Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If you make the stretch that its NOT a ransom payment and you back the words of the spokesman who's saying it wasn't ransom, even if you agree with him, the problem is that it LOOKS so much like ransom that the 'bad guys' are going to think its ransom and act act like its ransom. The only thing that really matters isn't if its ransom or not, what matters is if it LOOKS like ransom that puts people in danger. The main thing is the safety of people who might get kidnapped.
The timing was bad but answer me this, if they transferred the money in February would this go away?
The Iranian right wing stated it was a ransom, conjecture by politicians like Tom Cotton gives their statement more credibility when they parrot the same. We already have a policy of not buying back prisoners and the transfer of this payment is well documented yet some have gone as far as stating this was a secret transfer. They really need to stick to facts.
So, the story going around is correct, $400 Million dollars was transferred to Iran.
Just a coincidence the hostages were released at that exact same time.
Convenient.
Guess you still have to try and spin the motivation when the basic elements of the story follow what other's have already said, but it puts the regime in a bad light.
Especially since the world court has no real authority over sovereign nation, so compliance is voluntary, and since we've held those funds since the 1970's, why the sudden urge to pay off the terrorist mullahs??
I don't know how this could be construed as being a secret event .... But, I suppose straw grasping knows no bounds.
The timing was bad but answer me this, if they transferred the money in February would this go away?
The Iranian right wing stated it was a ransom, conjecture by politicians like Tom Cotton gives their statement more credibility when they parrot the same. We already have a policy of not buying back prisoners and the transfer of this payment is well documented yet some have gone as far as stating this was a secret transfer. They really need to stick to facts.
From post 6...
Obama touched on the subject of the settlement during a Cabinet Room statement that January weekend when the Americans were freed.
"The United States and Iran are now settling a longstanding Iranian government claim against the United States government," Obama said, adding, "For the United States, this settlement could save us billions of dollars that could have been pursued by Iran. So there was no benefit to the United States in dragging this out. With the nuclear deal done, prisoners released, the time was right to resolve this dispute as well."
After the prisoners were released, he released money. That's what Obama said. Looks like ransom to me.
Don't forget this is the SAME State Dept. that ALLOWED Hillary to USE her own private server for ALL her State Dept gov't business and blamed an obscure video nobody saw for the Benghazi debacle!
Obama touched on the subject of the settlement during a Cabinet Room statement that January weekend when the Americans were freed.
"The United States and Iran are now settling a longstanding Iranian government claim against the United States government," Obama said, adding, "For the United States, this settlement could save us billions of dollars that could have been pursued by Iran. So there was no benefit to the United States in dragging this out. With the nuclear deal done, prisoners released, the time was right to resolve this dispute as well."
After the prisoners were released, he released money. That's what Obama said. Looks like ransom to me.
They both occurred in January, bad timing but as I asked what would the separation of time need to be to convince those that came up with the theory. Even if it was a month later I would expect they would be indicating the same thing.
Also it's not clear exactly when they received the money other than January, the 4 hostages were released Jan 17.
Obama touched on the subject of the settlement during a Cabinet Room statement that January weekend when the Americans were freed.
"The United States and Iran are now settling a longstanding Iranian government claim against the United States government," Obama said, adding, "For the United States, this settlement could save us billions of dollars that could have been pursued by Iran. So there was no benefit to the United States in dragging this out. With the nuclear deal done, prisoners released, the time was right to resolve this dispute as well."
After the prisoners were released, he released money. That's what Obama said. Looks like ransom to me.
Ransom is defined as money belonging to party A transferring to party B for party B to release hostages. In this case, the money has always belonged to party B. Iran transfered the money to the US back in the 70s for equipment that were never delivered.
Are you advocating the US keep the money as common thief just to spite Obama?
The real truth is that Obama has probably given a lot more money to support Islam than we know of.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
