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.

 

Former Chief U.N. Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter Nabbed in Teen Sex Sting

page: 2
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 14 2010 @ 08:11 PM
link   
reply to post by UcantBserious
 


I think you both have something here. The two edged sword is a dangerous weapon. Games played in the manner being discussed seems to be the status quo. I do seem to remember that he changed statements a few different times during his initial reports. I never could quite take what he reported as kosher. Too many other inspectors had differing opinions and they being of the UN variety aren't very opt to tow the Bush line of reasoning on WMD's! Just my 2 centavos!

Zindo




posted on Jan, 14 2010 @ 08:24 PM
link   
Okay on a serious note here. Imagine being the poor cop on the other end of that web cam feed


Really though no matter the guys past it is clear he does not need to be in the vicinity on young girls.


Raist



posted on Jan, 14 2010 @ 08:34 PM
link   
Ritter was one of the few voices of sanity when IsraelUS was salivating over the soon to be launched slaughter of Iraqis

Ritter sustained hope within sane people that sanity might prevail. And he certainly gave it his best shot

He's spoken out since and nothing about him has given the slightest cause to doubt his integrity and courage

The slugs who use sex to blackmail and control virtually everyone involved in politics will never be trusted. We know who they are. We've seen them dressed as Palestinians, initiating violence in order to justify their subsequent atrocities. We've heard their ridiculous lies. We know they control the bulk of the world's media. We know they boast about how they own and control the porn industry, including kiddie and snuff porn. We know they steal organs to order

and we know they swear ALWAYS to get revenge

Their problem these days is that we know how they operate, we know how low they crawl. They're transparent

Sounds as if they TRIED to compromise and blackmail Ritter

but he told them to take a leap

so now we have this 'expose' designed to ruin and discredit him .. their 'revenge'

And most likely, Ritter is being used by the Usual Suspects as an example to anyone else with integrity who might consider telling them to take a leap

I don't believe the story about Ritter



posted on Jan, 14 2010 @ 09:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Dock9
 


Nobody was stroking his meat for him to underage girls, he did it all on his own and got caught. Integrity indeed.

The powers that be in this case are the ones that did not want the status quo to change. Meaning continuation of the no fly zones over Iraq indefinately as they (Oil for Food profiteers) raked in the cash from the oil for food UN congame that was going on.

A lot of issues here. Did they feed his appetite to keep him under control during his tenure? If so how many innocent girls were sacrificed to this animal to protect their cashcow from being dismantled? On his own now, he is obviously not protected any longer as his services are no longer needed, will he spill the beans on what really happened? Will he be silenced before he can?

Yes folks this has the makings of a grade A conspiracy unfolding.
Power
Money
Sex
High level world stage intrigue



posted on Jan, 14 2010 @ 09:58 PM
link   
reply to post by UcantBserious
 


I find it funny that you didn't answered my question.

Again, nobody is saying "what he did wasn't wrong". Much the opposite.

But what he did, in his private life, right or wrong, doesn't have anything to do with his work, and trying to imply those things together is wrong, being his hobby making sculptures, or showing off to young girls.


Meaning continuation of the no fly zones over Iraq indefinately as they (Oil for Food profiteers) raked in the cash from the oil for food UN congame that was going on.


So basically what you are saying is that the UN (a organization that is constituted by a group of countries, meaning, a group of DIFFERENT interests) was making money out of a country that was in the situation it was, and had more power by keeping it that way (instead, you know, of the usual way, that a healthy country pays a percentage to the UN (meaning, more wealth, more money for the UN)), AND had more power than the guys who are running the current war (you know, since it's a secret how many billions US/other side companies make out of war and the "prostitution" of the Iraqi people).

Furthermore, you believe that a scam like the ones happening in Africa was taking place. Well, even if this was the case, it's not worth it. Iraq had so many things to steal, that making money from food scams, is ridiculous.

It would be better to keep in denial, make Iraq healthy again, and make more money from stupid monetary restrictions, and make Iraq accept US and UN intervention in the country (you know, like they did when Saddam was a friend of the US, and the country became hugely rich, and Saddam told them to f*** them selfs, he was keeping the money).

It has become common sense here in ATS that US has a tradition of manufacturing it's own wars. I find it far more plausible that the US controlled this whole thing, and not UN nor Ritter.

Because, that theory has a huge FLAW in it's basis. It was UN who brought down a RICH country to it's knees, after the US made the first Golf War (in interest for a "non"-oil mega country) to keep money coming in.

What you don't state, is that those restrictions, even with WMD technology prevented Iraq from even having X-ray machines.

That caused a once rich country, to be on its knees to the world, and the only way to take profit from it, was with a war, to control the area, resources, and make a huge profit with the war business.

Now, how the hell comes in a guy like Ritter in this scenario, and him telling the world "they have nothing to hide, they are poor, on the lowest level ever, and are no threat to the world at the moment", being a part of a scheme to give UN power and money?

The US proved, with Iraq and Afghanistan war, that the UN is a joke when it comes to authority.

What you are saying makes no sense.



posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 02:05 AM
link   
He was caught in 2001 in another sting for the same type of conduct but wasn't charged.


A press release issued in November by the Barrett Township police noted that the incident wasn't the first time Ritter had been arrested on similar charges, but that he had not been formally charged.


Ritter was reportedly charged in a June 2001 sex sting in New York, but the case was dismissed. He had been charged with attempted child endangerment after arranging to meet a person he thought was a 16-year-old girl at a fast-food restaurant. The girl was actually an undercover police officer.

The New York Post reported Ritter was caught in a similar case in April 2001 involving a 14-year-old girl, but he was never charged

Source

So there you have it. He was a pedo before he was a muppet for the UN. and the authorities knew about it. The perfect puppet on a string.



posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 02:38 AM
link   
Yeah, but I wonder why he wasn't charged in those previous cases but now they decide to charge him.



posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 07:53 AM
link   
reply to post by brill
 


Scott Ritter shouldn't have messed with the government like that.

I mean, first of all it could have been a lot worse. Instead of becoming a padafile, he could have died from cancer, AIDS, you name it.

By messing with the government, he was also messing with the secret alien world government that controls them, which can do all kinds of nasty stuff to folks.



posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 08:18 AM
link   
I'm suprised that no one has brought up the subject of how he was caught. Has he actually broken a law? He is being charged with exposing himself to a minor, but he actually never did. He may have exposed himself to a female police officer pretending to be a 15 year old girl, but, he never did expose himself to a minor.

As far as the claims that this shouldn't affect how his work with the UN is viewed, BULLSH*T. If this guy built houses or cars, I could see this point being valid. Problem is that he didn't. His work is based on his views, assessments and evaluations. For any of these to be valid, we have to trust his judgement and integrity, both of these are now in doubt.



posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 08:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by JIMC5499
For any of these to be valid, we have to trust his judgement and integrity, both of these are now in doubt.


Just out of idle curiousity, did you trust his judgement and integrity beforehand or is this simply a chickenhawk's wet dream come true?



posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 08:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by JIMC5499
I'm suprised that no one has brought up the subject of how he was caught. Has he actually broken a law? He is being charged with exposing himself to a minor, but he actually never did. He may have exposed himself to a female police officer pretending to be a 15 year old girl, but, he never did expose himself to a minor.


Excellent point. Isn't pretending to be a fifteen year old a standard role play in porno, not to mention the sex industry? Maybe all of his internet encounters with fifteen year olds were really with a variety of pretenders, middle aged homosexuals, cackling fourteen year old boys, his own wife, etc., etc.

If this guy was taken in by a cop pretending to be a fifteen year old, how much real experience with fifteen year olds can he possibly have had?

(Bang, bang with the gavel.) "Case dismissed. And don't waste any more of my time with this kind of stuff Mr. Prosecutor."



posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 09:04 AM
link   
I see the crowd of oh-my-god-I might-get-caught defenders finally came out. Trumpets blaring, desperate to make themselves seem plausable.



posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 09:21 AM
link   
Yeah, he was definitely set up - it just had to be a set up:



Ritter was reportedly charged in a June 2001 sex sting in New York, but the case was dismissed. He had been charged with attempted child endangerment after arranging to meet a person he thought was a 16-year-old girl at a fast-food restaurant. The girl was actually an undercover police officer.



The New York Post reported Ritter was caught in a similar case in April 2001 involving a 14-year-old girl, but he was never charged.



posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by polit
Yeah, he was definitely set up - it just had to be a set up:



Ritter was reportedly charged in a June 2001 sex sting in New York, but the case was dismissed. He had been charged with attempted child endangerment after arranging to meet a person he thought was a 16-year-old girl at a fast-food restaurant. The girl was actually an undercover police officer.



The guy obviously has a fetish for undercover cops.

Here is a plausible transcript of their interaction on the web:

Transcript of conversation between a police officer (identity witheld) pretending to be cute 15 year old "Lucinda" and UN weapons inspector, Scott Ritter pretending to be bowling alley stud, "Jack Hammer".

Jack Hammer: "Lucinda, guess where my hand is now?"

Lucinda: (At the end of your arm, scumbag?) "Uh, I don't know. I'm only fifteen years old, a minor."

Jack Hammer: (I wonder how old he really is.) "I've got it down the front of my pants, the way I do at the bowling alley."

Lucinda: (I wonder how good a bowler this guy is. We need help on the perv squad this year. I wonder if we could get actual pervs onto the team if they were good bowlers.) "Hee, hee. Can you feel your peenie?"


I find it hard to believe that any internet encounter whatever is taken at face value by anyone involved.


[edit on 15-1-2010 by ipsedixit]



posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 09:39 AM
link   
aren't UN staff up to their nuts in such abuse across the world?

Isn't their incidents in Africa of organised behaviour?



posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 10:10 AM
link   
reply to post by UcantBserious
 


Again, you keep dancing around the real question here.

What does his private life have anything to do with his work?

reply to post by JIMC5499
 



His work is based on his views, assessments and evaluations. For any of these to be valid, we have to trust his judgement and integrity, both of these are now in doubt.


Since when?

I don't get it. Everyone has different sexual profiles, for whatever reason, being them legal or not, and everyone has them.

A judge can be a sadomasoquist and still be a great judge and very fair when applying the law and jugding people for their actions.

A good professional attitude is when you can separete your private life from your professional life. And NOTHING has come up that takes that way from Ritter.

I still don't get the point where showing genitals at home, to a young girl, has anything to do with NUCLEAR WEAPONS... Apart from the common basis that in both cases, they use things that can f*** up the world. lol

[edit on 15/1/10 by Tifozi]



posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 10:10 AM
link   
Sex with a 15 year old isn't pedophelia. Pedophilia is defined as a sexual attraction to prepubescent children.

I realize what I am about to say will not be popular. However I find the the fact that you can go to jail for masterbating on webcam for someone who you think, or most likely fanatsize, is 15 years old. We can deny all we want but I'd guess that sex with teenage girls is high up on the list of fanatsies for most men. Is that fantasy a crime? Even if the fantasy extends to online chats and web cam session I do not believe it is.


Just because something is distasteful, or maybe even morally wrong should not make it a criminal offense. The fact that we have criminilized online sexual conduct seems very wrong to me even if it is with a 15 year old.

Don't misunderstand, as far as I am concerened pedophiles should be put away for a long time, however what this man did, and what many men do, should not be a crime.



posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 10:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Merigold
 


like it or not, society must have some sort of "line" (even though individuals mature at different ages, we clearly cannot have out sex laws written for each individual)

Basically what I am saying

* If he whacked off at a girl who was underage but looked older, then certain sympathy

* If he whacked off at a 15 year old knowingly then he deserves to be punished, his job would suggest he is quite a "sophisticated" chap, so I'm sure he is aware of the law



posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 10:42 AM
link   
reply to post by blueorder
 

I agree. No matter what we may think of modern society's legal stance on sexual issues of any given description, the law is still the law. If you break the law (and we don't know if that is the case in this instance), you must take the consequences.

Did anyone find WMDs in Iraq? Not as far as I know.



posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
Just out of idle curiousity, did you trust his judgement and integrity beforehand or is this simply a chickenhawk's wet dream come true?


Personally I really didn't give a damn. I'm just sick and tired of hearing everything being blamed on the Bush Administration. Just playing Devil's Advocate.




top topics



 
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join