It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

US gave $1.7 billion to Iran as hostages were released, four times original amount

page: 2
24
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 6 2016 @ 04:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Christosterone

The original amount owed was $400 million. There was $1.3 billion interest (since 1979).

Sun. January 17th:



The U.S. State Department announced the government had agreed to pay Iran $1.7 billion to settle a case related to the sale of military equipment prior to the Iranian revolution, according to a statement issued on Sunday.

Iran had set up a $400 million trust fund for such purchases, which was frozen along with diplomatic relations in 1979. In settling the claim, which had been tied up at the Hague Tribunal since 1981, the U.S. is returning the money in the fund along with "a roughly $1.3 billion compromise on the interest," the statement said.


Source

So, you're right - we paid 1.7 billion. It was no secret. But it was to return the original $400 million, plus interest for 35 years.

edit on 9/6/2016 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)

edit on 9/6/2016 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 6 2016 @ 04:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: stinkelbaum
a reply to: facedye




Have you actually read what the court case was about? If so, please enlighten me, because it's the most complicated and (seemingly purposely) convoluted court case summary I've read in a while:

weak come back, you got shot down then, blame your own understanding for spouting lies.


I'm sorry, what?

I was genuinely asking Hazardous to fill me in, in hopes that he can clarify a situation that is extremely muddy when you look closely at the details.

Shot down? Weak comeback? We're talking about a transfer of ~2 billion dollars to a state that *openly sponsors* terrorism. You really think I'm devaluing the importance of this thread in order to sharpen my debating skills?

...Seriously did you even read the articles and subsequent points I posted? or did you stop exactly where you quoted me because you had, what you thought, was ample reason to call me a liar?

What am I lying about, exactly?



posted on Sep, 6 2016 @ 04:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: facedye

originally posted by: stinkelbaum
a reply to: facedye




Have you actually read what the court case was about? If so, please enlighten me, because it's the most complicated and (seemingly purposely) convoluted court case summary I've read in a while:

weak come back, you got shot down then, blame your own understanding for spouting lies.


I'm sorry, what?

I was genuinely asking Hazardous to fill me in, in hopes that he can clarify a situation that is extremely muddy when you look closely at the details.

Shot down? Weak comeback? We're talking about a transfer of ~2 billion dollars to a state that *openly sponsors* terrorism. You really think I'm devaluing the importance of this thread in order to sharpen my debating skills?

...Seriously did you even read the articles and subsequent points I posted? or did you stop exactly where you quoted me because you had, what you thought, was ample reason to call me a liar?

What am I lying about, exactly?


Yeah I thought that was a bit harsh actually.

Your response was pretty good mate and had me think twice about my position on this.



posted on Sep, 6 2016 @ 04:52 PM
link   
Why did obama decide to pay it?

5 other potus's didn't.

Obama also lied about having to give them cash because of the banking situation.

So, it's all a lie as usual.




posted on Sep, 6 2016 @ 06:43 PM
link   
The US does not have to pay anybody a dime. There is nothing anybody can do about it. What are they going to do if we don't pay it? Yeah, NOTHING. Still do not understand why Obama is trying to deal with this lost cause theocracy. Cut them off and if they attempt to make a nuke level the facility. That's what Israel did to them back in the day. Drop 50 bunker busters on it. The end. And the hostages, tough. Stop traveling to these countries. If you want to go fine but don't come crying when they nab you. They already took more hostages since the drop so we are right back where we started and they are still harassing our ships with their ski dos. I would sink those as well.



posted on Sep, 6 2016 @ 06:54 PM
link   
a reply to: burgerbuddy

It was part of the deal we made with our allies and Iran.



posted on Sep, 6 2016 @ 07:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Christosterone

originally posted by: AgarthaSeed
a reply to: Christosterone

I understand the ramifications that Iran now has a big load of money to play with, but did it really affect our economy at all?


I am the op and NEVER mentioned the effect this payout would have on the US economy...because that is an obtuse thought process on par with an elementary schooler's understanding of the political world(no pun intended)

Also, I would love to hear the "ramifications" since you "understand" them....do tell

-Chris


Wow, thanks for the pompous attitude! I can't say I deserved that since I asked a general question about the topic. My mistake was making that post a reply to you..... You need to get laid



posted on Sep, 6 2016 @ 07:19 PM
link   
Iran had US hostages?!

For what reason? Who did?



posted on Sep, 6 2016 @ 07:36 PM
link   
everyone criticizes the payment..


.. until its their loved one in captivity!



posted on Sep, 9 2016 @ 02:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: facedye
a reply to: Christosterone

In reading the comments there, something struck me.

We didn't pay this ransom for no reason.

I obviously have no way of validating this, but the US wouldn't give up 1.7 bill to a state we're actively having escalated aggressions with to free a few hostages.

They know something, and the US doesn't want it to be public knowledge. This is not a ransom paid for hostages, rather for incriminating and destabilizing information.





I was thinking the exact same thing. It's more 'hush money' than ransom.



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 1   >>

log in

join