• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Iransom: Obama admin admits cash for prisoners

tres borrachos said:
So you laying out the entire process for wire transferring money was just ancillary.

I don't know if we should pay ransom or not pay ransom when someone is being held against their will. If it was my husband or my son in that situation, I may feel differently. I do know that this money was technically owed to Iran, and I do know that the money that they were owed was not handed over to them until those prisoners were released. To me, ransom is paid out of my money. It isn't paying you your own money for releasing my captive.
Click to expand...

I was responding to a particular post.

The claim has been made that this back door method was the only way possible to make the transfer.
 
Yawn. No, they did not admit to that.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/46283_Another_Right_Wing_Fake_Outrage-_No_State_Dept._Did_NOT_Confirm_$400M_Ransom_to_Iran

"” Kirby said the arrangement did not in any way constitute a ransom payment, as President Barack Obama’s Republican critics have alleged."

This isn't rocket science.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
Yawn. No, they did not admit to that.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/46283_Another_Right_Wing_Fake_Outrage-_No_State_Dept._Did_NOT_Confirm_$400M_Ransom_to_Iran

"” Kirby said the arrangement did not in any way constitute a ransom payment, as President Barack Obama’s Republican critics have alleged."

This isn't rocket science.
Click to expand...

What isn't rocket science is wondering how anybody can believe what these people say. If it quacks like a duck, it must be a platypus.
 
Jack Fabulous said:
Sure. Blatant dishonesty is always the best course of action to take when you want to prevent wild speculation.:lol:
Click to expand...

It wasn't a ransom. Did they ever say "no we didn't use the payment as leverage"? I haven't had time to look at everything since I'm helping friends and family with the flood.
 
humbolt said:
It's hard to leave $400,000,000 in a brown paper bag under a park bench, I guess. Our citizens were never prisoners. They were hostages held for a ransom. That was the whole point of arresting them to start with. Their "crime" was being American.
Click to expand...



Please show evidence that a cash demand was made for their release by Iran and that they were held until they received the cash. You're filling in information with what you want to believe instead of actual facts.
 
roughdraft274 said:
It wasn't a ransom. Did they ever say "no we didn't use the payment as leverage"? I haven't had time to look at everything since I'm helping friends and family with the flood.
Click to expand...
Quote me where I said it was ransom.
 
Jack Fabulous said:
Quote me where I said it was ransom.
Click to expand...

Sorry for assuming. You said they were blatantly dishonest and all I've heard them argue is that there was no ransom, so I assumed that's what you meant.

Can you tell me where they were being blatantly dishonest?
 
roughdraft274 said:
Sorry for assuming. You said they were blatantly dishonest and all I've heard them argue is that there was no ransom, so I assumed that's what you meant.

Can you tell me where they were being blatantly dishonest?
Click to expand...
They went on for weeks denying that there was any connection between the money and the release of the hostages. Now that we know the facts, it was utterly shameless.

They brought all of this upon themselves by not being up front about it when asked direct questions.
 
Jack Fabulous said:
They went on for weeks denying that there was any connection between the money and the release of the hostages. Now that we know the facts, it was utterly shameless.

They brought all of this upon themselves by not being up front about it when asked direct questions.
Click to expand...

All I've heard them deny was that it was a ransom. Which it wasn't. Where did they say there was no connection?
 
ocean515 said:
On the plus side, while falling over themselves to explain the action, the stalling and the twisting of words by the Obama Administration, liberal/socialist progressives have established a new way of referring to money for hostages.

The money isn't ransom, it leverage. We didn't pay a ransom for their release, we just paid money for leverage for their release.

I'm thinking that is what a ransom is, but hey, I don't suffer from perspectives that require that kind of pretzel logic.
Click to expand...

Since more Americans have now been taken hostage, how much more leverage will have to be paid for their release?
 
tres borrachos said:
So it would have been okay to leverage money owed to Iran pending release of hostages, as long as it was facilitated via a wire transfer?
Click to expand...

That at least would have proved it was an above board deal and traceable.
 
Jack Fabulous said:
They went on for weeks denying that there was any connection between the money and the release of the hostages. Now that we know the facts, it was utterly shameless.

They brought all of this upon themselves by not being up front about it when asked direct questions.
Click to expand...

And people here are still defending what they did.

It is truly amazing.
 
MickeyW said:
The State Department admitted Thursday that the US would not hand over $400 million in cash to Iran until it released four American hostages — two weeks after President Obama insisted the payment was not a “ransom.”

State Department spokesman John Kirby was asked at Thursday’s press briefing: “In basic English, you’re saying you wouldn’t give them $400 million in cash until the prisoners were released, correct?”

State Dept.: $400M to Iran was contingent on US prisoners’ release | New York Post



Soooooo, obama lied to our faces just like Bill Clinton did time after time! :blastem::blastem:
Click to expand...

The thing is that Obama has made a miserable mess of foreign policy and our security posture and credibility. I don't know, if you saw this, but it is worth the short read: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...term=.60266775896d&wpisrc=nl_headlines&wpmm=1
 
Mason66 said:
That at least would have proved it was an above board deal and traceable.
Click to expand...

I don't know why a wire transfer makes something above board. Is there a particular reason?

And as far as being traceable, help me out here because I honesty don't know....is there an issue of where the money came from in the government's coffers? Like, did we take it from the Social Security account or something like that?
 
tres borrachos said:
I don't know why a wire transfer makes something above board. Is there a particular reason?

And as far as being traceable, help me out here because I honesty don't know....is there an issue of where the money came from in the government's coffers? Like, did we take it from the Social Security account or something like that?
Click to expand...

Traceable means in this case who received it over there and where it went after that.

The cash on the table will probably end up in the hands of terrorists.

What else would they do with untraceable cash?
 
Mason66 said:
Traceable means in this case who received it over there and where it went after that.

The cash on the table will probably end up in the hands of terrorists.

What else would they do with untraceable cash?
Click to expand...

I didn't think who received the money was in question. I thought it was paid to the government of Iran.

Even if we wired it, the money could still end up in the hands of terrorists. If you wire me money, and I withdraw it from my account, how do you know what I do with it?
 
tres borrachos said:
I didn't think who received the money was in question. I thought it was paid to the government of Iran.

Even if we wired it, the money could still end up in the hands of terrorists. If you wire me money, and I withdraw it from my account, how do you know what I do with it?
Click to expand...

When you receive a wire your bank will give you cash for that.

If we wired the money to Iran, they wouldn't have the cash to give to terrorists, which is probably why they wanted cash from the US.

US dollars can be traced, so they requested other currency.

It is not hard to follow.
 
Tigerace117 said:
You can't be a Marxist and an Islamist at the same time.....
Click to expand...

I have never claimed that B. Hussein Obama was an Islamist himself. He has however been soft on Islamists, right from the start. He is spineless, and he shares the Islamists' dislike for this country.
 
katzgar said:
you are posting ignorant foolishness.
Click to expand...

That is also a fair description of what I think of your posts. If you disagree with something I have said, then try to refute it, instead of just directing peevish bleats at me.
 
matchlight said:
I have never claimed that B. Hussein Obama was an Islamist himself. He has however been soft on Islamists, right from the start. He is spineless, and he shares the Islamists' dislike for this country.
Click to expand...

LOL! He's been 'soft on Islamists' by slaughtering them wholesale for years.

Yeah, you run with that, sport.
 
matchlight said:
Obama is a damned Marxist liar. He is lying about this deal with his Islamist, America-hating confreres, just as he has lied about almost everything else. But then lying is part of being a commie.
Click to expand...

Lulz. No, he's not a Marxist.

Please don't try and use words you clearly don't understand.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom