

    Ok. How so?

    *First, I don't worship at the Reagan shrine, so I couldn't care less if he's implicated. And second, even if he is, you're already arguing Two Wrongs, but I'm happy to watch you flail away in forming a fallacious argument, if you wish.
     
  8. fl0at_

    fl0at_ Humorless, asinine, joyless pr*ck

    For being the first biggest, baddest, three ball'd son of a [itch bay] in office that treated Iran like a country, and not a terrorist organization, that, they, must be. Because they are.
     
  9. Tenacious D

    Tenacious D The law is of supreme importance, or no importance

    You can fight this out with VD, but a quick point of order - do you agree with my assertion that Iran is a terrorist organization, or not?

    I just wanted to get that buttoned up, as your response on that will set a proper frame of mind by which I will read the rest of your posts on this matter.

    Thanks, in advance.
     
  10. fl0at_

    fl0at_ Humorless, asinine, joyless pr*ck

    No. Iran is not a terrorist organization. Iran is a country.

    Whether or not they are a sponsor of terrorism or not is debatable. But not really relevant to the issue. Because we're also a sponsor of terrorism. A very good one, in fact.
     
  11. bigpapavol

    bigpapavol Super Moderator

    he made them terrorists? remind me when they took our embassy hostage? remind me when that ended?
     
  12. bigpapavol

    bigpapavol Super Moderator

    why can't a nation qualify? is there something in the definition of organization that precludes a country?

    of course they're terrorists.
     
  13. fl0at_

    fl0at_ Humorless, asinine, joyless pr*ck

    Oh, ok. Then every country is a terrorist organization. And now terrorist has no meaning. Congrats. You've destroyed words.


    How is it that in 8 short years, Obama has managed to anger people so much that intelligent people on the other side of the aisle must stand up and say stupid things?
     
  14. bigpapavol

    bigpapavol Super Moderator

    how does it have no meaning? what did it mean before that it no longer means? do those organizations that no longer have any meaning get different treatment now? are you just saying things to try and ignore that Iran is a terrorism exporter to which we shouldn't be paying ransoms?

    Oh, and terrorist organizations are still such, even if the word organization doesn't preclude countries. Maybe that's tough for you or you have a monopoly on appropriate terrorist related definitions.

    As to the way our country deals with terrorist organizations, our approach to Iran should be no different than the way we would approach ISIS.
     
  15. fl0at_

    fl0at_ Humorless, asinine, joyless pr*ck

    A recognized country is not the same as an organization. No. A recognized country is not the same as an area of land that isn't recognized as a country. I'm sorry, the land your house sits on cannot be its own country.

    And if you decide to call it one, that doesn't mean you now can negotiate treaties.

    A country is not an organization. A country is not a terrorist organization. A country can be dealt with similarly. But they rarely are. Regardless of who is sitting in office.

    This is a stupid. Well, everything.
     
  16. Tenacious D

    Tenacious D The law is of supreme importance, or no importance

    Straw man.

    Straw man.

    Ad homien.

    Straw man.

    If Iran is a terrorist organization, then all nations are terrorists organizations.

    Which side of the aisle are you standing in, as which is stupid, again? I'm trying to keep score.
     
  17. Tenacious D

    Tenacious D The law is of supreme importance, or no importance

    Ah. Now I get it. It's the organization bit that threw you.

    Would you consider the Iranian government to be terrorists? Terrorist sponsors? Affiliated with terrorism? Terrorist Pep Club? What are we talking about, here?
     
  18. bigpapavol

    bigpapavol Super Moderator

    what? Iran can only negotiate treaties to the extent clowns like Obama allow it. When you become a terrorist haven, you've foregone that right.

    This isn't about who is in office, it's about Iran being an insular cesspool run by religious terrorists. I don't care if they are sovereign or not. We can decide how we treat them and it isn't about their capacity to negotiate treaties.

    You've devolved this into semantics about them not qualifying as an organization, yet decided I'm being stupid. It's an effort to somehow make this ransom seem appropriate. That's a stupid approach to justifying negotiations with terrorists - nations, organizations, after school clubs or loose affiliations.
     
  19. bigpapavol

    bigpapavol Super Moderator

    long way around the barn to justify this idiotic ransom.
     
  20. fl0at_

    fl0at_ Humorless, asinine, joyless pr*ck

    I would consider the Iranian government to be the government of Iran. A government. Of a country. Iran, specifically.

    I don't consider the Iranin government to be terrorists, anymore than I consider those sitting on the Armed Forces Comittee to be terrorists.
     

Share This Page