It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 10:54 AM
Headline should read"

UN Weapons Inspector Caught Brandishing Weapon


posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 11:01 AM
reply to post by Merigold

I agree to a certain extent but to the vast majority of americans it is classed as paedophilia hence laws are in place to reflect that mentality. In many other countries this case would not be classed as such, but it is in America and he will need to deal with the repercussions. In any case i don't see how this should in anyway discredit what he has been saying over the years in regards to WMD's. The man was spot on regardless of this crime.

posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 11:06 AM
reply to post by muzzleflash

Would you really watch it lol?

I can do without this chester and wait on the next person to step up to help expose stuff if hes guilty screw him im sure it will happen when he gets in prison. No tolerance for any of these weirdos in a high position no matter what they help do.

posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 11:15 AM

Originally posted by Tifozi
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?

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

It could have nothing to do with his job or it could have everything to do with it.

So far all he's done is sent video of himself whacking off to what he thought was a 15 year old girl. He's shown a history of this behavior going back to 2001. People here are saying that he's being setup for speaking out against Bush. I have to offer the alternative. What if he was blackmailed into making those comments? We have no proof, one way or another, because of that I would have to take every one of his statements or claims with a grain of salt. I would not be able to rely heavily on his information again and would have to question everything that he has done to this point. So that would have an effect on his work.

posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 11:37 AM
reply to post by brill

Hmm, ok people try this. Hes a suit . Suits are scum. Politicians , are scum either murderous corperate scum, or socialy retarded but honest. But they are all scum.
Which scum do you wish to follow, and which scum can you trust? Because you sure as hell dont have a third option.

posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 11:41 AM
reply to post by JIMC5499

When something looks pretty simple, to me, it's very simple untill proven the contrary.

IMO, he wasn't manipulated either way. He was just caught.

BUT I have to admit that is a big coincidence the first date in which he was charged. But I don't think there is a big conspiracy in here, honestly.

So far all he's done is sent video of himself whacking off to what he thought was a 15 year old girl. He's shown a history of this behavior going back to 2001.

Exactly! That's all he has done.

what that shows us, is that this guy has some serious issues, and is actually a threat to young girls.

What he did is completly wrong, but it's his private life, and the subjects don't relate to his work, at all.

People here are saying that he's being setup for speaking out against Bush.

He wasn't speaking against anyone. He was speaking about the truth, and the truth is, that the Gov at the time wanted a war, and went after anything they could get a grip to justify it. Ritter was one of the people who said they were making it up, which, is more than proven, is the actual truth.

What if he was blackmailed into making those comments?

How can you blackmail someone into speaking what he believes in? He was in the UN for the same reason that made him tell the world that Iraq didn't have any WMD's.

I would not be able to rely heavily on his information again and would have to question everything that he has done to this point.

WHY? Why do people against this case keep saying "he masturbated to a young girl, I don't respect his work anymore". WHY? Explain how the two things are connected!

If you see people in high ranks as perfect, that's up to you to deal with this dissapointment. But that's a lot different from the way this guy is being judged.

If he did what Clinton did, and LIED to everyone about it, YES, you're tottally right. He is a liar, he plays with the truth, he hides things when confronted with them. But he DIDN'T. He didn't pointed to the camera and said "I did not do this!" and after proof comes out to the contrary. He got caught doing something he wasn't suppose to be doing.

Immorale or not (which I believe it is), it's his private life. And there are plenty of cases around where great personalities and great genius are actually monsters and morons with people close to them, or in their private life. But that doesn't change what they do for the world.

So that would have an effect on his work.

No. It has an affect on your opinion about him, not hit work.

EDIT to add:

I'm not defending this guy. At all. I have a young girl, 4 years old. This is the kind of stuff that scares me when she gets older.

But, it also scares me that people start dismissing things like what he said, just because of a scandal. People saying "well...afterall the war is actually good and right" just because he got caught with his pants down.

[edit on 15/1/10 by Tifozi]

posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 12:35 PM
Some people just don't get it. Then some people do get it but don't want anyone else to get it.
1) He was caught red handed in 2001 before he was the weapons inspector

2) The UN handpicks a known pedophile for the job.

3) Ritter never gets outed and keeps a clean record without jail time while being inspector.

4) He gets nailed in a sex predator sting again 9 years later.

Reading between the lines it is obvious he is a serial sex predator and can conclude he was active this whole period.
How could one hold such a high profile job or even get one in the first place?
His illegal activities are what qualified him for the job, he is the type that is easily controlable.
Being outed for such a thing would result in a total change of life. Losing wife, kids, home, career, status in community and serving time in jail. That would be enough to control anyone to do whatever it takes to avoid such consequences.

This much is easy to see even for a child were this plot in a 3rd grade story.
Don't fall for those making equivocations, excuses, focusing on miniscule irrelevencies (like the officer wasn't a real 15 yr old girl, lol like that can't be serious).

Now to see where this Pedo freakshow takes us in its final conclusion.
One conclusion is for certain, UN mouthpieces can never be trusted again.

posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 12:40 PM
reply to post by UcantBserious

Don't fall for those making equivocations, excuses, focusing on miniscule irrelevencies

So, Iraq has nukes?

[edit on 15/1/10 by Tifozi]

posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 12:58 PM
reply to post by Tifozi

We'd never know because the only thing Saddam was showing him for inspection was most likely harams of underage girls.

The inspection regime delayed the war long enough to dismantle and send anything out of the country during that time frame.

There is no definitive proof either way.

posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 01:01 PM
reply to post by muzzleflash

I most totally agree with you, muzzleflash, show me the film, show me the evidence! This rings of what was attempted with Bob Lazar when he told his story, remember? They are trying to discredit Scott Ritter because he exposed them, he called a duck a duck, and told the truth about what he saw, instead of the lies he was supposed to tell.
This hopefully will play out in a court of law where the truth will be shown. I am on Ritter's side here.

posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 01:03 PM
reply to post by UcantBserious

But we do know that the intelligence reports used as evidence were falsified...nothing but outright lies and misinformation presented as a justification for invading.

posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 01:21 PM
reply to post by Solomons

Just ask yourself some questions.

Did the invasion take place? Yes by dubious intelligence

Was the invasion delayed? Yes by nefarious UN inspections

Both proven deciepts returned results that are now history.

The reason for the UN delaying action is a fascinating part of the story.
The UN illegal black market oil trades with Iraq under the guise of oil for food program never had any heads roll from it at the UN. Seems the UN needed to wipe its dirty fingerprints from the affair and the delay in invasion was necessary for that.

posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 02:34 PM
Interesting Post, which should make us all reflect upon what we are made of. To me this posting is simply another example of the flawed nature of human beings and the resulting flawed nature of our mutual interactions - society.

So Scott Ritter is a pervert, huh? So what? From a perspective where one considers his contributions to the counter-proliferation issue, it may engender disappointment in him as a person (you certainly aren't going to ask him to watch your teenage daughter for a night), it really has no bearing on whatever he may have done as a weapons inspector or Marine. The only way it would be, is if someone where accusing him of particpating in some war crimes involving sex, or possibly fabriacting lies due to blackmail pressures from his illicit activities. As far as I know, that's not on the table here.

Having worked in the US military and Defense world for over a quarter century, I will tell you I have learned this lesson: It is often a person with deep personal flaws that ends up being a hero or perfoming an exemplary service. While I am not saying that those with admirable character are incapable of doing the same, I am saying that the opposites also do.

As personal example of this, I recall in 1984, while stationed as an Army officer at Fort Ord CA, that a frustrating thing occured that is perhaps the best example of this I can think of. A small private airplane crashed in Monterry Bay about 100 yards off shore in very deep water. It just so happened that a crowd of about 100 people were on the shore watching it sink and doing nothing. Finally, an off duty soldier strips to his skivies and dives in the frigid water (the Bay is very cold even in the summer), and swims to the plane and rescues two women. A Hero by the truest sense of the word - one who unnecessarily risks their own life to save another. Normally the guy would get the 'Soldiers Medal' and be touted in the press and Army circles. Problem is that this soldier was then undergoing his second discipllinary hearing for stealing from the motor pool. What to do? The guy was almost certainly a thief yet he did what 100 upstanding other citizens would not.

Second example, while a contractor in DC just after 911, an older government manager (GS-15), ignoring the roadblocks of many superiors and organizations, managed to get a critical newly developed intelligence management system build, deplooyed, and trained, to every major US military command (COCOM) within 2 years for a total cost of $6million. Competing programs of the time blew HUNDREDS of millions of dollars in that same time span and produced nothing more than a power point briefing. In my entire career, I have never seen anything tangible be furnished to the troops in the field that fast before or since; espeially for that relative bargain basement price. Yet this same individual was an alchoholic and womanizer with a crude ill-mannered personality to match. A hero of another sort to be sure, but also an embarrassment.

I've got lots more examples from work and life, yet I think its the underlying lesson one must focus on: that sometimes a treasure can be found in a bucket of crap.

With all this said, I do not condone Ritter's actions if true, but have to point out that he was 100% correct in his findings and assertions concerning WMDs.

But in the end, don't we all know this? Isn't ATS just full of folks who are eccentric, weird, wacky, a little crazy, paranoid, or otherwise flawed by normal society's measure? However, we all are here, and continue to come back because somehow within this 'land of misfit toys' we find nuggets of truth and insight you simply can't get elsewhere.

posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 03:00 PM
I can't believe that some of you people are making excuses for this sick bastard. Trying to say that he has been setup and that the government has plotted against this man to tarnish his reputation and his credibility.

This is not the first time that he has been caught doing the EXACT same thing.

He tried to pull that BS excuse of "being set up for politics" when he got caught the first time.

This situaion is no different than the situations that they film on that 'To Catch a Predator' show. Those men, just like Ritter, were under the assumption that we going to have sex with an underage minor and get away with it.

It doesn't matter if it's a 50 year old male cop on the other end of the conversation. He was under the assumption that it was a 15 yr old girl from the Poconos, KNOWING that a 15 yr old girl is considered a minor, and he still decided to get on his webcam where she could watch him pleasure himself.

How in the HELL can you take his side and defend this man? On top of the whole thing, he has twins daughters that are the same age as the girl that he thought he was talking to. There is NO excuse for this man or his actions. His wife needs to seriously consider what kind of relationship she wants him to have with their own daughters.

And to the poster that said every man has fantasies of having sex with teenaged girls .... Brother, I don't what the hell is wrong with you, but I have NEVER, as a grown man, fantasized about having sex with a teenaged girl. My daughter is 11, and my nieces are teenagers, and if I were to ever fantasize about having sex with a girl their age .. I would seriously question my ability to be a father and would seek some form of mental treatment .... That is, if I hadn't already taken my own life for thinking about something as repulsive as that.

All of these Barely Legal magazines, movies, websites; and those Girls Gone Wild videos ... I don't understand how a grown man can find sexual gratification with these things, ESPECIALLY if he has daughters or nieces within the same age range. Contrary to popular belief, there comes a time in a young mans life when sex is not the only thing that he thinks about and focuses on.

posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 05:09 PM
If Scott Ritter got his job because he was vulnerable on the issue of his sexual proclivities, that would not surprise me. Have other members of the UN weapons inspection team been arrested for similar things?

Is this another failure of the Bush Administrations's intelligence apparatus, in not exploiting Ritter's vulneraility, to force him to find WMDs in Iraq? Of course, if he did find them, he'd have to, like produce some "show and tell" for the media. How do you do that, if there really isn't anything there? Saddam is not going to let these UN guys smuggle in some Plutonium that they can then pretend to find on the evening news.

Bottom line:

1. Ritter got it right. There were no WMDs in Iraq.

2. Ritter's peenie . . . uh . . . probably isn't involved in the WMD angle.

3. Violations, violators, weapons inspections, verifications . . . the dude has got to stop bringing his job home from the office.

posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 09:06 PM
reply to post by Detailed Perfection

Well, I'm totally with you when you write about the Barely Legal bit. I also think its sick, and I commend your examples on right and wrong. How anyone other than a like-aged teenage boy could even think of having sex with a teenage girl is beyond me. In fact, I think the entire way skinny boy looking model, no pubic hair version of beauty and desire is tottering on the same cliff as the pedophiles. Give me a woman over 35 with curves anyday.

I guess my whole previous post was not to defend Ritter's perversions, but merely to establish that his perversion is probably unrelated in any way to his weapon's inspecting abilities or tenure.

posted on Jan, 19 2010 @ 07:13 AM
reply to post by Sashromi

You only established YOUR opinion, which you obviously did not base on the facts at hand.
This guy will never be called as an expert witness on anything after these charges.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in