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

Originally posted by cryptorsa1001
How in the world would Scott Ridder know about any impending plans to attack Iran? If such plans are in the works very few people would know about it at this time. I am not saying that we don't have plans to attack Iran but just how would Scott Ridder know? Can someone answer that question.

Cryptorsa, liberals will believe anything a Bush hater says. It's gospel to them. Liberals feed upon lies and and the lying liars are their hero's.

Chief

Originally posted by billybob

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.

Some of my best friends are male, and most are able to think cogently and frequently, when the tide is right.

hey, you're not a triple reverse counter spy, are you?

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?

Schizophrenic? Doomed to failure?

sorry, soficrow. i'm just tired of the assault, it's been brutal lately.

...Find someone to give you a foot massage. You'll feel better.



Edit - bad format.

[edit on 16-3-2005 by soficrow]

Originally posted by billybob
the monolithic ministry of truth is what you are supporting, knowingly or unknowingly.
you judge the book by it's cover.

Ok, how about you stop pretending to know what i think and what I support. When new sources investigated their stories, followed up on leads, and did their own foot work, the news was better. Having 'bloggers' and the like report and edit on their own results in a very poor quality of newsreporting, just as poor as the whole world being so ludicrsouly reliant on ap and reuters.

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.

an assinine comment. Also, you said you are not left-wing, so your sentences should be prefaced right, and thus everything you are saying is just a lie.

i will be sure to consult you next time, to see what ATS wants and what ATS doesn't want

You don't need to consult me, you only needed to consult ATS, as you did with this article, which, again, the community felt should be rejected.

I merely pointed out why people were probably voting 'no' on your submission, and that unregulated unverified 'news' reporting is a bad idea.

Originally posted by Nygdan
Ok, how about you stop pretending to know what i think and what I support. When new sources investigated their stories, followed up on leads, and did their own foot work, the news was better. Having 'bloggers' and the like report and edit on their own results in a very poor quality of newsreporting, just as poor as the whole world being so ludicrsouly reliant on ap and reuters.

i'm not pretending. you're the one with the unshakable faith in mainstream media. news WAS better, then. now, 'news' is just 'advertising'.
bloggers are mostly interested in speaking out for reasons of belief, as opposed to 'the bottom line'.

Originally posted by Nygdan

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.

an assinine comment. Also, you said you are not left-wing, so your sentences should be prefaced right, and thus everything you are saying is just a lie.

it is an assinine situation worthy of assinine comments. i'm not left wing, but i'm not right wing, either. i'm left on some things, and right on others. my comment is 'ad absurdum' and is meant to reflect the effect of the extreme polarisation being PERPETRATED on the american public. i wasn't being literal. i notice you really grabbed that ball, and ran with it, though. good for you.
maybe i AM LYING!!!!! (about what?)

Originally posted by Nygdan and that unregulated unverified 'news' reporting is a bad idea.

all truth regulated through a central node is worse. did anybody TRY to verify this story, before pushing it aside as 'lies'? no.

bye for now. look forward to hearing from you.

Originally posted by billybob
i'm not pretending.

Since you are attributing stances and opinions to me that I do not hold you most certainly are pretending. If you don't realize that you are fantasizing, well, that hardly means you aren't pretending.

you're the one with the unshakable faith in mainstream media.

I said absolutely nothing of the sort and the only 'extreme' position I took was that completely unregulated and unedited entirely 'independant' rumour mills are not news sources and that such is not a good system to project hard news.

Alright, lets just stop this for a moment.



Because its pretty pointless anyway.


All I am trying to suggest is that the main source for this information was suspect. This is not a bad thing. News sources have to build up reputations, good reputations, and this one simply doesn't have much of one. That doesn't meant that what it reports is wrong, it simply means that we have to treat stuff comming from it as suspect. The other thread about this cited Rense as the source. So 'nuff said on that. Rense, along with some other news sources, have no journalistic integrity or capability.

It doesn't matter that other major new sources don't either, its hardly an excuse.

This of course is a major problem in the US, and the world in general. Mainstream media is more concerned with ratings than providing a public service. Indeed, 'service to community' can, and surely must, inspire some 'independant' bloggers. But just as surely, it can not inspire all of them, and equally surely, bloggers can be extremely partisan. They have no editors that they are accountable to and they don't have any dependence on an audience to which they have to be responsible.
So bloggers can do good. And ratings orientated media can do good. But what can't happen is an independant 'grass roots' dis-organization resulting in in-depth, thoughful, responsible, and consistently good news coverage. If there is to be reform in the general media, its simply not going to come from 'the internet' taking over the mainstream. This idea is a fad, a passing one.

As far as ritter, again, how can anyone be expected to beleive that scott ritter, a man not popular with the administration, is somehow getting incredibly sensitive and damaging information? And not only information, but actual war plans, plans that would be ruined by their exposure?

I simply can not beleive that he is privy to this sort of thing and runs around telling it to people. And I don't think that thats unreasonable, nor does it require being a supporter of having a secretary of propaganda or any other orwellian horror show.

the fact is nygdan, whether you believe it or not, scott ritter IS 'running around' claiming to be privy to this information and he is telling people about it. the impression around here that you can judge the validity of content by the source of information is a well tuned reality control.
the whole reason 'alternative media' has risen in popularity is because they will print things the mainstream won't. they WILL tell you israelis bulldozed an american 'peacenik' into the dirt. they WILL tell you that marvin bush was head of security for WTC. they WILL tell you that unocal was negotiating with the taliban for a pipeline, post 911, and in fact post invasion. they WILL tell you that there are english voices on the nick berg video. they WILL tell you that 1800 people were locked up for two days in new york for excercising the right to assembly, and the right to free speech. they WILL tell you that the man who owns the voting machines is in bed with the republicans. they WILL tell you about discrepencies between exit polls and actual counts.
they WILL tell you all these things, because, for them, it doesn't represent a conflict of interest. mainstream media is 100% symbiotic with the government/corporate cluster#.

anyway, the issue isn't whether what he's saying is true or not, but rather, whether he said it.

and, in the real world, even a lying ignoramus is right SOMETIMES.

this news item has been demonised using the very techniques the aggressors seek to eschew. rumour and inuendo are used to demonise what MAY be a valid source of information.
'he's a pedophile', ---a failed framing attempt?
'he lies, he is a lying liar', ---really? he's been right about many things. it was only after he started attacking bush that he was severely marginlised and steered into oblivion with the rest of the useless eaters.
'he has an agenda', ---yes, an agenda to expose the crimes of the uberpowerful. tough job, considering they control all media, INCLUDING ATS, apparently.

i find it disgraceful that this thread has been moved again. now, it's not even worthy of 'serious' discussion?

i smell a brownshirted nest of rats.

oh well, since we're in BTS, now, .....
last night i put in a blank tape and turned the volume up full. the mime next door went crazy.



[edit on 17-3-2005 by billybob]

rawstory.com...

'the raw story' interviews ritter about the bush 'signed off' on iran, and the 'cooked' iraqi elections.
"scott ritter" now gets 244, 000 hits on google. that's up 6000 hits in two days.



[edit on 18-3-2005 by billybob]

scott ritter smells brownshirts, too.

Raw Story’s Larisa Alexandrovna: So you think a radical minority is running things?

Ritter: I have had senior politicians privately call [the neo-cons] Brown Shirts. I have asked why don’t [the senior politicians] say this in public and there is response is that it would be political suicide.

Raw Story: If you look at how the neo-cons went after Senator Byrd for providing a historical context to shutting down political dissent, it does seem if not political suicide, then at the very least a serious smear campaign could emerge. How does a political career make sense if the country falls into a single ruling class? In other words, how can any political leader imagine a political career if there is no political process through which they can govern on behalf of the people?

this thread is a microcosm of the exact same thing. will ATS use 'polarisation' as an excuse to quell dissent, and force a monolithic view on the community? looks that way from down here in Below Top Secret.
dark days indeed.

just thought this thread was relevent in light of this thread..... www.abovetopsecret.com...

it seems scott ritter may have been right again.

i hope this thread would stand as a lesson to the anti-bias brigade. bias is not the devil. a questionable source is not a wrong source.

maybe we should take this scott ritter fellow more seriously.

Saw Mr. Ritter on CNN one time, what a crackpot.

BTW: It is almost July and guess what, no war with Iran.

-wD

Originally posted by WeBDeviL
Saw Mr. Ritter on CNN one time, what a crackpot.

BTW: It is almost July and guess what, no war with Iran.

-wD

i read the transcripts of his cnn appearance. he certainly didn't sound like a crackpot to me. he seemed very realistic. this 'crackpot' was right about there being no WMDs.

i guess you didn't click the link i provided, so, here you go, The U.S. War with Iran has already begun.

[edit on 23-6-2005 by billybob]

Before you doubt Ritter, ask yourself an important question...
Who the hell are you? Do you have the contacts, experience or expertise he has? Yes Ritter could be wrong, but can YOU prove him wrong?
All the deabte yopu are likely to get on this topic is a rubber stamp of denial from the usual suspects.

Twenty three days since the start of June and less than 7 more days to go until July. Still no sign of an "impending" attack on Iran that Ritter ranging his alarm bell back in January. The clock's still ticking, Mr. Ritter. *tapping watch*

I wouldn't say Ritter's a crackpot, just an outsider pretending to be an insider. Perhaps he'd never heard of an international game of diplomatic politics called, "Pressure", which the US is so good at.

Iran's run-off election is something of a concern, mind you. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad could be the winner in that rigged election, specifically geared for the mullahs and not for the people of Iran.

[edit on 6/23/2005 by the_oleneo]

After all the tension between Ritter and the US Government over the Iraq weapons inspections, do you REALLY think he'd be one of the ones to know about secret plans to attack Iran?

Great thing Ritter not a National Security risk.. Just amouth half right 1/3 wrong and rest who knows?

Dallas

I can't believe anyone even listens to this moron Ritter. Just because he said Iraq had no WMD (which was a 50/50 shot- either they did or they didn't) he's all of a sudden an in-the-know genius. Does anyone really believe that this guy still has any government sources or connections? Nobody with an ounce of credibility or inside knowledge even talks to this dope. If anything, I bet he's nothing but his son's little leage t-ball coach at this point.

His commentary reads like it was written by a 13 year old girl.
Maybe Scott's new internet girlfriend?

Originally posted by dgtempe
"I still don't understand why the rantings of a traitorous pedaphile on al Jazeera's payroll are news..."

Innocent until proven guilty. I think this is still the case.

Scott Ritter tells the truth. (He was right before)

Be prepared for midsummer worldwide chaos.

hi all i have been watching this board for some time and this is my first post, i too listen to scott ritter but i wonder how right he is this time....
june is almost over. personally io hope he is wrong......

a big shout out to the demonization crew. yo, yo, wa'ssup?

i don't love this guy any more than i love any one of you.

he's no idiot, and he's got a least SOME decent connections in the big boy intelligence world.

if he is a pedophile, that is a completely different issue, and does little to discredit his investigative skills, which were good enough to make him chief un weapons inspector in iraq, and had him hailed as a 'hero' in american mainstream press.

like the non-disclosured firefighters of 911, the 'heroes' of the day, this 'hero' is demonized for trying to tell the truth, AS HE SEES IT. he may be wrong, but we don't have to assume that a man who has been nothing but honest and accurate up until now, would all of a sudden start lying about everything just because it doesn't jive with the bushline.

and, finally......

because you have 'signed off' on plans for war, does not mean that you have to attack on the first day.

the us military are not a bunch of idiots. they have 'the web', too.