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 Says Iran Attack in June, Iraq Elections "Cooked" (from ATSNN)

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 13 2005 @ 09:44 PM
link   
well, i feel like an italian intelligence officer trying to bring a reporter through american defenses. this is a sad day for me. my dial up was super slow because of heavy sunday traffic. constant edits to satisfy stringent guidlines.
and in the end, something true, which is news, is turned down because the message is unpopular, not because it is or isn't true.
good point about the replies.




posted on Mar, 13 2005 @ 09:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
and in the end, something true, which is news, is turned down because the message is unpopular, not because it is or isn't true.


No. Before the changeover to a "member driven" news portal this story would have been killed or moved before any kind of this hoopla. It happened many times in the past. Do you see Newsmax being used an ATSNN source? Would you believe anything Newsmax says? No.

It's a two way street. Your voice isn't trying to be squelched. We're trying not to look like Jeff Rense so all our voices might stand some kind of chance of being taken seriously.

This is an ATS story, not ATSNN one.



posted on Mar, 13 2005 @ 10:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
'ground up' means grass roots popular movements that are born and grown outside of corporate influence.

Yes, I understand what they mean by that. A news organization shouldn't be 'ground up'.

to just ignore him or try and sweep him under the rug is the action of the ministry of truth

Really? YOu don't htink its possible that people just don't give a dime about what he has to say? I don't care what he claims. He certainly isn't in any position to be in the know.



posted on Mar, 13 2005 @ 10:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by PistolPete
Would you believe anything Newsmax says? No.


i believe or disbelieve something based an assessment of the data, compared against my own personal database, not on where it came from.
now, if you'd have said time magazine, i would say, 'hell, no!', seeing as they are the voice of the lie, as all media, liberal or conservative, is also a fat steaming pile of corporate driven aristocratic slavemasters' lies. ya know, that's just my opinion, but it is well documented in reality, and the connections are available to the enquiring mind. follow the money, if you don't have the same 'opinion' after learning about the flow of power through the circuit we call society, then perhaps velcro is your best choice of fastener. connecting the laces through those dots can be quite complicated.


Originally posted by PistolPete
It's a two way street. Your voice isn't trying to be squelched. We're trying not to look like Jeff Rense so all our voices might stand some kind of chance of being taken seriously.

This is an ATS story, not ATSNN one.


it's not my voice. it's scott ritter's.

[edit on 13-3-2005 by billybob]



posted on Mar, 13 2005 @ 11:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan

Yes, I understand what they mean by that. A news organization shouldn't be 'ground up'.


really? so, it's always best for as few people as possible to control the 'truth'. whatever works for you.
whatever happened to 'one man, 'one voice'?
i think we need to change the english language to reflect the polarisation of the north american population. every sentence must now be prefaced with 'left' or 'right', so the listener will know whether to love or hate, believe or disbelieve the speaker.


Originally posted by Nygdan

billybob: to just ignore him or try and sweep him under the rug is the action of the ministry of truth

Really? YOu don't htink its possible that people just don't give a dime about what he has to say? I don't care what he claims. He certainly isn't in any position to be in the know.


really? no position to know? so all his high level relationships from being the UN weapons inspector just vanished in a puff of propoganda? i think the number of hits that site is getting, and the number of times it's been reprinted on other sites makes it pretty clear that people do give a dime. more, even. there heart and soul.
not everyone wants this war. in fact, if the general populace knew as much about fallujah, gitmo, abu gharib, haliburton, enron, exxon, 911 as the average ATS conspiracy theorist(as opposed to neocon steering committees) does, there would be no more war.
that is why it is important to listen to ALL the voices, and not just the glorious leader's and his glorious host of terrible angels.
that is why it is important to critisize mainstream media for complacency, complicity, and conspiracy.
that is why it is important to not fall into the trap of seperating every article of information into a political agenda box, and realising that there is more to myth battles than agendas.
if you view only left media, you are off balance.
if you view only right media, you are unbalanced.
if you view both left and right media, certain salient things will stand still in the counter rotating whirlwind. these are the things that are generally true. however, if i try and 'use' a fact for a left wing agenda, then is the fact itself a left fact? i think not. it is standing still in the political maelstrom.

i really don't see how totalitarian fascist george is 'right', either. seems like a fascist regime to me. the nepotism makes deliverance look like a family movie.



posted on Mar, 14 2005 @ 12:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
i really don't see how totalitarian fascist george is 'right', either. seems like a fascist regime to me. the nepotism makes deliverance look like a family movie.


doubleplusgood



posted on Mar, 14 2005 @ 10:19 PM
link   
Finally some clarification on this. Ritter did NOT say that Dubya had signed off on plans to bomb in June. He says he believes sanctions will likely happen at that time:

This from rawstory.com...


Raw Story’s Larisa Alexandrovna: Scott, first let me thank you for taking the time to speak with me. I want to get right to the meat of things by asking you about a comment you reportedly made in February of this year in your joint appearance with journalist Dahr Jamail in Washington state, where you were quoted as saying that George W. Bush had signed off on plans to bomb Iran in June 2005.

Former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter: No. Someone else wrote that I had said that.

Raw Story: So it is not correct?

Ritter: It is not wildly incorrect, but it is taken totally out of context. The emphasis is placed on the wrong things. What I said was that the President, in October of 2004, had been briefed by the Pentagon. In [the Pentagon's] preparation to have in place by June 2005 a viable military option. This was in response to instructions by the President that the US must be prepared to implement the next phase of its Iran policy or strategy; the first phase of course being the pursuit of the so called diplomatic option-in other words allowing the European Union to carry out its outreach program.

Raw Story: So Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's comments regarding not taking any options off the table would echo that sentiment, it seems.

Ritter [Rice] had just come back from Europe, and this is what I was talking about during that speaking engagement, [Rice] said that military plans were not on the table at this time. I said that she was a liar; either she is being really cute or she is lying. Military plans are on the table and the President has signed off on those plans. That does not mean we are going to bomb, but to sit here and pretend that we have fully embraced the diplomatic option or have not considered military plans is wrong. I reminded everyone of the situation in the fall of 2002 where the same Condoleezza Rice, along with Donald Rumsfeld, Collin Powell, and other members of the Bush administration were saying that the United States was embarking on serious diplomatic path to resolve the situation in Iraq. They made these statements to Congress in the fall when the President had already signed off on plans for an Iraq invasion in August. She lied then and she is lying now.

Raw Story: So based on this pattern that you are pointing out, does that then mean an attack on Iran is probable?

Ritter: No, what is happening is that in June, the U.S. will walk away from Europe with regard to their outreach in Iran. If the situation is not resolved by June, the US will shift its policy and methodology. Now this is not speculation on my part. This has been stated. Then [the U.S.] will seek to impose robust sanctions against Iran.

Whether Ritter has credibility or not, it's good to have fake news corrected, in any case.



posted on Mar, 15 2005 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by smallpeeps
Finally some clarification on this. Ritter did NOT say that Dubya had signed off on plans to bomb in June. He says he believes sanctions will likely happen at that time:

This from rawstory.com...


Military plans are on the table and the President has signed off on those plans. That does not mean we are going to bomb, but to sit here and pretend that we have fully embraced the diplomatic option or have not considered military plans is wrong.


Whether Ritter has credibility or not, it's good to have fake news corrected, in any case.


great find. a great addition to this thread.

it may be false information, but that does not make it 'fake' news. it is still news when a bigwig lies or decieves.

notice, in my article, i had 'signed off' in quotes? well, he just said 'signed off', again, in this interview.
it doesn't mean we're going to bomb. this is the unspoken part that everyone adds for themselves, but it's not there, as explained above. the PLANS are approved, but not enacted, yeah?



posted on Mar, 15 2005 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
and in the end, something true, which is news, is turned down because the message is unpopular, not because it is or isn't true.
good point about the replies.

People rejected it because they don't beleive ritter, not because they don't like the message.

[edit on 15-3-2005 by Nygdan]



posted on Mar, 15 2005 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by billybob

and in the end, something true, which is news, is turned down because the message is unpopular, not because it is or isn't true.
good point about the replies.

People rejected it because they don't beleive ritter, not because they don't like the message.


Yes, Ritter is a media prostitute, he simply says what he's paid to say. When there seem to be contradictions in what he says, it's just Ritter accepting a new high bid.

Ignore him.



posted on Mar, 15 2005 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan

People rejected it because they don't beleive ritter, not because they don't like the message.


this is anti free speech. it is one thing to not believe. it is another to put duct tape over someone's mouth because you don't believe what they're saying.

he was the UN weapons inspector.
we was time magazine's 'man of the week'.
he was pro-invasion in 1998.
he changed his mind. this is what happens when people get new information tha makes the old information obsolete.

you all are just demonizing ritter, and don't even care if what he said is true or not.
i've heard a bunch of people say he's a liar, but nobody has posted a link, or quoted any of his 'lies'.
once again, the neocon propogandanistas are resorting to pure ad hominem attacks, in order to silence a scream in the wilderness.



[edit on 15-3-2005 by billybob]



posted on Mar, 15 2005 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by billybob

Originally posted by Nygdan

Yes, I understand what they mean by that. A news organization shouldn't be 'ground up'.


really? so, it's always best for as few people as possible to control the 'truth'. whatever works for you.

It should be rather obvious that a so called 'ground up" news organization is a poor news organization. What makes such orgs good is their editorial control, their investigation and fact checking. The New York Times, for example, isn't a 'good' paper because it has lots of nice writers. It good because its recognized as being competent enough to report the truth. Any 'decentralized' news org can;t make any claim at being able to consistently do that. That is why if something is reported on a 'blog', its pretty meaningless, until its picked up and investigated by actual journalists. For the same reason, that which gets reported in 'the national enquirer' may or may not be true, but citing the NE is useless.



i think we need to change the english language to reflect the polarisation of the north american population. every sentence must now be prefaced with 'left' or 'right', so the listener will know whether to love or hate, believe or disbelieve the speaker.

So you only listen to people who are in the same political camp as you?


Originally posted by Nygdan
no position to know? so all his high level relationships from being the UN weapons inspector just vanished in a puff of propoganda?

Yeah ok, his 'high level relationships' from two administrations ago are still actively leaking uber-secret information about plots to create wars to him.



i think the number of hits that site is getting, and the number of times it's been reprinted on other sites makes it pretty clear that people do give a dime.

Regardless, ATS doesn't.



posted on Mar, 15 2005 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
this is anti free speech. it is one thing to not believe. it is another to put duct tape over someone's mouth because you don't believe what they're saying.

Its not anti-free speech, your post was submited for everyone to see and discuss, and it was rejected by the community. People voted it down. They didn't like your story, they figure its bogus, they figure its disreputable, and they figure its irrelevant. Its got nothing to do with free speech. You knew there is a voting and approval system in place, you agreed to its decision by submiting and article.


he was the UN weapons inspector.
we was time magazine's 'man of the week'.
he was pro-invasion in 1998.
he changed his mind.

This is all completely irrelevant.



you all are just demonizing ritter, and don't even care if what he said is true or not.

Don't tell me what I think and why I do things. I have not demonized ritter, I have disagreed that he is a reliable source on the matter.

once again, the neocon propogandanistas are resorting to pure ad hominem attacks, in order to silence a scream in the wilderness.

Unbeleiveable. You don't get the particular attention you want, so it has to be because of 'neocons'. Instead of your story being an atsnn story, its an ats story, and that can only be the work of 'neocons'.



posted on Mar, 15 2005 @ 12:50 PM
link   
All due respect to his UNSCOM stint, the man's got a hate on for Bush. Not that it is surprising, just that Scott's arrogance leads his way and is seen before he get's there.

Thank god CNN disposed of him (for now). As for his predictions well he's not exactly been found in left field yet - so I do wonder..

Dallas



posted on Mar, 15 2005 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan

It should be rather obvious that a so called 'ground up" news organization is a poor news organization. What makes such orgs good is their editorial control, their investigation and fact checking.


pure unsubstantiated rhetoric. most 'real' news come from TWO feeds, these days. AP or reuters. independent journalists, freelance reporters and whatnot are a thing of the past. the monolithic ministry of truth is what you are supporting, knowingly or unknowingly.
you judge the book by it's cover.


Originally posted by NygdanThe New York Times, for example, isn't a 'good' paper because it has lots of nice writers. It good because its recognized as being competent enough to report the truth. Any 'decentralized' news org can;t make any claim at being able to consistently do that. That is why if something is reported on a 'blog', its pretty meaningless, until its picked up and investigated by actual journalists. For the same reason, that which gets reported in 'the national enquirer' may or may not be true, but citing the NE is useless.


it was picked up. my link is to an established magazine. yes, they're left-wing. i'm not. ritter's not.


Originally posted by Nygdan
So you only listen to people who are in the same political camp as you?


that's not what i said. i said we need to put 'left' or 'right' before every sentence so people will know if it's 'true' or not. anything with 'left' before it, will be 'known' to be false by the right, and known to be true by the left. anything with 'right' before it, will known to be true to the right, and known to be false to the left. if we are all destined to be polar opposites, we must establish a new communication that will show which team you're on. verbal and literary 'colors', if you will. gangsta stuff.

my political camp includes everyone. i'm an independentist. i made up a new political party just now, so you can understand where i stand. one man, one voice. i listen to all, and believe we should allow all to speak.


Originally posted by Nygdan
Yeah ok, his 'high level relationships' from two administrations ago are still actively leaking uber-secret information about plots to create wars to him.


not everyone who knows about evil plans is evil. this is where 'whistleblowers' come from(sometimes. more often than not, whistleblowers are just disinfo pros. this doesn't make their meme irrelevant).


Originally posted by Nygdan

i think the number of hits that site is getting, and the number of times it's been reprinted on other sites makes it pretty clear that people do give a dime.

Regardless, ATS doesn't.


i will be sure to consult you next time, to see what ATS wants and what ATS doesn't want. you DO speak for everyone here, don't you? we are the borg, right? there is no independent viewpoint allowed here, right? this is NOT a discussion board, right?
here at ATS, you will be TOLD what to think, what is bunk, and what is not bunk, RIGHT?
really?

[edit on 15-3-2005 by billybob]



posted on Mar, 15 2005 @ 03:40 PM
link   
NUKING THE SPIN


This Scott Ritter story is all over the world - Google is now listing 68 links under "news" - includes USA mediamonitors, aljazheera, the Asia Times, Canada's Rabble, MotherJones, Independent Bangladesh and more.

"Nuking the Spin" is my favorite headline.



rawstory.com...
usa.mediamonitors.net...
www.uruknet.info...
www.alternet.org...
www.rabble.ca...
www.atimes.com...
independent-bangladesh.com...
aljazeerah
www.motherjones.com...
www.commondreams.org...



.



posted on Mar, 16 2005 @ 01:54 PM
link   
smear campaign against scott ritter?,left bias? or documented history?
others with common dreams notice the smear campaign
fox's asman vs. scott ritter -fox interview.,right bias? or documented history? i love how asman constantly tries to put words in ritter's mouth, and how ritter easily slaps the beehatch down.

fox news cares what scott ritter says, but not ATS. scott ritter gets 237, 000 hits on google, but it's not important, here at ATS, the land of super truth, right, my friendly rhetorical character assassins of the righties?



posted on Mar, 16 2005 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
fox news cares what scott ritter says, .... scott ritter gets 237, 000 hits on google,





billybob - you do good work. But ya gotta make your points and take the high road. Really. Don't play the bad game back. Just keeps the negative energy growing, flowing and polarized. You are strong. You can do it.





posted on Mar, 16 2005 @ 02:06 PM
link   
even newsmax is reporting this www.newsmax.com...

but, here at deny bias, deny ignorance
, the last bastion of truth, ATS!!!(trumpet music sting here), it's not news because of a 'left bias'.




posted on Mar, 16 2005 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow
...ya gotta make your points and take the high road. Really. Don't play the bad game back. Just keeps the negative energy growing, flowing and polarized. You are strong. You can do it.




i usually try to. it's just i read the word turdblossom one too many times. and i'm a male, so i'm inherently stupid. you're right, though.
hey, you're not a triple reverse counter spy, are you? gotta watch you lefties. no morals.
what do you call a lefty who's for small goverment, regional autonomy, and a diverse economy supported by a strong education base and social equality, which fosters the self dependence of individuals, and gives incentives to small business owners, while actually enforcing monopoly laws? a lefty?
sorry, soficrow. i'm just tired of the assault, it's been brutal lately.





new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join