CDZ Iran's Prisoner Release/Swap: What Was the Real Deal?

[jwoodie]

Much has been published about Iran's release of five American prisoners (and 10 sailors), but very little has been said about what Iran really got in return. Was it really an equal trade for seven Iranian sanction violators, or was it more than that? Under other circumstances this sort of deal would be considered a straight up trade, but the current Administration has a record of giving a lot and receiving very little in return (e.g., Bergdahl).

Is it really too far fetched to think this had more to do with the $150 billion funds transfer to Iran and internal U.S. politics than with a legitimate prisoner swap? The Administration and the MSM are touting this as a good will gesture by the Iranians, thereby proving the effectiveness of our soft line negotiating strategy, but downplaying any quid pro quo. Why is this?

We all like to see the return of American hostages returned to their homes, but have we entered a new age of paying ransom by another name? If so, doesn't this encourage more hostage taking? Is this our new motto:

BILLIONS FOR TRIBUTE, BUT NOT ONE OUNCE OF COMMON SENSE?

 

[ogibillm]

funds transfer? hostages?

 

[deltex1]

Blog: Calling BS on the official story of the Iranian capture of two US riverine boats

 

[irosie91]

The response to Iranian "taking of hostages" SHOULD have been----the
"grabbing of a few hot shot Iranians" as hostages

 

[ogibillm]

The response to Iranian "taking of hostages" SHOULD have been----the
"grabbing of a few hot shot Iranians" as hostages

there were no hostages.

if we're going to have an honest debate on something we should at least start with the facts.

 

[rdean]

Much has been published about Iran's release of five American prisoners (and 10 sailors), but very little has been said about what Iran really got in return. Was it really an equal trade for seven Iranian sanction violators, or was it more than that? Under other circumstances this sort of deal would be considered a straight up trade, but the current Administration has a record of giving a lot and receiving very little in return (e.g., Bergdahl).

Is it really too far fetched to think this had more to do with the $150 billion funds transfer to Iran and internal U.S. politics than with a legitimate prisoner swap? The Administration and the MSM are touting this as a good will gesture by the Iranians, thereby proving the effectiveness of our soft line negotiating strategy, but downplaying any quid pro quo. Why is this?

We all like to see the return of American hostages returned to their homes, but have we entered a new age of paying ransom by another name? If so, doesn't this encourage more hostage taking? Is this our new motto:

BILLIONS FOR TRIBUTE, BUT NOT ONE OUNCE OF COMMON SENSE?

The money was never ours. Use some common sense.

 

[irosie91]

The response to Iranian "taking of hostages" SHOULD have been----the
"grabbing of a few hot shot Iranians" as hostages

there were no hostages.

if we're going to have an honest debate on something we should at least start with the facts.

In maritime CUSTON------a ship that----for mechanical reasons---drifts a few feet
into territorial waters does not get grabbed out and its teensy little crew----
forced to kneel as prisoners somewhere on a ship that intercepted them----
they just get nudged back on course. They were hostages and they were RANSOMED

 

[ogibillm]

The response to Iranian "taking of hostages" SHOULD have been----the
"grabbing of a few hot shot Iranians" as hostages

there were no hostages.

if we're going to have an honest debate on something we should at least start with the facts.

In maritime CUSTON------a ship that----for mechanical reasons---drifts a few feet
into territorial waters does not get grabbed out and its teensy little crew----
forced to kneel as prisoners somewhere on a ship that intercepted them----
they just get nudged back on course. They were hostages and they were RANSOMED

okay, so you're not interested in having a reasonable discussion on this.

 

[irosie91]

The response to Iranian "taking of hostages" SHOULD have been----the
"grabbing of a few hot shot Iranians" as hostages

there were no hostages.

if we're going to have an honest debate on something we should at least start with the facts.

In maritime CUSTON------a ship that----for mechanical reasons---drifts a few feet
into territorial waters does not get grabbed out and its teensy little crew----
forced to kneel as prisoners somewhere on a ship that intercepted them----
they just get nudged back on course. They were hostages and they were RANSOMED

okay, so you're not interested in having a reasonable discussion on this.

there is nothing UNREASONABLE about my response. HOSTAGE TAKING
is not new to Iran. I support EQUITY. All persons and nations should have
EQUAL RIGHTS

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

One can't expect 'clean debate' when the thread premise fails as a loaded question fallacy.

 

[deltex1]

The response to Iranian "taking of hostages" SHOULD have been----the
"grabbing of a few hot shot Iranians" as hostages

there were no hostages.

if we're going to have an honest debate on something we should at least start with the facts.

What do you call a person held on false charges for political advantage? Take your time Ogy...don't want to tax your faculties.

 

[jwoodie]

One can't expect 'clean debate' when the thread premise fails as a loaded question fallacy.

Just another in a long line of brainless postings that gets you IGNORED. If you actually had something of value to contribute, you would have specified the "fallacy" you allege, corrected it and then posted your own opinion on the subject matter with facts and/or logic to back it up.

Bye bye.

 

[Jackson]

The sailors were arrested, so technically they were prisoners. But not for long. Just as the actual 5 hostages were released. Iran made the better deal as usual. They got 7 of the Iranian prisoners we were holding. 5 against 7, and add to that, 14 Iranians responsible for the bombing of a Jewish Community center in Argentina that killed 85, off the wanted list, Interpol's red list.

As usual, we got the least from them for they got 21 to return to Iran and we got 6. Or was it 5?

What made Iran make the deal at all? $150 B was going to be released by the US to them. They didn't want to jeopardize that! Great job, Obama! Not.

 

[ogibillm]

The response to Iranian "taking of hostages" SHOULD have been----the
"grabbing of a few hot shot Iranians" as hostages

there were no hostages.

if we're going to have an honest debate on something we should at least start with the facts.

What do you call a person held on false charges for political advantage? Take your time Ogy...don't want to tax your faculties.

they were prisoners. trying to pretend they were hostages serves no purpose but to attempt to complicate the issue through emotional appeal.

 

[ogibillm]

The sailors were arrested, so technically they were prisoners. But not for long. Just as the actual 5 hostages were released. Iran made the better deal as usual. They got 7 of the Iranian prisoners we were holding. 5 against 7, and add to that, 14 Iranians responsible for the bombing of a Jewish Community center in Argentina that killed 85, off the wanted list, Interpol's red list.

As usual, we got the least from them for they got 21 to return to Iran and we got 6. Or was it 5?

What made Iran make the deal at all? $150 B was going to be released by the US to them. They didn't want to jeopardize that! Great job, Obama! Not.

you're somehow under the impression that all frozen assets that are being released were under the control of the united states.

of course, you're also under the impression that iran was holding hostages. you need to correct these erroneous impressions.

 

[deltex1]

The response to Iranian "taking of hostages" SHOULD have been----the
"grabbing of a few hot shot Iranians" as hostages

there were no hostages.

if we're going to have an honest debate on something we should at least start with the facts.

What do you call a person held on false charges for political advantage? Take your time Ogy...don't want to tax your faculties.

they were prisoners. trying to pretend they were hostages serves no purpose but to attempt to complicate the issue through emotional appeal.

Maybe this will untax your faculties...

I found great synonyms for "hostage" on the new Thesaurus.com!

 

[ogibillm]

The response to Iranian "taking of hostages" SHOULD have been----the
"grabbing of a few hot shot Iranians" as hostages

there were no hostages.

if we're going to have an honest debate on something we should at least start with the facts.

What do you call a person held on false charges for political advantage? Take your time Ogy...don't want to tax your faculties.

they were prisoners. trying to pretend they were hostages serves no purpose but to attempt to complicate the issue through emotional appeal.

Maybe this will untax your faculties...

I found great synonyms for "hostage" on the new Thesaurus.com!

so the iranians we held, were they hostages?

 

[Jackson]

The sailors were arrested, so technically they were prisoners. But not for long. Just as the actual 5 hostages were released. Iran made the better deal as usual. They got 7 of the Iranian prisoners we were holding. 5 against 7, and add to that, 14 Iranians responsible for the bombing of a Jewish Community center in Argentina that killed 85, off the wanted list, Interpol's red list.

As usual, we got the least from them for they got 21 to return to Iran and we got 6. Or was it 5?

What made Iran make the deal at all? $150 B was going to be released by the US to them. They didn't want to jeopardize that! Great job, Obama! Not.

you're somehow under the impression that all frozen assets that are being released were under the control of the united states.

of course, you're also under the impression that iran was holding hostages. you need to correct these erroneous impressions.

They were hostages.

 

[deltex1]

The response to Iranian "taking of hostages" SHOULD have been----the
"grabbing of a few hot shot Iranians" as hostages

there were no hostages.

if we're going to have an honest debate on something we should at least start with the facts.

What do you call a person held on false charges for political advantage? Take your time Ogy...don't want to tax your faculties.

they were prisoners. trying to pretend they were hostages serves no purpose but to attempt to complicate the issue through emotional appeal.

Maybe this will untax your faculties...

I found great synonyms for "hostage" on the new Thesaurus.com!

so the iranians we held, were they hostages?

To a liberal...yes. To an American, no. Intent/purpose is key. In certain circumstances the terms are interchangeable...not in these circumstances.

 

[ogibillm]

there were no hostages.

if we're going to have an honest debate on something we should at least start with the facts.

What do you call a person held on false charges for political advantage? Take your time Ogy...don't want to tax your faculties.

they were prisoners. trying to pretend they were hostages serves no purpose but to attempt to complicate the issue through emotional appeal.

Maybe this will untax your faculties...

I found great synonyms for "hostage" on the new Thesaurus.com!

so the iranians we held, were they hostages?

To a liberal...yes. To an American, no. Intent/purpose is key. In certain circumstances the terms are interchangeable...not in these circumstances.

so it's all about your feelings.

but I'll say this for intent. no ransom was demanded, no favor asked when the prisoners were detained. so what makes you so certain they were hostages?