State Dept. says $400 million cash payment to Iran was contingent on American prisoners' release

a reply to: JacKatMtn

So despite Obama's claim otherwise, it was ransome. Was there any doubt?

a reply to: DBCowboy

How is it ransom?

We would need proof of a transfer of us funds for an asking price.

This is a non story if you ask me.

So far it sounds like negotiations over decades old court cases. This happens all the time.

Did vietnam just give us a nearly 200 hundred soldiers or did we negotiate a "ransom"/return of assets?

originally posted by: UnBreakable
a reply to: JacKatMtn

So despite Obama's claim otherwise, it was ransome. Was there any doubt?

Yup. He lied. But don't worry, he lied with a grin on his face in a cheeky chappie sort of way, so all is ok.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: DBCowboy

How is it ransom?

We would need proof of a transfer of us funds for an asking price.

This is a non story if you ask me.

So far it sounds like negotiations over decades old court cases. This happens all the time.

Did vietnam just give us a nearly 200 hundred soldiers or did we negotiate a "ransom"/return of assets?

You can be obtuse about the facts but you can't change them. If it was not about ransom drop the money off and leave. No. The condition was you get the money (regardless if it was theirs) when we get the hostages.

That is ransom.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: DBCowboy

How is it ransom?

We would need proof of a transfer of us funds for an asking price.

This is a non story if you ask me.

So far it sounds like negotiations over decades old court cases. This happens all the time.

Did vietnam just give us a nearly 200 hundred soldiers or did we negotiate a "ransom"/return of assets?

You can keep saying it's a non story all you like, though one wonders why you keep saying it if you think it really is a non story. You are mightily interested in this non story.
The State Dept have admitted they lied and that they made the cash payment a condition of the hostage release. i.e. a ransom payment. If it was Iran's money anyway and it HAD to be paid , then how comes it was used as leverage? Hard one to figure that, isn't it?

... and it turns out the people who were not lying were the Iranians:

“Taking this much money back was in return for the release of the American spies,” Iranian General Mohammad Reza Naghdi, commander of the Basij militia

It's come to something when Iran are more trustworthy than the US President.

a reply to: UKTruth

I am interested because it would be a big deal. I have never in my life voted democrat so it aint cause i love the guy.

I just havent seen any evidence say like Iran Contra.

Yet.

originally posted by: LifeMode

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: DBCowboy

How is it ransom?

We would need proof of a transfer of us funds for an asking price.

This is a non story if you ask me.

So far it sounds like negotiations over decades old court cases. This happens all the time.

Did vietnam just give us a nearly 200 hundred soldiers or did we negotiate a "ransom"/return of assets?

You can be obtuse about the facts but you can't change them. If it was not about ransom drop the money off and leave. No. The condition was you get the money (regardless if it was theirs) when we get the hostages.

That is ransom.

So the same goes for the 200 vietnam vets then in operation homecoming?

Or israel threatening nuclear war unless we sell arms to them?

Everbody does it folks. I wouldnt call it ransom just bad deal politics as usual.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: UKTruth

I am interested because it would be a big deal. I have never in my life voted democrat so it aint cause i love the guy.

I just havent seen any evidence say like Iran Contra.

Yet.

So how can this be money that was Iran's that also HAD to be paid to them if it was in exchange for hostages?
Why did the State Dept and Obama say that the two negotiations were completely separate and the payment and hostages were not linked in any way?

You may not think there is enough evidence, but the State Dept has just said that they made the payment a condition of the hostage release. They did a deal. Money for hostages.

The fact Obama was negotiating with cash and the clear evidence of lying (whilst faking 'heart break' for the families of the hostages and assuring them the money was not related the hostage release), at the very least shows Obama to be a despicable liar and a weak fool, at worst it shows he knowingly funded a state that sponsors terrorism.

When will this corrupt govt be held to account?
We now have 'Leverage' instead of 'Ransom'. We've just been subjected to 'extremely careless' instead of 'gross negligence' in relation to Hillary... how stupid do you have to be to fall for these word games.

a reply to: UKTruth

We have negotiated hostage releases several times in the past under diplomatic negotiations.

a reply to: luthier

So the State Department is lying now?

Unbelievable.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: luthier

So the State Department is lying now?

Unbelievable.

State dept has been lying since LBJ took office.

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: luthier

So the State Department is lying now?

Unbelievable.

State dept has been lying since LBJ took office.

So when the state department said it wasn't a ransom, they we're telling the truth.

But when they say they were lying and that it actually was a ransom, they are lying.


No wonder leftists are angry all the time. If anyone had to keep track of the illogic they were spouting, I'd be pissed too!

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: UKTruth

We have negotiated hostage releases several times in the past under diplomatic negotiations.

You mean like a plane load of cash in foreign currency flown in the dead of night on an unmarked plane, timed to release the cash when the hostage plane took off? Followed by lies, followed by more evidence, followed by a new spin on the previous lies... something like that you mean?

Get real. Obama should not get off the hook because others have been corrupt to the core like him in the past.

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: LifeMode

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: DBCowboy

How is it ransom?

We would need proof of a transfer of us funds for an asking price.

This is a non story if you ask me.

So far it sounds like negotiations over decades old court cases. This happens all the time.

Did vietnam just give us a nearly 200 hundred soldiers or did we negotiate a "ransom"/return of assets?

You can be obtuse about the facts but you can't change them. If it was not about ransom drop the money off and leave. No. The condition was you get the money (regardless if it was theirs) when we get the hostages.

That is ransom.

So the same goes for the 200 vietnam vets then in operation homecoming?

Or israel threatening nuclear war unless we sell arms to them?

Everbody does it folks. I wouldnt call it ransom just bad deal politics as usual.

Obama said it was not ransom. It was in fact ransom. If you want to go back in time 50 years , 150 years or talk Abraham Lincoln into becoming a Democrat I can not help you. I live in 2016.

a reply to: DBCowboy

I am a libertarian so i wouldnt know. I am old enough to have voted for Paul when he made his first run.

Stuff like this is normal in diplomacy with seized assets particularly after war during treaties and diplomatic negotiations.

I am not advocating it but we did it in viernam too.

If they took hostages and said pay us 400 million fine that is ransom.

Personally it seems obvious the whole mess would never have happened if we hadnt tries to meddle in another countries political system.

Never should have played in that sandbox. Any of them.

a reply to: UKTruth

so... you admit they were spies???


it's more like a tenant telling the landlord that he ain't getting the rent he owes him because he finds the leaking roof and broken down furnace unacceptable...

well, in this case, it was like telling iran that they ain't gonna give them any of the money that is owed them as long as they are holding american hostages because we find that unacceptable.

and, try to remember folks we owe alot of people and countries money, starting with all that gold we are so hesitant to give back to germany... we really don't want them all doubting our intentions of paying them back eventually, do we?? some of those countries have rather impressive militaries!

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: UKTruth

so... you admit they were spies???


it's more like a tenant telling the landlord that he ain't getting the rent he owes him because he finds the leaking roof and broken down furnace unacceptable...

well, in this case, it was like telling iran that they ain't gonna give them any of the money that is owed them as long as they are holding american hostages because we find that unacceptable.

and, try to remember folks we owe alot of people and countries money, starting with all that gold we are so hesitant to give back to germany... we really don't want them all doubting our intentions of paying them back eventually, do we?? some of those countries have rather impressive militaries!

Not sure what spies you are talking about, but you should forward your post to Obama's office. He might hire you in the PR dept. You'd fit right in.

a reply to: LifeMode

Yeah well you dont understand history well then.

Ince there is proof like what oliver north did they go to court and use american principles of justice fine its ransom.

The op however does not present these facts. It doesnt really present anything accept obama stipped the negotiation.

Guess what if you settle in negotiation you can back out. Then you go back to court.

Its more bad journalism and bull crap.

I am pissed obama is giving 2 billion worth of arms to the largest terror supporters and idelogical maniacs the saudis.