100 mil a hostage
 

400 million dollars for four hostages who would've been released at some point anyways.Even Carter had enough balls to at least try a rescue.This is as absurd as trading Taliban prisoners for the traitor Bergdahl.

How do you people who support Obama have the ability to continue to defend this buffoon?

Btw he'll finally be visiting LA. after his vacay is over next Tues.

And knowing that these insane type of decisions are going to continue to be made after Shrillary takes office literally makes me sick to my stomach.

After the last 8 years and the upcoming next 4,as a country we are no longer circling the drain...we're going down it.

Have at it boys and girls!!!:lurk:

We didn't pay 400M for four hostages. Did you read the story?

Seeing as the plane with the hostages wasn't allowed to leave until after the 400mil in untraceable currency was received it would seem to be correct saying 100mil per hostage. Why couldn't we wait until they could accept a wire transfer bank to bank? I suggest it was due to a potential paper trail that could have slowed down the financing of terrorist who prefer hard currency over potentially traceable bank accounts which could be seized.

http://nypost.com/2016/08/05/hostage...efore-leaving/
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Who's money did we give them ? Think hard now... United States' money or Iran's money. Think hard.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Doesn't matter to me, they leveraged hostages for cash and got it.
You must have missed the part where the hostage was told if the other plane didn't arrive they would never be let go....hmmmmm sounds like ransome to me and the Iranians also said it was a ransome.

http://dailycaller.com/2016/08/04/te...ansom-payment/
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That is not the point.....we could have held that money for one more year etc:..... Its ransom money....:)

I heard they had to throw in 500 Obama Phones to complete the ransom

Untraceable phones.....lol.....:)

Ransom money would be taking funds we didn't already owe under international law and offering it as a payoff. This situation is more akin to withholding the last payment to your contractor until they fixed their mistakes. You owe the money but you want to influence the timing of the resolution.

So the money influenced whether they were released or not, ransom just like the Iranians said.

http://pamelageller.com/2016/08/watc...hostages.html/
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

:rotf2: right....when you "contractor" is the world's most prolific sponsor of terrorism and has sworn to eradicate you from the earth and you meet him under the cover of darkness at a secret location with unmarked vehicles and money to make the exchange...


you really crack me up :uhuh:

not quite.
that homeowner is holding the contractors kids hostage til the work is completed. Holding last payment until work is satisfactorily done is standard practice. Holding hostages is not. But you believe what you want.

I am going to add to my signature in your honor.

It really is a different situation...unfortunately diplomacy isn't always pretty.

you got that right.....appeasing violent and dangerous regimes and providing the millions to them to fund terrorism is not pretty diplomacy....the money Obama has been sending to Iran is certainly providing the plenty of where-with-all to cause havoc in the middle east...I guess it's Obama's out of country community organizing :doh:

I'm sure it is different and looks are deceiving but you have to admit the timing is no coincidence.
At least Carter would have gone in there to get them back with guns blazing. Nothing pretty about that
giving in to an enemy is not pretty either


Scott, that is because Obama is leading this country to a world government and does not care about you