Originally posted by FreakyKBH"We.
Apparently, it's good to hate on logic these days.
You're so desperate to characterize this situation as a 'clearing of the books' and somehow it is reconfigured in such a manner as to mean the Republicans have it all twisted?
We paid a ransom.
We got bent over (stop me if you've heard this one), forced to accept the conditions by which the terroris ...[text shortened]... oud when you should be convulsed in shame, like the rest of the citizens of these United States.
Paid.
A.
Ransom. "
It
is
not
a
ransom
if
it's
their
money
Originally posted by whodeyThey didn't say that - they said they used the money that the US already owed to Iran as leverage. That's not a "ransom" in any common sense of the word.
http://nypost.com/2016/08/03/gop-blasts-obamas-400m-secret-ransom-paid-to-iran/
Now the State Department of all sources has come out and said that the Obama administration DID pay a ransom for the Iranian prisoners. Obama and Hillary lied.....again.
Vindication! ðŸ˜
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThe prisoners were not leaving until the money landed.
They didn't say that - they said they used the money that the US already owed to Iran as leverage. That's not a "ransom" in any common sense of the word.
That's a ransom dingleberry.
Now go do something useful like you always do like creating a thread on how Hillary never lies.
Originally posted by whodeyYou forget the part where it wasn't our money, it was their money and refusing to release our people would result in them not getting their own money? So how is that us PAYING for ransom? This cannot be used as an excuse to capture people in the future because it was not US money, it was Iranian money we held up for years and getting the interest it generated for all that time so we actully GAINED moneterially speaking. We gave them the amount they gave us with zero interest gained so we got 15 years of interest on near half billion dollars. That interest amounts to nearly half the value of the money so there was over 100 million we got out of the use of that money for that time. So the Iranians paid US not the other way round.
The prisoners were not leaving until the money landed.
That's a ransom dingleberry.
Now go do something useful like you always do like creating a thread on how Hillary never lies.
Originally posted by whodeythe money was theirs, you colossal moron.
The prisoners were not leaving until the money landed.
That's a ransom dingleberry.
Now go do something useful like you always do like creating a thread on how Hillary never lies.
it was an exchange of hostages if you really want to go down this path. the us gave the money they took hostage (stole) when the shah was deposed, Iran gave the hostages they took. It wasn't a ransom, two countries are beginning to normalize their relations as such they negotiated an agreement with many points on each side. on the US side one of them is the return of the money they stole. on the Iranian side is the return of americans they detained at various points.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraNot "ransom" in any common sense of the word???
They didn't say that - they said they used the money that the US already owed to Iran as leverage. That's not a "ransom" in any common sense of the word.
No need to squabble about words. Two people can use the same word with a different set of meetings.
But think of why the US would not want to pay ransom. We do not pay "ransom" for hostages because to do so would encourage more hostage taking. Even though the cash cost of the ransom might seem like a bargain compared to a continuing hostage standoff, most people understand the need to never budge on ransom payments.
So Iran claimed we owe $400 billion plus interest. The case was still being contended in court. But Iran suddenly has hostages and the US suddenly "settles" the court case in order to gain "leverage". Does that not encourage hostage taking exactly the same as paying a ransom would? Suppose Somali pirates claim the US owes them $1 billion for sailing near their cost. If they took hostages and the US "settled" the dispute for $1 billion, doesn't that encourage more hostage taking?
The semantics of the word "ransom" are irrelevant. To "settle" a court case because someone takes hostages is reckless and will potentially result in more hostage taking in the future.
Originally posted by techsouthwell, not 400 BILLION, 400 MILLION, a tiny difference.
[b]Not "ransom" in any common sense of the word???
No need to squabble about words. Two people can use the same word with a different set of meetings.
But think of why the US would not want to pay ransom. We do not pay "ransom" for hostages because to do so would encourage more hostage taking. Even though the cash cost of the ransom might seem ...[text shortened]... one takes hostages is reckless and will potentially result in more hostage taking in the future.[/b]
19 Aug 16
Originally posted by techsouthBut if you get rid of semantics the left will be unable to give a rebuttal. 😞
The semantics of the word "ransom" are irrelevant. To "settle" a court case because someone takes hostages is reckless and will potentially result in more hostage taking in the future.[/b]
19 Aug 16
2 edits
Originally posted by whodeyHe did not pay any ransom. He gave them back THEIR money that the USA owed them that was frozen in the banking system by America. They did not get back the first third of their money until the hostages were released which is a smart move. BTW, we still owe them 800 million more. Do you right-wing freaks even know what truth is?
President Obama paid a ransom for Iranian prisoners who were recently released. Of course, he denies this but the hostage on the plane said that his captors were waiting for another plane to arrive, the one with $400 million, before they could take off and release him.
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/08/proof-obama-lied-us-iranian-hostage-abedini-say ...[text shortened]... -ransom-plane-arrived-video/
Apparently taking American hostages is good business these days.
19 Aug 16
Originally posted by whodeyAnd, the money we owed them was not paid until the hostages were released. Now take your toys and go home and come back with better lies and false witness than this dumb arse.
The prisoners were not leaving until the money landed.
That's a ransom dingleberry.
Now go do something useful like you always do like creating a thread on how Hillary never lies.
19 Aug 16
Originally posted by KingDavid403The Iranians will simply have to round up more US hostages to collect the rest of the $800 billion I reckon.
He did not pay any ransom. He gave them back THEIR money that the USA owed them that was frozen in the banking system by America. They did not get back the first third of their money until the hostages were released which is a smart move. BTW, we still owe them 800 million more. Do you right-wing freaks even know what truth is?
19 Aug 16
Originally posted by techsouthA ransom is when you take something from someone, and then demand money in order to return it.
[b]Not "ransom" in any common sense of the word???
No need to squabble about words. Two people can use the same word with a different set of meetings.
But think of why the US would not want to pay ransom. We do not pay "ransom" for hostages because to do so would encourage more hostage taking. Even though the cash cost of the ransom might seem ...[text shortened]... one takes hostages is reckless and will potentially result in more hostage taking in the future.[/b]
When you owe someone money, and then refuse to give it back to them unless some condition is met, it's called fraud or dishonesty, not "paying a ransom."
19 Aug 16
Originally posted by KazetNagorraIt's impossible to tell exactly all went on between Iran and Obama since most of it is a secret, granted, less so every day
A ransom is when you take something from someone, and then demand money in order to return it.
When you owe someone money, and then refuse to give it back to them unless some condition is met, it's called fraud or dishonesty, not "paying a ransom."