It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Scott Ritter: US to Attack Iran's Reactors in June

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 21 2005 @ 01:31 PM
link   
www.rense.com...

I realize this link is from rense.com but it is an authored piece stating that Scott Ritter spoke on Friday night (2/21) in Olympia Washington. Apparently he said that the Iran nuclear facilities will be bombed in June and the Neo-Cons hope this will grow into a larger war thereafter. The article states:



The principal theme of Scott Ritter's talk was Americans' duty to protect the U.S. Constitution by taking action to bring an end to the illegal war in Iraq. But in passing, the former UNSCOM weapons inspector stunned his listeners with two pronouncements. Ritter said plans for a June attack on Iran have been submitted to President George W. Bush, and that the president has approved them. He also asserted that knowledgeable sources say U.S. officials "cooked" the results of the Jan. 30 elections in Iraq.

On Iran, Ritter said that President George W. Bush has received and signed off on orders for an aerial attack on Iran planned for June 2005. Its purported goal is the destruction of Iran's alleged program to develop nuclear weapons, but Ritter said neoconservatives in the administration also expected that the attack would set in motion a chain of events leading to regime change in the oil-rich nation of 70 million -- a possibility Ritter regards with the greatest skepticism.

Can anyone confirm this speech and the actual wording of his comments? I tend to listen when Ritter talks. More about him can be found here:

www.time.com...



[edit on 21-2-2005 by smallpeeps]




posted on Feb, 21 2005 @ 01:47 PM
link   

as posted by smallpeeps
I tend to listen when Ritter talks..


Really? Interesting.
As to what you ask, I have not found the original speech, but the actual article that Rense has referenced was:
SCOTT RITTER SAYS U.S. PLANS JUNE ATTACK ON IRAN, ‘COOKED’ JAN. 30 IRAQI ELECTION RESULTS

Personally, and respecting your opinion on that you tend to listen when he speaks, I would wonder at his sourcing for said assertions:


Ritter made two shocking claims: George W. Bush has "signed off" on plans to bomb Iran in June 2005, and the U.S. manipulated the results of the Jan. 30 elections in Iraq....


Sounds like simple spewing to me. Something that Mr. Ritter is notorious for. The man is a simple pawn and tool.



seekerof



posted on Feb, 21 2005 @ 01:48 PM
link   
Ritter's a moron!! He's just another left-wing megalo-maniac who likes to stay in the lime light with his petty and UNSUBSTANTIATED claims. Someone clearly fed him a line of BS with the hopes that he would parot this info in a public forum; there-by killing whatever credibility some see in him when it turns out to be untrue



posted on Feb, 21 2005 @ 01:52 PM
link   
The leak on the actual time frame of the possible targeting of places in Iran has been out since December.

It first was leak out to the NY times, and it was a lot of controversy coming from the white house as if it was true or not.

Then it was a lot of propaganda from the white house trying to discredit the article.

So it seems that perhaps it was true after all, we just had to wait and see.



posted on Feb, 21 2005 @ 02:00 PM
link   

as posted by Marg
So it seems that perhaps it was true after all, we just had to wait and see.


I can buy that, but here's the catch: Mr. Ritter has been backed by a few members within this community in the past. As such, despite whether what Mr. Ritter currently asserts, it will not matter to them. Why is that? Seems to me that when you get debunked or when "Time" proves you wrong, you are still hailed as a "hero" and an upstanding kind of guy. True?

Geez, last time I checked, Mr. Ritter was still working for Al-Jazeera. Would this have anything to do with the validity of what he is asserting?





seekerof

[edit on 21-2-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Feb, 21 2005 @ 02:03 PM
link   
Hey Seeker, remember that thread you left when it didn't go your way? Here it is again in case you lost the link: Deterrence Theory is a Fraud. The reason I mention this previous thread is because Ritter's comments on the issue of nuclear Deterrence are applicable. From the TIME link I posted, Ritter says:



"I've said that no one has backed up any allegations that Iraq has reconstituted WMD capability with anything that remotely resembles substantive fact. To say that Saddam's doing it is in total disregard to the fact that if he gets caught he's a dead man and he knows it. Deterrence has been adequate in the absence of inspectors but this is not a situation that can succeed in the long term. In the long term you have to get inspectors back in."

Just thought I'd mention it.

To get back to the point, I was asking for CONFIRMATION of his saying this. I'm not throwing my weight behind his words. Yes, I will listen to a single Marine who breaks rank long before I listen to Neo-Con shills. Particularly when that Marine has been on the ground in Iraq which I am sure most have not.

What does he have to gain? Fame? Money?



posted on Feb, 21 2005 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Sounds like simple spewing to me. Something that Mr. Ritter is notorious for. The man is a simple pawn and tool.
seekerof


While that may be true, in your opinion, no one can deny the present facts:

1) The U.S. is and has been conducting aerial recon for "some" reason or another.

2) The media is accelerting the US/Iran potential conflict on an almost daily basis. True it's news but more likely conditioning for what's to come.

I'm generalizing of course but there have been many ATS threads to corroborate point #1.

On the other hand I don't know much about Ritter could you enlighten me as to what makes him a 'simple pawn and tool'


brill



posted on Feb, 21 2005 @ 02:13 PM
link   
Hmm, I posted this about a month ago. A man, a pulitzer Prize winner, the man who exposed Abu Gharib Prison Abuse Scandal reported that we have been marking places to bomb and will start in june-july, and I put it up. What do I hear? BS, no proof, god would never do that. Now you get some whack job off the wall nut case reporting it, what do I hear? Oh really? Of course, it must be true.

Man, some people need to be smacked upside the head. My source, a very credible, award winning source, reported this over a month ago. But no one believed me, I put up lonks to his newspaper(NYP I think, or times?) with his article on this, and still, No proof, god would never do that, Bush is god and would never allow this information leaked. But some nut case crazy ass mofo reports it a month later, Wow! Great find! You did great!

Sorry, ranting, whats next? God comes down and tells you Bush is an idot. BS! He is liberal/biased. But then David Icke reports same thing month later? David is great! What a find!



posted on Feb, 21 2005 @ 02:17 PM
link   
smallpeeps:



Hey Seeker, remember that thread you left when it didn't go your way?

Your tactics play no part here. Get a grip.

Not a matter of going "my" way there, smallpeeps. When you insult them as you outright did, the game stops. Your pleas for my return were to no avail, weren't they?


As for your "soaking up anything and everything" that Mr. Ritter has to assert, please be around in "June 2005," k? In fact, all of you be sure to be around then.


There is enough information within the archives of ATS to discredit almost anything he has said.

As for your mention of this:


What does he have to gain? Fame? Money?

Hell, smallpeeps, let your fingers be your tool and guide and use a decent search engine. More than enough "scoop" on Mr. Ritter to be had without having to dredge those ATS archived topics up. As to whether Mr. Ritter's motivations are to gain 'fame' or 'money,' I will simply imply that he certainly had no problems receiving Saddam's money. Try there first.


As to this:


I was asking for CONFIRMATION of his saying this.

"CONFIRMATION" was given with the link I gave.





seekerof

[edit on 21-2-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Feb, 21 2005 @ 02:18 PM
link   

I tend to listen when Ritter talks

Why? I mean, I used to give serious consideration to what he says, but he was never able to certify that Iraq didn't have WMD, when they really didnt, and he was never really able to influence anything. If he actually said something loony like this, I dunno. Why would anyone in the admin give him any of this top level information?



posted on Feb, 21 2005 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Your tactics play no part here. Get a grip.

Please friend. You swoop down with all righteousness and a montage of graphical medals pinned to your ATS chest and I have yet to see you contribute anything to the threads I frequent. You seem like some sort of Neo-Con pitbull or something. I'm new here at ATS so I don't know exactly why you do this but I don't think it's warranted. In the thread I ref'd, it is you who initiated any belittlement and rudeness, as I mentioned. My invitiation to you to continue the debate was in the hopes that you valued the human race and were willing to open your mind to the reality of statistical analysis. You did not and yes, I think that says much.

Now that America is at war based on false information (WMDs in Iraq) and this war is scheduled to last years (according to the Boss himself) and they want 80 billion for this war, I'm sure you are happy as a clam, eh?

When a person is trying to stop the machine of war (a machine you seem happy to push forward) they must stand alone. Scott Ritter could be some kind of desperate attention-whore but the facts do not support it from my perspective. I am not aware of his accepting payment from Saddam but I am sure you are wrong there also. Where can I research that?



posted on Feb, 21 2005 @ 03:11 PM
link   
Smallpeeps - chack out this thread, and make sure to read WyrdeOne's posts


Internet Replacing Mainstream Media


I promise you will find perspective, strength and sustenance.



.



posted on Feb, 21 2005 @ 03:11 PM
link   
You got that right smallpeeps. Seekerof is unusually not present when things go south of cheese for him.

To be more on-topic, who cares what Ritter says anyway? Unless Iran surrenders to U.S. rule, the U.S. government is gonna attack or invade Iran at some point. So whether he's telling the truth or not doesn't matter, as things continue on the path they're currently on, it'll happen anyway.



posted on Feb, 21 2005 @ 03:21 PM
link   
Hey be nice to Seekerof is not his fault he is a bush lover and see not fault


I will defend you Seeky, you know I will



posted on Feb, 21 2005 @ 03:54 PM
link   
I tried to defend the seeker once... I crashed and burned.


[edit on 21-2-2005 by sweatmonicaIdo]



posted on Feb, 21 2005 @ 03:56 PM
link   
Soficrow: I've been following that thread. Great work, BTW.

I'll be happy to change the name of this thread to: "Does Scott Ritter Have Credibility Enough for an ATS Member to Post His Words Without Seekerof Descending and Stopping the Thread?"

I ran my own private BBS back in the day, and I was always of the opinion that Moderators had to step back from participation in discussions due to their inherent power and the potential it has for silencing the quieter voices on the board. I mean, who's going to tangle with this guy?

In any case, I'm sure that in some small way, ATS would not be here without the hard work of Seekerof, so who am I to complain? What I would like is for him to stay and discuss things when the argument doesn't go his way. Clearly Seekerof is an opinionated ATS moderator who goes beyond moderating discussions and will denigrate a topic or totally sit on a thread when it suits him. I intend to fight this attitude when I see it because it seems totally counter to the core principle of denying ignorance.

Seekerof: Thanks for all your hard work as an ATS mod. I appreciate it. Now as to Scott Ritter taking cash from Saddam... References please?



posted on Feb, 21 2005 @ 04:01 PM
link   
You got that all right, smallpeeps. As for the whole moderators thing, I like the idea of them taking a more integral part of the discussion. Seekerof, like you say, is just very opinionated, thus he's very selective about the stuff he participates in. Some things he eats up, other things he just gets flattened by which explains his disappearences when the going gets tough.

Cash from Saddam? Everyone has taken cash from Saddam... including me.



posted on Feb, 21 2005 @ 04:08 PM
link   
Ritter was correct about Iraq's WMD capabilities. Is he right now? I would listen to him before I ever paid attention to what our President said.



posted on Feb, 21 2005 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof

as posted by smallpeeps
I tend to listen when Ritter talks..


Really? Interesting.


Personally, and respecting your opinion on that you tend to listen when he speaks, I would wonder at his sourcing for said assertions:






seekerof
I beleive him totally. Scott was the inspector who claimed that THERE WERE NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, and he was laughed at and ridiculed. Well? He was correct.

I definately beleive him. His credibility is 100 percent.



posted on Feb, 21 2005 @ 04:10 PM
link   
Damn, about to cut myself to see if I bleed, for this has to be a bad dream. I put this same info. up a month ago, from a credible source, a source that has won pulitzer prize, and exposed the Abu Gharib Prison Scandal, yet he is lieing, wrong, evil. But this nutcase reports the same thing month later and everyone freaking follows his word like it came from Bush himself.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join