PDA

View Full Version : October surprise ..the ultimate question.



Qtec
02-11-2011, 05:02 AM
Skip to the 4 minute mark of this video. Hitchens asks the definitive question. listen (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kEZBz5ahHr4&feature=related)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If there was no deal between the Reagan admin and the Iranians, why were they shipping weapons to them when all the hostages had been released?
If there was a deal, as seems to be the case, when did it start? </div></div>

The Iranians made it clear there was a deal when ,

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">On January 20, 1981, <span style='font-size: 14pt'><u>20 minutes after Reagan was sworn in as President</u>,</span> 52 American hostages were released by Iran into U.S. custody, having spent 444 days in captivity. </div></div>



Q

LWW
02-11-2011, 06:30 AM
The ultimate question is why you cling so desperately to this lie when every bit of "EVIDENCE" presented has been proven to be suspect ... at best.

LWW

Qtec
02-11-2011, 06:44 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The ultimate question is why you cling so desperately to this lie when every bit of "EVIDENCE" presented has been proven to be suspect ... at best.

LWW </div></div>

Yet another post where you reply and ignore the topic.

Again.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 20pt'>If there was no deal between the Reagan admin and the Iranians, <u>why were they shipping weapons to them when all the hostages had been released?</u>
If there was a deal, as seems to be the case, <u>when did it start?</u> </span></div></div>

You claim to be an expert on this, why can't you answer 2 simple questions? If you can't just say so.

Q

Soflasnapper
02-11-2011, 07:45 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Richard Allen had referred to a
deal between Reagan and Iran back in late November of
1986 on the MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour. He was being
interviewed at the time, and he was referring to the
very first day that Reagan was president of the United
States. Allen recalled for the MacNeil/Lehrer audience
that he--Allen--told Reagan, then just president, that
there was a fifty-third hostage, a Mrs. Cynthia Dwyer,
who had not yet been released. She was still being held
in Teheran, and Reagan responded, and Allen told
MacNeil/Lehrer's audience, "You get the Iranians on the
phone for me, and I'm going to tell them that our deal
is off unless she is also released." Well, you would
have expected the interviewer on MacNeil/Lehrer to
jump and say, "Just a minute, sir, what deal was
that?" Now the reason that that had to have been, in my
studied opinion, a deal between Reagan and Khomeini,
made before Reagan became president, is because at the
time that Reagan made that phone call to Iran, ALL,
categorically ALL, of Carter's deal with Khomeini had
been consummated. So, when Reagan said "Tell Iran the
deal's off . . . " unless Mrs. Dwyer was released, he
had to have been referring to his own deal.
</div></div>

Link (http://www.skepticfiles.org/socialis/surprise.htm)

Qtec
02-11-2011, 07:55 AM
To me its a no brainer.

Why would Reagan send arms to the enemy when all the hostages had been released if there was no deal in place.

I am conviced that the iranians showed loud and clear, without actually saying so, that the USA had capitulated to their demands by releasing the hostages 20 mins after Reagan became POTUS.

Q

Stretch
02-11-2011, 12:27 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The ultimate question is why you cling so desperately to this lie when every bit of "EVIDENCE" presented has been proven to be suspect ... at best.

LWW </div></div>

Yet another post where you reply and ignore the topic.

Again.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 20pt'>If there was no deal between the Reagan admin and the Iranians, <u>why were they shipping weapons to them when all the hostages had been released?</u>
If there was a deal, as seems to be the case, <u>when did it start?</u> </span></div></div>

You claim to be an expert on this, why can't you answer 2 simple questions? If you can't just say so.

Q </div></div>

LMAO like that's ever going to happen. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif Humility is not in his DNA. St.

Soflasnapper
02-11-2011, 12:38 PM
Q, it's even weirder than that.

Israel actually shipped their first load to Iran BEFORE THE ELECTION, while Carter was still president and had imposed and recruited the world to support a kind of sanctions regime on Iran.

So the obvious suggestion is that the Reagan team got the Israelis to make that very early shipment as a demonstration to the Iranians of their (the Reagan team's) bona fides.

LWW
02-11-2011, 03:31 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Q, it's even weirder than that.

Israel actually shipped their first load to Iran BEFORE THE ELECTION, while Carter was still president and had imposed and recruited the world to support a kind of sanctions regime on Iran.

So the obvious suggestion is that the Reagan team got the Israelis to make that very early shipment as a demonstration to the Iranians of their (the Reagan team's) bona fides. </div></div>

Occam's Razor.

If your claim were true, it would be prima facie evidence that the truth was that Jimmuh Cahtuh was attempting to broker an arms for hostages deal.

But ... that doesn't fit the agenda so you believe the one pimping the Obregon-human hybrid story.

LWW &lt;---No longer surprised by any depth the cabal will stoop to.

Soflasnapper
02-11-2011, 03:54 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Q, it's even weirder than that.

Israel actually shipped their first load to Iran BEFORE THE ELECTION, while Carter was still president and had imposed and recruited the world to support a kind of sanctions regime on Iran.

So the obvious suggestion is that the Reagan team got the Israelis to make that very early shipment as a demonstration to the Iranians of their (the Reagan team's) bona fides. </div></div>

Occam's Razor.

If your claim were true, it would be prima facie evidence that the truth was that Jimmuh Cahtuh was attempting to broker an arms for hostages deal.

But ... that doesn't fit the agenda so you believe the one pimping the Obregon-human hybrid story.
</div></div>

Carter WAS trying to broker such a swap, although it was for arms that had ALREADY BEEN BOUGHT AND PAID FOR.

His LEVERAGE was that they needed the parts and materiel RIGHT THEN, so no, he would not have HARMED HIS LEVERAGE by easing their need prior to gaining the release.

Look, a priori reasoning only takes you so far. Especially bad a priori reasoning, but that's another topic.

There is an abundance of facts as to the early Israeli shipment of arms and supplies to Iran during the Carter administration, which I advise you to reference. Carter was furious, and verbally assaulted Begin for this action.

There has been no attempt anywhere I've seen to argue CARTER did that deal. Either it's entirely swept under the rug (since it proves the Reagan team treason), or instead, what I admitted above, that Carter was trying to do a similar deal (with some differences) is what is emphasized. Another difference: he was the head of state, and the only party authorized to deal on behalf of the US.

Reagan admitted several times that he or his campaign staff were trying to influence the Iranians. In the last statement, off the cuff, coming out of a round of golf, he said, 'but those efforts are classified.'

REALLY? What could private citizen Reagan have been doing negotiating with the Iranians that had to be classified?

LWW
02-11-2011, 03:58 PM
Have you ever wondered why nearly all the peeps who claim to be "IN THE KNOW" ... such as Sick ... on the supposed Reagan deal happened to work in the Jimmuh Cahtuh regime.

LWW

Qtec
02-12-2011, 02:18 AM
So?

Q

LWW
02-12-2011, 02:47 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So?

Q </div></div>

Among your better posts.

LWW

Qtec
02-12-2011, 03:37 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Occam's Razor.

If your claim were true, <u>it would be prima facie evidence that the truth was that Jimmuh Cahtuh was attempting to broker an arms for hostages deal.</u> </div></div>

Logic and history dictate you are wrong.

1. If Carter made a deal with the Iranians, why did they release the hostages AFTER the election?

2. If it was Carter's deal [ and they FKD him by waiting until after the election to release the hostages], why were weapons still being sent to Iran under a Reagan administration?



Q

LWW
02-12-2011, 04:06 AM
Please refer to your dictionary for the definition of the word "IF" ... as in if his false assumption were accurate.

Which, BTW, it isn't.

LWW

Qtec
02-12-2011, 04:16 AM
Goodnight Dorothy. Like I said, trying to have an adult conversation..etc..etc

Q

LWW
02-12-2011, 04:38 AM
Yet, with hard work, you may someday be able to have an adult conversation.

I'm pulling for you to win one for the Dubster.

LWW

Qtec
02-12-2011, 05:08 AM
LWW

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If your claim were true </div></div>

Q

Qtec
02-12-2011, 05:10 AM
BTW

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If your claim were true, <u>it would be prima facie evidence that the truth was that Jimmuh Cahtuh was attempting to broker an arms for hostages deal.</u> </div></div>

Why?

Q

Qtec
02-12-2011, 05:10 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Logic and history dictate you are wrong.

<span style='font-size: 20pt'>1. If Carter made a deal with the Iranians, <u>why did they release the hostages AFTER the election?</u>

2. <u>If it was Carter's deal</u> [ and they FKD him by waiting until after the election to release the hostages], <span style='font-size: 17pt'><span style="color: #990000">why were weapons still being sent to Iran under a Reagan administration?</span></span></span>


Q</div></div>

Waiting.

Q

LWW
02-12-2011, 05:29 AM
Again, you are puzzled by the definition of the word "IF" ... it's only 2 letters long Snoopy.

LWW

Qtec
02-13-2011, 04:40 AM
watch it (http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XITcdoRWPt8&feature=related)

Q

LWW
02-13-2011, 05:27 AM
Dead link ... perhaps George Bush removed the video?

LWW