- Joined
- Oct 27, 2011
- Messages
- 101,802
- Reaction score
- 45,407
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
I find it amusing that giving Iran it's own money is now considered ransom.
No one honestly thinks the timing of the money and release of prisoners was coincidental. Obviously it was not coincidental. But a ransom usually suggests paying your OWN money to get what you want, not paying someone money which is already theirs.
It's clear what happened. We had something of Iran's, they had something of ours, we made a deal and took care of it. Also, if I understand correctly, we were probably going to have to pay that money (and maybe more) to Iran, regardless of anything else, so essentially we made a deal and traded Iran it's own money that we were going to have to pay anyways and in return got Americans back on US soil.
That's not exactly a "ransom" in any traditional sense. I understand it makes a great political football, but the truth isn't really nearly as interesting.
This article was a pretty good read for being a quick read.
Here is a hypothetical scenario:
Crook: "You own me money!"
Victim: "Well yes, I do...and I'll pay you back someday."
Crook: "Tell you what, I've kidnapped your daughter. Pay me the money now...or else."
Victim: "Okay, okay...here's the money I was going to pay you...someday...release my daughter!"
Shrug...I don't know, but hey...I think the police, our judicial system...everyone involved...would call that ransom. Don't you?