Trumps claims Obama "lied" about cash for Iran's US prisoners

[Ulysses G.]

13 minutes ago, Shawn0000 said:

 

The Hague ordered them to pay the money, you cannot pay a ransom to someone with their own money.

 

 

You can if you refuse to pay it unless you get some prisoners in return. The US would not have given Iran without a quid pro quo.

 

THAT IS A RANSOM. 

[Chicog]

4 hours ago, Boon Mee said:

What in the world is a "piss take"?  

 

 

You of all people should know what.

 

 

 

[Chicog]

Just now, Ulysses G. said:

 

 

You can if you refuse to pay it unless you get some prisoners in return. The US would not have given Iran without a quid pro quo.

 

THAT IS A RANSOM. 

 

I'm surprised you're still peddling this tosh.

Obama used money they were going to get anyway to solicit the release of hostages.

You can stop blowing smoke now, there's no fire.

 

Quote

 

"The United States and Iran are now settling a longstanding Iranian government claim against the United States government.  Iran will be returned its own funds, including appropriate interest, but much less than the amount Iran sought. "

 

 

President Obama, Whitehouse, 17th Jan 2016

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/01/17/statement-president-iran
 

[Shawn0000]

8 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

 

You can if you refuse to pay it unless you get some prisoners in return. The US would not have given Iran without a quid pro quo.

 

THAT IS A RANSOM. 

 

Iran would not give the prisoners without the money, they made an agreement to do it at the same time, that is diplomacy.

[Chicog]

12 hours ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

It happened on Reagan's watch, so he gets the credit. That is how it works. GeorgeW.Bush started the process of finding Osama Bin Ladin, but he is not the one who is credited for getting him.

 

Reagan gets lots of credit for what he did with hostages, weapons and Iran.

 

[Ulysses G.]

6 minutes ago, Shawn0000 said:

 

Iran would not give the prisoners without the money, they made an agreement to do it at the same time, that is diplomacy.

 

 

Nope. Quid Pro Quo makes it a RANSOM.

[Ulysses G.]

9 minutes ago, Shawn0000 said:

 

Iran would not give the prisoners without the money

 

That is the whole point.

 

Ransom: obtain the release of a prisoner by making a payment.

Edited August 21, 2016 by Ulysses G.

[Shawn0000]

6 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

That is the whole point.

 

Ransom: obtain the release of a prisoner by making a payment.

 

No, ransom is defined by extortion, the Hague ordered the US to pay back the money, it was not extortion to expect back what was lawfully theirs, therefor it was not a ransom, this really is simple to understand.

 

I know you so want to smear Obama even when it is over the successful negotiation of the release of hostages but do you never stop to consider how it is making you look?  Desperate, springs to mind.

[Ulysses G.]

19 minutes ago, Shawn0000 said:

 

No, ransom is defined by extortion

 

I just quoted the DICTIONARY DEFINITION. It says nothing about "extortion". You are - once again - making things up. You are being deceitful.

 

Why do you - and others of your ilk - think that no one knows how to use Google? It makes you look throroughly dishonest.

Edited August 21, 2016 by Ulysses G.

[Shawn0000]

13 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

I just quoted the DICTIONARY DEFINITION. It says nothing about "extortion". You are - once again - making things up. You are being deceitful.

 

Why do you - and others of your ilk - think that no one knows how to use Google? It makes you look throroughly dishonest.

 

Aww, bless.  The unreasonable demand for money is called extortion, it is unreasonable to demand money for releasing a hostage, holding someone to ransom is a type of extortion, the money was ordered to be paid by the Hague, the expectation of a court order to be fulfilled is not unreasonable, it is not extortion, it was not ransom.  Did you get it this time?

[Ulysses G.]

30 minutes ago, Shawn0000 said:

 

Did you get it this time?

 

I got it that you are spinning and not very well. Your personal interpretaton does not cancel out the REAL definition of the word.

 

Ransom: The redemption of a prisoner, kidnapped person, etc.for money.

[Chicog]

BTW the money was not "ordered to be paid by the Hague", it was part of a negotiated settlement.

 

So by January, the US agreed that it owed Iran the $400m plus interest.

So instead of just giving it to them, they held it back and got some hostages freed.

Really, if you weren't so blindly anti-Obama, you'd think that was a smart piece of business.

 

 

 

[Ulysses G.]

Just now, Chicog said:

BTW the money was not "ordered to be paid by the Hague"

 

 

So more BS. No surprise there. No matter how you try to spin it, we paid a ransom together those prisoners back and we admitted that Iran would not get the money otherwise.

[iReason]

Armchair Quarterback Ulysses, pretends to know "otherwise" than a man who was there:

Former Iran Hostage Shane Bauer:

Claim That $400M U.S. Paid to Iran was Ransom Deal is "Absurd"

 

"SHANE BAUER: I think the claim that this money was a ransom is absurd. Like you said, this money had been owed to Iran since the time of the overthrow of the shah."

 

"You know, this was a pre-existing negotiation, and pegging—

using this as leverage to get Iran to release the prisoners is exactly what should have been done."

 

"You know, I could easily see criticism from the opposite direction from Republicans, saying, you know, what if the Obama administration had not done this, and left these prisoners sitting in there and not included them in negotiations? I mean, that would be way more ridiculous."

 

http://www.democracynow.org/2016/8/19/former_iran_hostage_shane_bauer_claim

 

Edited August 21, 2016 by iReason

[Ulysses G.]

1 hour ago, iReason said:

Armchair Quarterback Ulysses, pretends to know "otherwise" than a man who was there:

 

 

He was where? In a cell with a burlap bag over his head? He does not know anymore than we do. He works for far left publication Mother Jones so he probably knows even less.  

Edited August 21, 2016 by Ulysses G.

[Chicog]

2 hours ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

So more BS. No surprise there. No matter how you try to spin it, we paid a ransom together those prisoners back and we admitted that Iran would not get the money otherwise.

 

It isn't BS, for heaven's sake man, Obama spoke of this in January.

It is a matter of record.

The fact that you didn't see it, doesn't make it a lie.

 

No matter how you spin it, they had to release hostages before they got their own money - which they would have got anyway.

Heavens how bitter and twisted you are that you can't see what fools were made of them.

 

 

[Ulysses G.]

3 minutes ago, Chicog said:

 

It isn't BS, for heaven's sake man

 

 

 

You are contradicting yourself. Another poster claimed that the US "was ordered" to pay by the Hague and YOU disputed it. I pointed out that his claim was BS.

 

THE Iranians got paid to release the hostages and that is a quid pro quo. They would not have gotten the money otherwise. It is a ransom pure and simple.

[Credo]

It's apparently very sad for some people that a negotiated settlement has been (partially) taken care of and some hostages (prisoners) have been released.    

 

I know that the anti-Obama crowd are upset.   He should have given them the money and not gotten the hostages.   

 

Can you imagine the outrage if he had done that?   

 

But keep digging for various definitions to fit your agenda.   

[Boon Mee]

8 hours ago, Chicog said:

 

You of all people should know what.

 

 

 

Sorry bud but haven't a clue what a 'piss-take' is.

Why don't y'all define it?  Straight up - no troll etc. 

 

On-topic:  Obama paid Ransom to release the boys in Iran. 

Edited August 21, 2016 by Boon Mee

[Scott]

An off-topic post has been removed.   Please keep your remarks limited to the topic and not directed at other members, especially if such remarks are not relevant to the discussion.  

 

 

[Andaman Al]

4 hours ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

You are contradicting yourself. Another poster claimed that the US "was ordered" to pay by the Hague and YOU disputed it. I pointed out that his claim was BS.

 

THE Iranians got paid to release the hostages and that is a quid pro quo. They would not have gotten the money otherwise. It is a ransom pure and simple.

 

This is like a hamster wheel. The money was NOT a ransom, the repayment of Iranian legally owned money was used as leverage to free the hostages. I bet if your sorry little ass was languishing in an Iranian jail you would now be kissing Obama butt for being so clever to get you out. What a pity it seems you would rather the hostages were still being held, all the language you use on this thread is that of resent.

[Boon Mee]

53 minutes ago, Andaman Al said:

 

This is like a hamster wheel. The money was NOT a ransom, the repayment of Iranian legally owned money was used as leverage to free the hostages. I bet if your sorry little ass was languishing in an Iranian jail you would now be kissing Obama butt for being so clever to get you out. What a pity it seems you would rather the hostages were still being held, all the language you use on this thread is that of resent.

Why was it in cash?  If so-called 'legal money', the US could have cut a check, wired the money to their bank - any number of ways other than in denominations of foreign cash unable to be traced.

The Ransom that dare not speak its name, eh? 

[Andaman Al]

2 minutes ago, Boon Mee said:

Why was it in cash?  If so-called 'legal money', the US could have cut a check, wired the money to their bank - any number of ways other than in denominations of foreign cash unable to be traced.

The Ransom that dare not speak its name, eh? 

 

Well I guess it is so much that they actually need the physical cash. It is alright wiring the money but in order for it to go into circulation they would physically need the cash in the banks. What do they do? Print some dollars in Tehran? Order the cash from the US? Once it is wired to Iran which does not have a central bank it is untraceable anyway. They probably have a better chance of tracing the cash. I imagine every serial number has been scanned.

[Ulysses G.]

1 hour ago, Andaman Al said:

 

This is like a hamster wheel. The money was NOT a ransom, the repayment of Iranian legally owned money was used as leverage to free the hostages.

 

The Obama administration already admitted that they would not have paid the money if the prisoners were not handed over. That is NOT "repayment". That is a RANSOM.

 

Ransom: the freeing of a prisoner in return for payment.

Edited August 22, 2016 by Ulysses G.

[Boon Mee]

We're still back to  the common definition of a ransom is “money that is paid in order to free someone who has been captured or kidnapped.

 

That the situation - full stop! 

[Ulysses G.]

4 minutes ago, Boon Mee said:

We're still back to  the common definition of a ransom is “money that is paid in order to free someone who has been captured or kidnapped.

 

That the situation - full stop! 

 

The left tries to convince us that down is up and up is down. This is pretty typical.

[Scott]

Apparently, some posters don't believe they are required to follow the rules.   Suspensions will now be given.

 

[iReason]

@Post 75 Ulysses

Your reading comprehension leaves much to be desired. Take off your blinders:

 

"you spent more than two years in Tehran’s Evin Prison, four [months] of them in solitary, after you and two other Americans—now your wife, Sarah Shourd, and Josh Fattal—were captured while hiking near the unmarked Iran-Iraq border."

http://www.democracynow.org/2016/8/19/former_iran_hostage_shane_bauer_claim

Edited August 22, 2016 by iReason

[thaihome]

 

4 hours ago, Boon Mee said:

We're still back to  the common definition of a ransom is “money that is paid in order to free someone who has been captured or kidnapped.

 

That the situation - full stop! 

 

What about the 7 Iranian prisoners held by the US released the same day? 

 

 http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/01/16/463293941/iran-says-its-releasing-four-iranian-american-detainees-in-prison-swap

 

TH 

[Chicog]

5 hours ago, Boon Mee said:

Why was it in cash?  If so-called 'legal money', the US could have cut a check, wired the money to their bank - any number of ways other than in denominations of foreign cash unable to be traced.

The Ransom that dare not speak its name, eh? 

 

Cash in foreign denominations was the only way it did not violate existing sanctions.

Perhaps you ought to try reading a newspaper instead of Breitbart.