Obama denies $400M payment to Iran was ransom

[thaihome]

1 hour ago, ClutchClark said:

 

Chicog,

 

I think we have both seen that newsworthy or embarassing actions are often saved with the intent of releasing them at just the right moment for most devastating effect. In this case, Trump kept this one in his pocket until he needed it to get the spotlight off the Kahn screw-up.

 

The decision of when to publice an event like the cash for hostages trade does not make it less true and to be fair it was the highly trusted Wall Street Journal that chose when to expose it.

 

I would agree with you that it is clever to use monies already owed to "buy" something IF the debt was going to be legitimized as this was apparently being determined in Hague. 

 

But to receive credit for being "clever" obama would need to admit that it was a ransom. That is what I don't like about this deal...his attempt to put lipstick on it and call it something else.

 

I guess it would not look real good if the US started negotiating with hostage takers.

 

32 minutes ago, ClutchClark said:

 

Is this really all you can come up with?  An accusation I must be a troll because I have called BS on the suggestion it was not a ransom?  Come on TH you can do better.

 

I believe in you amigo.

 

Cheery picking response. What about reducing Iran's nuclear weapon grade uranium production and stockpile?

 

Unless you respond to this, the troll accusation sticks. 

TH 

[slipperylobster]

Obama is such a jerk.

 

Why did he sabotage his own efforts?  He could of just used Pay Pal, instead of a spy plane full of foreign currencies.

 

[Silurian]

28 minutes ago, slipperylobster said:

Obama is such a jerk.

 

Why did he sabotage his own efforts?  He could of just used Pay Pal, instead of a spy plane full of foreign currencies.

 

 

Hmmm. Let's see. Paypal charges 4.4% for money transactions. Assuming the US would have to pay that part of $17.6M...ouch.

[slipperylobster]

9 hours ago, Silurian said:

 

Hmmm. Let's see. Paypal charges 4.4% for money transactions. Assuming the US would have to pay that part of $17.6M...ouch.

 

9 hours ago, Silurian said:

 

Hmmm. Let's see. Paypal charges 4.4% for money transactions. Assuming the US would have to pay that part of $17.6M...ouch.

 

Yeah....we all know.   I just wanted to demonstrate how Left Wing Nuts would jump on any breadcrumb thrown out.  The real point is, how stupid Obama is to try to pull off the unmarked cash (on a late night flight) for ransom.  Unmarked...because in foreign currency.

 

Simpletons would say that there was no other recourse, as Obama "could not wire/cut a check"...which is stupid.  A third country bank (that deals with both Iran and the USA) could of easily handled the transaction.  Also companies like XE (maybe).

 

Who believes that Obama did not lose 5 to 10 percent anyways...when converting to foreign currency?  Iran would be figuring the balance back to dollars.  When you buy foreign currency at one price, and sell at a loss....you are losing money.  (I am not going to do that math, but we all know first hand how this works).

                                        

Yeah...PayPal was a joke.  Glad you picked that up. Democrats are usually not very wise covering their tracks.  Hillary is an example. Bill is another....Obama is another....etc.

 

 

 

Edited August 7, 2016 by slipperylobster

[Scott]

A post violating Fair Use Policy has been removed.  

[Neurath]

On 8/6/2016 at 9:49 PM, ClutchClark said:

 

Chicog,

 

I think we have both seen that newsworthy or embarassing actions are often saved with the intent of releasing them at just the right moment for most devastating effect. In this case, Trump kept this one in his pocket until he needed it to get the spotlight off the Kahn screw-up.

 

The decision of when to publice an event like the cash for hostages trade does not make it less true and to be fair it was the highly trusted Wall Street Journal that chose when to expose it.

 

I would agree with you that it is clever to use monies already owed to "buy" something IF the debt was going to be legitimized as this was apparently being determined in Hague. 

 

But to receive credit for being "clever" obama would need to admit that it was a ransom. That is what I don't like about this deal...his attempt to put lipstick on it and call it something else.

 

I guess it would not look real good if the US started negotiating with hostage takers.

"In this case, Trump kept this one in his pocket until he needed it to get the spotlight off the Kahn screw-up."

 

Oh come on. That would imply some degree of impulse control - there is not one iota of evidence to suggest that he possesses this and screaming reams of evidence showing that he possesses nothing of the sort. The man resembles nothing more that the dog with two bones. 

[Boon Mee]

Obama's attitude is deny 'til you die but it's been shown that it was a ransom payment.

Thank God we have only a few more months of this Traitor:

 

Edited August 8, 2016 by Boon Mee

[Linzz]

On 8/5/2016 at 9:11 PM, Silurian said:

 

I am sorry to hear that you will never trust Iran. Have you ever personally met anyone from Iran? I had a couple of Iranian students in a Thai language class that I was taking years ago. At first I was apprehensive to talk with them due to American-Iranian relationship issues. But after getting to know them and several long discussions, I realized that they are quite a friendly and peaceful people. From what they told me is that younger Iranians want a closer and respectful relationship with Americans. They love Levi jeans and many other western iconic fashions. A lot of those street parades you mention took place in the late 70's when Iran kicked the Shah out of Iran (who was placed there by the US). Granted there is still some American hatred that still plays on Iranian TV but it is limited and typically backed by a small group of zealots. Just as there are a faction of American people that parade around hating on various races.

 

I have delved into why America and Iran have such a long confrontational history. It is something that the American population mostly believes was due to racial or religious hatred but this is really not the case. It goes back at least 60 years ago when the US thought it could nation build Iran the way it wanted. Then exploding in the late 70's with the Iranian revolution. Actually during the 50's, 60's and early 70's, Iran was a tourist destination for Americans and Iran sent students to study in the US. I would like to see both America and Iran get back to a time where there was this mutual trust.

 

 

 

You're an idealist, fine. Iranian people are very welcoming of Westerners etc, I agree. I like some Americans too. But what does that have to do with separation of religion and State and the Mullahs that run the country according to the Shia version of the Koran? They also hold the keys to the military. There is really no equivalent to the USA . If the police start overseeing lynchings of gays in America then  I might start to agree with you. I do agree with you however that America seems to have a penchant for "nation building"  and overthrowing strong men dictators and consequently destabilizing the world.  

 

And what are other idealistic posters saying about payment was just a good will exercise that has nothing to do with the hostages? They like Obama want a better world but its naivety in the extreme. Seems they like taking hostages, 2 more since. Hostage taking works.

http://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-08-03/u-s-has-taught-iran-a-lesson-hostage-taking-pays

Edited August 9, 2016 by Linzz
We would all like to see America and Iran in mutual trust. But I seriously doubt that is possible as long as the State Religion runs the country. If it became secular perhaps but we are already seeing Turkey heading away from secularism.

[Chicog]

Perhaps it's time Iranian citizens that managed to get out realise that they are better off not going back to the s---hole, and expecting the US government to bail them out.

 

 

 

 

[Silurian]

1 hour ago, Linzz said:

 

You're an idealist, fine. Iranian people are very welcoming of Westerners etc, I agree. I like some Americans too. But what does that have to do with separation of religion and State and the Mullahs that run the country according to the Shia version of the Koran? They also hold the keys to the military. There is really no equivalent to the USA . If the police start overseeing lynchings of gays in America then  I might start to agree with you. I do agree with you however that America seems to have a penchant for "nation building"  and overthrowing strong men dictators and consequently destabilizing the world.  

 

 

As I have stated in a later post that the Iranian people allowed Khomeini too much power after the revolution and it was their big mistake. They should have had a balance between religious leaders and government leaders but alas Khomeini was too powerful. Hopefully in the future we will see a more separation between religion and state in Iran but as you state the religious leaders hold the keys to the military (also a side affect of the revolution) which makes this separation difficult if not impossible.

Edited August 9, 2016 by Silurian

[Silurian]

19 minutes ago, Chicog said:

Perhaps it's time Iranian citizens that managed to get out realise that they are better off not going back to the s---hole, and expecting the US government to bail them out.

 

 

I am not sure if the Iranian citizen would welcome a US intervention as it didn't turn out to well last time (i.e. the Shah and his atrocities). No, I feel the next Iranian revolution will have to come from an inflow of western type capitalism and ideas of freedom. The problem is that the Iranian religious leaders have a good nose to smell out this type of change and clamp down before it takes root (see Pokemon Go banned in Iran). This change/revolution will need to be subtle and strong.

[Chicog]

20 minutes ago, Silurian said:

 

I am not sure if the Iranian citizen would welcome a US intervention as it didn't turn out to well last time (i.e. the Shah and his atrocities). No, I feel the next Iranian revolution will have to come from an inflow of western type capitalism and ideas of freedom. The problem is that the Iranian religious leaders have a good nose to smell out this type of change and clamp down before it takes root (see Pokemon Go banned in Iran). This change/revolution will need to be subtle and strong.

 

Even when protests against their anti-democratic "elections" broke out, they were quelled pretty quickly with some judicious beatings, arrests and executions.

No change there for a long time in my view.

 

 

[Crowes]

On 8/8/2016 at 6:12 PM, Boon Mee said:

Obama's attitude is deny 'til you die but it's been shown that it was a ransom payment.

Thank God we have only a few more months of this Traitor:

 

 

I'll be waiting patiently for Thai Visa to post the breaking news story saying Obama paid a ransom to Iran, but we know it will only be filled with an anti-Trump headline instead.

 

 

[MajarTheLion]

On 8/19/2016 at 2:42 PM, Crowes said:

 

I'll be waiting patiently for Thai Visa to post the breaking news story saying Obama paid a ransom to Iran, but we know it will only be filled with an anti-Trump headline instead.

 

 

 

I heard Trump has really small hands. That is much more important than paying ransoms to a terrorist nation, giving five high-ranking terrorists for one deserter and accumulating more debt than almost all other previous presidents combined. Come on, get your priorities straight!

[MajarTheLion]

On 8/9/2016 at 6:48 AM, Chicog said:

 

Even when protests against their anti-democratic "elections" broke out, they were quelled pretty quickly with some judicious beatings, arrests and executions.

No change there for a long time in my view.

 

 

 

All the more reason for the US to artfully and skillfully get out of policing the savages around the world.