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: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 24 2005 @ 03:00 AM
link   


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


How do you know this?

I believe he has ZERO connections. Why, would anyone let him in on super secret plans to attack Iran. By the way, I personally predict that we will not attack Iran...if i'm right does that make me a "hero"???




posted on Jun, 24 2005 @ 03:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Boatphone



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


How do you know this?

I believe he has ZERO connections. Why, would anyone let him in on super secret plans to attack Iran. By the way, I personally predict that we will not attack Iran...if i'm right does that make me a "hero"???


well, then you believe that the u.n. entrusted some unconnected, dim-witted, crazy man to inspect for weapons that can wipe out cities.

i didn't call him a hero. it was time magazine or something. i'm pointing out the short attention span and hypocracy of mainstream media.



posted on Jun, 24 2005 @ 11:05 AM
link   
only six days left in june, not even the slightest hint of a looming attack, come july 1, the iranians will be still sorting out the new president.
not rubble
hmmmmmmmmmmm



posted on Jun, 24 2005 @ 11:34 AM
link   


well, then you believe that the u.n. entrusted some unconnected, dim-witted, crazy man to inspect for weapons that can wipe out cities.


Yes, you are correct. That is why we need John Bolton in the U.N.!



posted on Jun, 24 2005 @ 01:31 PM
link   
another thread discussing a similair theme,

Iran War Begun Thread

Ther is supporting alternative sources for what Scott said, as in that an attack is likely or beng planned:
CNN
This is London

If you read my last post there think it sums up whats happened on this thread too.

Elf.



posted on Jun, 24 2005 @ 09:22 PM
link   
that article in the london says in the next 12 months not june!!!!!



posted on Jun, 24 2005 @ 09:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
I still don't understand why the rantings of a traitorous pedaphile on al Jazeera's payroll are news...
Because he's been correct before- thats why.

He let us know THERE WERE NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. As far as the pedaphilia, i'm still waiting for him to get charged then i will look at him in a different light.



posted on Jun, 24 2005 @ 10:13 PM
link   
So let me see here, dgtempe, if an attack on Iran does not occur by the end of this month, will Scott "I have no crediblility" Ritter be batting 100% or 50% or next to 0%?

Also, "no" is absolute. As such, are you absolutely positive that "no" WMDs or components thereof were not found? Think now....."no" means none, nada.




seekerof

[edit on 24-6-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Jun, 24 2005 @ 10:23 PM
link   
Hello there.

If Scott is wrong, he's wrong and will not be quite as beleivable in my eyes the next time he has a scoop for the world.

As far as his being correct that there were no WMD's that were capable of wiping out the USA in just a matter of days?
What do you think?



posted on Jun, 24 2005 @ 10:31 PM
link   
five days left in june
maybe the president's news conference, the 29th, g-dub will announce the commencment of military actions agaist the evil regime, and new regime, of iran!
scott ritter is full of crap!!!!!



posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 05:24 AM
link   
They didn't say Iraq had WMDs that could wipe out the US in a matter of days. They said that they had WMDs and were pursuing more, including nukes. There ARE no WMDs that could wipe out the entire US in a matter of days. There are some that could to a heck of a lot of damage, but no WMD is perfect, and all of them would heave at least some survivors somewhere.



posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 10:20 AM
link   


The reality is that the US war with Iran has already begun. As we speak, American over flights of Iranian soil are taking place, using pilotless drones and other, more sophisticated, capabilities.

The violation of a sovereign nation's airspace is an act of war in and of itself. But the war with Iran has gone far beyond the intelligence-gathering phase. 

President Bush has taken advantage of the sweeping powers granted to him in the aftermath of 11 September 2001, to wage a global war against terror and to initiate several covert offensive operations inside Iran.

The most visible of these is the CIA-backed actions recently undertaken by the Mujahadeen el-Khalq, or MEK, an Iranian opposition group, once run by Saddam Hussein's dreaded intelligence services, but now working exclusively for the CIA's Directorate of Operations.

It is bitter irony that the CIA is using a group still labelled as a terrorist organisation, a group trained in the art of explosive assassination by the same intelligence units of the former regime of Saddam Hussein, who are slaughtering American soldiers in Iraq today, to carry out remote bombings in Iran of the sort that the Bush administration condemns on a daily basis inside Iraq. 

Perhaps the adage of "one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist" has finally been embraced by the White House, exposing as utter hypocrisy the entire underlying notions governing the ongoing global war on terror.

But the CIA-backed campaign of MEK terror bombings in Iran are not the only action ongoing against Iran. 

To the north, in neighbouring Azerbaijan, the US military is preparing a base of operations for a massive military presence that will foretell a major land-based campaign designed to capture Tehran. 



if this is true, then the war has started, technically speaking. violation of airspace is an act of war.
if it's not true, i will believe scott's original information was good, if a war starts with iran within the next six month's to a year. giving the go ahead to do war is not the same as stragegical planning and whatnot.

what's 'funny' about the above, too, is, i thought bush didn't deal with terrorists? and now they're on the payroll, doing terror in tehran.

you ess ay! you ess ay! (waving flag)

i say he's already right about bush signing off for june. there is no way the military could violate iranian airspace without the authorisation of the president.



posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 09:08 PM
link   
So let me get this straight, Ritter claims we're going to "launch an aerial attack" in Iran in June, and is a hero for coming out and saying it, then as the end of June approaches it gets changed to "we're already at war with Iran, because we flew a few drones in their airspace", to now "there's going to be an attack in 6 months to a year".

The argument that he was right is trashed, because he EXPLICITLY said "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." . How is flying a few unarmed drones in their airspace an aerial attack? Even if they WERE armed Predators, what did we attack? And now that he's seeing the end of June coming fast, all of a sudden it's "6 months to a year". Yeah that makes him pretty credible to me.

[edit on 28-6-2005 by Zaphod58]



posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 10:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
if this is true, then the war has started, technically speaking. violation of airspace is an act of war.


If that is the case, then how come we haven't seen Iran doing the insanity militarily at the US forces in the Persian Gulf so far? I think you're just grasping at straws.


Originally posted by billybob
if it's not true, i will believe scott's original information was good, if a war starts with iran within the next six month's to a year. giving the go ahead to do war is not the same as stragegical planning and whatnot.


Sorry, but again, you're just grasping at straws on this one. June is almost over and Ritter's credibility is in question.



posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 10:19 PM
link   
One day left!!

Yet another loose cannon shown up for being all mouth and no substance. I guess we are about to recieve a range of excuses now ...

1. Its coming NEXT month
2. Its started secretly
3. Iran? I said Bush will start running in June
4. Bush read my article and changed the dates to upset me! The entire military planning have been changed because I told the world
5. Bush changed his mind, he really was going to invade, ... honest....

Just how many of these types of predictions do we acctually run down? We need a list, author, prediction, etc so that we are not fooled next time. People have short memories of things like this, and gullability just believes the next bunch of lies to come along.



posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 10:42 PM
link   
okay, there's a little confusion here from some.
scott ritter didn't say "in the next six months". i did. it's just common sense. but, whatever, if you can't figger out for yourselves that the advantage of a surprise attack is compromised by a web rumour. you boys have your fun with this
.

who wants war with iran, raise your cyberhands? how about north korea? let's get that damn axis of evil.
and then venezuala. ooooo, those guys(shaking fist).



posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 10:47 PM
link   
Your response must have been the unmentioned #6 on Netty's list, billybob?







seekerof



posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 10:57 PM
link   
That's not the point billybob if you said it or he said it. The point is that if he's right he's a hero, and if he's wrong then he's being set up, or something along those lines. No matter what happens, there will ALWAYS be an excuse for him. I'm not saying I want war with Iran, or North Korea or anywhere else. My ONLY point is how that no matter what happens Ritter is infallible in the eyes of some, because he's going against Bush.



posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 11:29 PM
link   
i'm not net savvy enough to know what a netty #6 is. sorry, seekerof.

what netty number is it when you just want to post and discuss things, but these things are taken as YOUR views, when really, they're not, and you don't necessarily believe or disbelieve them(yet), but just want to discuss the possibilities, probabilities and ramifications?

i am not scott ritter. hell, i'm not even billybob, HAHA!
i think when a former un weapons inspector speaks, SOME OF US want to listen. we don't have to accept it as gospel. just save it to the hard drive for future reference. erase it if history doesn't bear it out. i don't care if he's wrong. i have only vehemently fought for his right to say it, and the importance of having people here a different side of the story.
i bloody well hope he's wrong, and the american troops leave the middle east and come home and have a BBQ with some beers, and the iraqi people start a crown oil corporation, and use their newfound wealth to rebuild and all get along happily ever after.

and america rebuilds it manufacturing and machine tool capabilities, starts ACTUALLY educating the majority of americans, cleans up the political system, immasculates the corporation and switches to a knowledge and skills based economy where each individual in society is taught to think and fend for themselves, and blah blah blah.



posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 11:43 PM
link   

as posted by billybob
what netty number is it when you just want to post and discuss things, but these things are taken as YOUR views, when really, they're not, and you don't necessarily believe or disbelieve them(yet), but just want to discuss the possibilities, probabilities and ramifications?


Erm, no, billybob.
I think my position within this very topic has and is known on how I interpret Scott "true-blue American hero" Ritter and the myrid of conjectures and assertions that spew from his lips, and those views of mine have nothing to do nor are they remotely connected to "possibilities, probabilities and ramifications."

The man, as with you and others, made assertions and claims that have yet to be fulfilled or come to fruitition, but hey, even a broken clock indicates the correct time twice a day?

Simply put, the man's word is about as credible as your, and others, view of Bush and his administrations word, correct? I am sure that his current employer, Al-Jazerra, is enjoying Scott's predictions and assertions though....






seekerof

[edit on 28-6-2005 by Seekerof]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join