New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Face the Facts: Obama Paid a Ransom to Iran

Mr. Friscus

Governor
A big time lie by our current administration, and the media quickly bails on reporting on it to go after Trump.

However, make no mistake about it, Obama and the administration lied about all of this: It was a Ransom, through and through. Obama is just "choosing" not to call it one, but by any outside definition, considering all of the proof, it's a ransom.

$400 million in foreign cash, flown into Iran under cover of darkness on an unmarked cargo plane was money merely "owed" to the world's #1 sponsor of terrorism.

Let's look at what Obama is saying:

Why are we paying? Supposedly from a "failed arms deal" negotiated with the Shah of Iran over 35 years ago. Obama claims the money is part of nuclear deal reached with Iran, and the first installment of a $1.7 billion settlement at an International Tribunal. Obama claims we are "saving money" by paying this (Obamacare anyone?).

Let's look at what is being purposefully ignored:
A statement by one of the four hostages before being released in January, who said "I just remember the night at the airport sitting for hours and hours there, and I asked police 'Why are you not letting us go?'" The response was "We are waiting for another plane, so if that plane doesn't come, we never let you go".

What was the "other plane" carrying that was so important to the Iranian government that only its arrival would trigger the release of the hostages? And it's failure to land would negate the release? Was it toilet paper?

It's a sad day when the Iranian government is more truthful than the President of the United States.

Meanwhile, for even more context, Obama had been planning this ransom for awhile, and had been surpressing information to make it happen. The administration stonewalled a request from Congress to release figures on the number of Americans and Israelis killed by Iran and its terrorist proxies since the 1979 Iranian revolution. This was obviously done to ease opposition to such a deal with such an awful regime. Meanwhile, Iran is more than likely creating nuclear weapons in secret, and is allowed to enrich uranium today.

Iran clearly saw the $400 million as a ransom. Obama can "choose" not to call it that, just as Hillary Clinton can "choose" not to hear what James Comey said. The point is, if the people who are asking for the ransom think it's a ransom, it's a ransom. Obama is choosing to decieve the people in order to avoid the label, but you'd have to be an idiot to believe him.
 
A big time lie by our current administration, and the media quickly bails on reporting on it to go after Trump.

However, make no mistake about it, Obama and the administration lied about all of this: It was a Ransom, through and through. Obama is just "choosing" not to call it one, but by any outside definition, considering all of the proof, it's a ransom.

$400 million in foreign cash, flown into Iran under cover of darkness on an unmarked cargo plane was money merely "owed" to the world's #1 sponsor of terrorism.

Let's look at what Obama is saying:

Why are we paying? Supposedly from a "failed arms deal" negotiated with the Shah of Iran over 35 years ago. Obama claims the money is part of nuclear deal reached with Iran, and the first installment of a $1.7 billion settlement at an International Tribunal. Obama claims we are "saving money" by paying this (Obamacare anyone?).

Let's look at what is being purposefully ignored:
A statement by one of the four hostages before being released in January, who said "I just remember the night at the airport sitting for hours and hours there, and I asked police 'Why are you not letting us go?'" The response was "We are waiting for another plane, so if that plane doesn't come, we never let you go".

What was the "other plane" carrying that was so important to the Iranian government that only its arrival would trigger the release of the hostages? And it's failure to land would negate the release? Was it toilet paper?

It's a sad day when the Iranian government is more truthful than the President of the United States.

Meanwhile, for even more context, Obama had been planning this ransom for awhile, and had been surpressing information to make it happen. The administration stonewalled a request from Congress to release figures on the number of Americans and Israelis killed by Iran and its terrorist proxies since the 1979 Iranian revolution. This was obviously done to ease opposition to such a deal with such an awful regime. Meanwhile, Iran is more than likely creating nuclear weapons in secret, and is allowed to enrich uranium today.

Iran clearly saw the $400 million as a ransom. Obama can "choose" not to call it that, just as Hillary Clinton can "choose" not to hear what James Comey said. The point is, if the people who are asking for the ransom think it's a ransom, it's a ransom. Obama is choosing to decieve the people in order to avoid the label, but you'd have to be an idiot to believe him.

Faced with the choice of getting the prisoners freed by giving Iran their own money back, or letting the prisoners rot in Iranian prisons, should Obama have left them there?
 
Faced with the choice of getting the prisoners freed by giving Iran their own money back, or letting the prisoners rot in Iranian prisons, should Obama have left them there?

Do you advocate negotiating with terrorists who hold ransoms?

Because it's America's position to not do so, and Obama himself would say it's wrong. However, he did it, he's just lying to his own people, while Iran is oddly telling the truth.

As you know, now, Iran is more likely to capture more Americans, because they know soft Obama will pay the ransom.

Your attempt to be fluffy doesn't hold up.
 
Do you advocate negotiating with terrorists who hold ransoms?

Because it's America's position to not do so, and Obama himself would say it's wrong. However, he did it, he's just lying to his own people, while Iran is oddly telling the truth.

As you know, now, Iran is more likely to capture more Americans, because they know soft Obama will pay the ransom.

Your attempt to be fluffy doesn't hold up.

Just so you know, dodging questions, like you just did, reveals that you just can't honestly defend your positions. You're limited to mindless, partisan carping.
 
Just so you know, dodging questions, like you just did, reveals that you just can't honestly defend your positions. You're limited to mindless, partisan carping.

I answered your question. No, we shouldn't negotiate with terrorists. Now Iran will be more likely to take more hostages.

Read.
 
who cares, as long as we're protected from Iranian nukes!

we are protected, aren't we?

what do you mean congress wasn't allowed to read the treaty, and vote on it?

Just so long as we got something tangible for the $1.5 billion
 
Hey, at least you answered the question.

So we now know that you think it would be better to have our citizens rot in Iranian prisons than give Iran its own money back. Do you think any kind of swap was justified?
I think paying money to free those detained without cause simply teaches the Iranians that they can make more money by repeating the process.
 
Hey, at least you answered the question.

So we now know that you think it would be better to have our citizens rot in Iranian prisons than give Iran its own money back. Do you think any kind of swap was justified?

I answered the question about 15 times the other day but since it did not fit into your approved narrative you kept claiming like the bleating sheep you are that it was not answered.

Own money? Who cares? I am sure organized crime has money are we going to go out of our to make sure that they have what is "owed" to them?

What is Iran? The worlds largest state sponsor of terror.

What did we just do? We unfroze 150 Billion dollars in accordance with a Nuclear deal that is not worth the paper it is written on and only insures that Iran will have nuclear weapons.

What else did we do? We paid a RANSOM of 400 million dollars in cash violating US Law and again.......400 million dollars in cash to the worlds largest state sponsor of terrorism. Cash that most certainly found its way to Hezbollah and Hamas....perhaps even some to Assad to pay some bills as he clings to power or perhaps the Mullahs have used to increase the strangle hold they have on the people of Iran........perhaps in better batons to wail the kids with the next time the Mullahs don't like an election result.........

Has Iran taken more hostages since this exchange? Why yes, Yes they have.

Did you think it was for tea and crumpets?

One of the gentleman released by the Iranians has stated on more then one occasion that it was made very clear to all of them that they were not going anywhere until the other plane arrived. Ya know.....the one with the money.......THAT'S A RANSOM

Worst President in history and its not even close.
 
A big time lie by our current administration, and the media quickly bails on reporting on it to go after Trump.

However, make no mistake about it, Obama and the administration lied about all of this: It was a Ransom, through and through. Obama is just "choosing" not to call it one, but by any outside definition, considering all of the proof, it's a ransom.

$400 million in foreign cash, flown into Iran under cover of darkness on an unmarked cargo plane was money merely "owed" to the world's #1 sponsor of terrorism.

Let's look at what Obama is saying:

Why are we paying? Supposedly from a "failed arms deal" negotiated with the Shah of Iran over 35 years ago. Obama claims the money is part of nuclear deal reached with Iran, and the first installment of a $1.7 billion settlement at an International Tribunal. Obama claims we are "saving money" by paying this (Obamacare anyone?).

Let's look at what is being purposefully ignored:
A statement by one of the four hostages before being released in January, who said "I just remember the night at the airport sitting for hours and hours there, and I asked police 'Why are you not letting us go?'" The response was "We are waiting for another plane, so if that plane doesn't come, we never let you go".

What was the "other plane" carrying that was so important to the Iranian government that only its arrival would trigger the release of the hostages? And it's failure to land would negate the release? Was it toilet paper?

It's a sad day when the Iranian government is more truthful than the President of the United States.

Meanwhile, for even more context, Obama had been planning this ransom for awhile, and had been surpressing information to make it happen. The administration stonewalled a request from Congress to release figures on the number of Americans and Israelis killed by Iran and its terrorist proxies since the 1979 Iranian revolution. This was obviously done to ease opposition to such a deal with such an awful regime. Meanwhile, Iran is more than likely creating nuclear weapons in secret, and is allowed to enrich uranium today.

Iran clearly saw the $400 million as a ransom. Obama can "choose" not to call it that, just as Hillary Clinton can "choose" not to hear what James Comey said. The point is, if the people who are asking for the ransom think it's a ransom, it's a ransom. Obama is choosing to decieve the people in order to avoid the label, but you'd have to be an idiot to believe him.

I asked this question last week and not a single one of you who are so irate about this could muster an answer.

If someone demands something more in order to give you back your own money.

Would you call your giving that individual something in addition in order to get your money back, as you having been paid a ransom by the individual making the demand ?

Yes or No ?
 
I asked this question last week and not a single one of you who are so irate about this could muster an answer.

If someone demands something more in order to give you back your own money.

Would you call your giving that individual something in addition in order to get your money back, as you having been paid a ransom by the individual making the demand ?

Yes or No ?

That's not the situation. I can answer it, but it'd have nothing to do with the Iran deal.

The American hostage described a clear case of ransom. Iran thinks it's a ransom. Case closed.
 
That's not the situation. I can answer it, but it'd have nothing to do with the Iran deal.

The American hostage described a clear case of ransom. Iran thinks it's a ransom. Case closed.

Then answer the question first and we can examine what you say makes the situations different.
 
I asked this question last week and not a single one of you who are so irate about this could muster an answer.

If someone demands something more in order to give you back your own money.

Would you call your giving that individual something in addition in order to get your money back, as you having been paid a ransom by the individual making the demand ?

Yes or No ?

The question itself is cloudy. If it's a ransom, then no, we can't pay it. If it's to a murderous terrorist-supporting regime, no, we can't pay it.
 
The question itself is cloudy. If it's a ransom, then no, we can't pay it. If it's to a murderous terrorist-supporting regime, no, we can't pay it.

I am asking an objective question outside of the specific details on this particular situation. You are giving a description of your take on this situation instead of answering the objective question first.
 
I asked this question last week and not a single one of you who are so irate about this could muster an answer.

If someone demands something more in order to give you back your own money.

Would you call your giving that individual something in addition in order to get your money back, as you having been paid a ransom by the individual making the demand ?

Yes or No ?

Is it economic or with human lives at stake?
 
Since ransom does not depend on whether what is being ransomed is economic or human. Why does it matter ?

Because human lives and economic sanctions are two totally different things. I value them infiniately differently. It would change my answer.
 
Because human lives and economic sanctions are two totally different things. I value them infiniately differently. It would change my answer.

How much you value something being ransom does not change whether or not it is being ransomed. Your feelings are irrelevant.
 
How much you value something being ransom does not change whether or not it is being ransomed. Your feelings are irrelevant.

Not my feelings, it's the value of what is ransomed.

Human life Trumps any economic circumstance.

Don't try to imprint leftist "feels before reals" labels on me.
 
Back
Top