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.

 

Did Reagan deal with Iranians to hold hostages until after election?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 11 2005 @ 03:29 AM
link   
I don't know if anyone else recalls the days the hostages got taken in Iran but I do, and I must admit i always thought that it was very strange that the hostages just happened to arrive back on US soil the day of the Reagan innauguration. Now there is evidence coming out that it was not strange at all since the Reagan campaign made a deal for them to hold American hostages until after the election.


www.aiipowmia.com...
In the course of hundreds of interviews, in the U.S., Europe and the Middle East, I have been told repeatedly that individuals associated with the Reagan-Bush campaign of 1980 met secretly with Iranian officials to delay the release of the American hostages until after the Presidential election. For this favor, Iran was rewarded with a substantial supply of arms from Israel.


[edit on 11-2-2005 by goose]




posted on Feb, 11 2005 @ 04:18 AM
link   
Goose no rumor there, it's absolutely true to the best of my knowlege. Bush Sr. used his pull with the CIA to make it happen.



posted on Feb, 11 2005 @ 08:39 AM
link   
Wow and then we elected him Reagan President again and then Bush Sr. President, doesn't this come under the heading of treason? Was any of this in the movie about Reagan remember the republicans came out so strongly against it?



posted on Feb, 11 2005 @ 09:00 AM
link   

I don't know if anyone else recalls the days the hostages got taken in Iran but I do, and I must admit i always thought that it was very strange that the hostages just happened to arrive back on US soil the day of the Reagan innauguration. Now there is evidence coming out that it was not strange at all since the Reagan campaign made a deal for them to hold American hostages until after the election.


I think most just assumed this as a matter of logic... Indeed, it was VERY fishy, and yet, the public at large (and the press) didn't make much of it...

However, it may not have been illegal... After all, nothing illegal about saying, "look fellas...Carter may be a wuss, but I'm going to win this thing, and when I do, I'm going to bomb you guys back to the stone age if you don't release those guys". So they likely just sat back and waited to see if he'd win. When he did, they went, "okie dokie, here you go".

An equally plausible scenario, that while a bit sneaky, isn't exactly illegal.



posted on Feb, 11 2005 @ 09:33 AM
link   
I agree with the earlier post, there is no mystery here. Reagan absolutely made the deal. Carter actually worked out the deal, but Reagan made them wait until he was inaugurated so he'd look like a big hero right from day one........all politicians lie and cheat - does this surprise anyone??



posted on Feb, 11 2005 @ 09:39 AM
link   
Surprised that they lie steal and cheat, no. But, we are talking about a man who made a deal with a foreign enemy to the US to hold Americans as hostages longer, they interfered intentionally with the negotiations of our government to free them and they did this by promising guns to our enemies. If this is not treason then what is?



posted on Feb, 11 2005 @ 09:47 AM
link   
I remeber the hostage I met two of them at a military wedding party in PR, when I was dating my husband, I wanted to talk to the two young soldiers but my english was very limited, I ask them why they were in PR at the time and they said that the government gave them the choice to go anywhere after the oldear the went through and they chose PR for vacation.



posted on Feb, 11 2005 @ 09:49 AM
link   
I don't think there's been a single reasonable doubt Reagan/Bush influenced an election by extending the suffering of American hostages in the decades since this all came to light.



posted on Feb, 11 2005 @ 09:55 AM
link   
But he made deals with our enemies and interfered with our government negotiations at the time, and if all this is true then they also made deals to deliver guns if he won. If conspiring with your countries enemies is treason then would this not be treason on the part of everyone that took part knowingly in this in any way.



posted on Feb, 11 2005 @ 10:03 AM
link   
The President can get away with murder...never mind treason. Nixon was involved in the conspiracy to kill JFK and RFK....isn't that treason? We had proof on the Watergate tapes but the good stuff got "accidently" erased. The President and his staff have the power to do ANYTHING!

[edit on 11-2-2005 by Zabilgy]



posted on Feb, 11 2005 @ 10:22 AM
link   
Yes but at the time all this stuff took place the people involved had not been elected. Reagan was running for president but I do agree with you that they can get away with anything.



posted on Feb, 11 2005 @ 10:52 AM
link   
Carter broke ties....



During that time, Carter broke off diplomatic ties with Tehran and suffered the embarrassment of a botched attempt to rescue the hostages.


This is from Carters webiste....again, Carter broke ties...



President Carter applied economic pressure by halting oil imports from Iran and freezing Iranian assets in the United States. At the same time, he began several diplomatic initiatives to free the hostages, all of which proved fruitless. On Apr. 24, 1980, the United States attempted a rescue mission that failed. After three of eight helicopters were damaged in a sandstorm, the operation was aborted; eight persons were killed during the evacuation. Secretary of State Cyrus Vance, who had opposed the action, resigned after the mission's failure. In 1980, the death of the shah in Egypt and the invasion of Iran by Iraq (see Iran-Iraq War) made the Iranians more receptive to resolving the hostage crisis


This is what happened, Carter tried and would not release the money and was a hardliner with no diplomatic attempts, but after the death of the Shah, they (Iran) realized they were trying to get a dead man extradited, and there was no reason to continue. The hostages were relesased, along with a large sum of money which was frozen, and is still debated as wheter it was deleivered or not.

Of course their was a deal made, but I do not see the secrecy, or the implication of the election. People voted in Reagan, not the Iranians.




[edit on 11-2-2005 by esdad71]



posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 07:27 PM
link   
esdad71 of course it says that and until this part of history is proven completely and conclusively it will continue to say that. But as many have said here its pretty much accepted as true but like I said I don't think it has been proven completely, as in a fact.



posted on Feb, 13 2005 @ 08:21 PM
link   
For the record, I believe that JFK was killed by a lone wingnut gunman named Lee Harvery Oswald, that Princess Diana's death was nothing more than a tragic, alcohol-fueled car accident, that 9/11 was perpetrated by a band of radical Islamists, and that while there may in fact be intelligent life out there in the universe there is as of yet no hard evidence to convince me that they've been here to visit us.

However, I have long believed that some kind of deal was cut by Reagan's people and the Ayatollah for a delay in releasing the hostages until after the election.

[edit on 13-2-2005 by greenturtle]



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 09:40 AM
link   


Of course their was a deal made, but I do not see the secrecy, or the implication of the election. People voted in Reagan, not the Iranians.


Thank you captain obvious. I thought the Iranians voted for our Presidents. It's the fact that Reagan managed, with the help of George Bush (with his CIA ties) to have the hostages held until after the election so he'd have something big to start his presidency off with!!



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 09:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by twitchy
Goose no rumor there, it's absolutely true to the best of my knowlege. Bush Sr. used his pull with the CIA to make it happen.


Gezz more insanity. The congress did investigate this and found it to be complete BS. It NEVER happened. The congress was Demon-crat controlled at the time also and had an anti-bush agenda. And they still found nothing.................



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 10:01 AM
link   
Everything else was arranged so why not the timing of release ?


10/ The Iran/Contra Affair.

Ever since the Shah of Iran (a key western ally) had been overthrown by the Iranian revolution in 1979 and a new Islamic Republic had been declared under the leadership of the Ayatollah Khomeini relations between the United States and Iran had taken a dramatic turn for the worse to say the very least.

When the Iran/Iraq war started in September 1980,Iraqs leader ,Saddam Hussein ,received a great deal of military aid and support from the United States who took every opportunity to undermine the islamic fundamentalist state.Iran fought back in it's own way by sponsoring terrorism across the region and the world.Today it might seem strange that regimes that were so obviously sponsoring terrorism against the U.S and the West as a whole could last very long but this was at the height of The Cold War and there was a very careful world balance to maintain.The USSR who were allies of Iran already occupied Afghanistan on Irans northern border and so across the third world this covert form of warfare by proxy was fairly prevalent.

In August 1985 Israeli official approached the U.S.A with a proposal to exchange 508 of their own American-made TOW anti-tank missiles for the release of Reverend Benjamin Weir who was a hostage being held in the Lebanon by an Iranian backed terrorist group.All this with the understanding that the U.S.A would reimburse Israel with replacement missiles.The transfer took place over the next two months.This transaction and the others that followed not only violated United Nations sanctions (proposed and voted for by the U.S.A) but also Acts of the U.S Congress which specifically prohibited sale of weapons to Iran.

In November, there were more negotiations, where the Israelis proposed to ship to Iran 500 HAWK anti-aircraft missiles in exchange for the release of all remaining American hostages being held in Lebanon.Only 18 missiles were shipped to Iran on this occasion.

In January of 1986, Reagan approved a plan whereby an American intermediary, rather than Israel, would sell arms to Iran in exchange for the release of the hostages. In February, 1,000 TOW missiles were shipped to Iran (We know that this arrangement was cleared at the very top because Reagans personal diary entry for January 1st, clearly states "I agreed to sell TOWs to Iran,"). From May to November, there were other shipments of various weapons and parts.

Of couse, all these illegal transactions were producing millions in black money and the big question was what to do with it all.........

........And so the black money was diverted,through Oliver North (aide to the U.S. National Security Advisor John Poindexte) to a right wing terrorist organisation who were trying to overthrow the democratically elected socialist government of Nicaragua.

The Sandinistas had formed a majority government there after winning 61 of the 96 seats in the national legislature in an election where 7 parties had vied for power and where independent observers from Western democracies had declared the election to be both fair and free.

Reagan declared the election "fraudulent" and even instigated a U.S. trade embargo initiated in May 1985.

The Contra Rebels,as they are commonly known,received weapons and training from the CIA, especially in guerrilla tactics such as destroying infrastructural elements and assassination.Some claim there is also evidence that the CIA and perhaps other parts of the US government may have been involved with drug trafficking to raise money for the Contra campaign.

The entire scandal began to unravel when in November of 1986, the Lebanese magazine Ash-Shiraa reported that the United States had been selling weapons to Iran in secret in order to secure the release of seven American hostages held by pro-Iranian groups in Lebanon.

The United States Congress, on November 18th, 1987 issued its final report on the affair, which stated that Reagan bore "ultimate responsibility" for wrongdoing by his aides and his administration exhibited "secrecy, deception, and disdain for the law."

On June 27th, 1986 the International Court of Justice ruled in favour of Nicaragua in the case of "Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua". The U.S. refused to pay restitution and subsequently vetoed a United Nations Security Council Resolution calling on all states to obey international law. The United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution in order to pressure the U.S. to pay the fine. In spite of this resolution, the U.S. still did not to pay the fine.

Top Ten Real Conspiracies

[edit on 18-2-2005 by John bull 1]



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 10:58 AM
link   


I believe that JFK was killed by a lone wingnut gunman named Lee Harvery Oswald


Crawl back under your rock. Anyone who believes this with all the evidence to the contrary is just plain dense.



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 11:06 AM
link   


Gezz more insanity. The congress did investigate this and found it to be complete BS. It NEVER happened. The congress was Demon-crat controlled at the time also and had an anti-bush agenda. And they still found nothing.................


The insanity appears to be in your court. The Congress investigated it? So what? The Warren Comission investigated the JFK assassination.

It happened and the powers that be did whatever they could to cover it up....as they always do!!



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 12:37 PM
link   
The hostages was just the icing on the cake. Don't forget, weapons were sold to the Iranians, in return, they released the hostages, and then the money was used to fund the Contras in Nicaragua.

Everybody wins! Oh, the Gipper. What a guy!







 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join