Scott Ritter Says US Attack On Iran Set For June

I don't think Scott Ritter is a conspiracy theorist. In fact, I have a great deal of respect for the man. However, I think he's wrong on this one, as there is no evidence to support his claims.

 

Fair enough i can see that now.. still the popularity and credibility thought i had still i think holds up..?

Plus i think Bill hicks once mentions something about a 'major fucking drop off' relating to saddams national gaurd compared too other top armys of the world ?...

Lets wait till june.. Persoanly i think all of this (presed rat) is just a continuation of a vast plotline that with hindsight and enough memory and willing to delve into fact and reality, could be pulled apart quite easily .. i am sure people will after June comes around , mmm maybe not ? . Thats the problem all our thoughts only have merit or no merit because of the knowledge or lack of others. Even when the 'truth' is found it is still dismised as bias . I don't think people have the time or inclination to sort out whats the truth and what fiction ? , its i guess one word against another ?. just i think this will eventualy sink to the bottom of this forum to be forgotten and your version of the truth and other of your ilk will continue to drive ever on.. I admire your determination and skill but not realy your grasp on actuality though (not that i have any room too talk )... I suppose (by june) you would have come up with loads of other possibilities and heinous actions of the Bush administration and this will have no merit or heaven forbid what you post comes to fruition ?.. This is why i continue too read what you have to say..

 

Lol...Scott Ritter appears to be more credible than the President of the United States.
Prior to the invasion of Iraq, Ritter said that there was no proof of weapons of mass destruction.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/07/17/saddam.ritter.cnna/


LONDON, England (CNN) -- Former U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter spoke to CNN International's Fionnuala Sweeney about his own experience in Iraq, and his views on the possibility of a new attack by the United States.


SWEENEY: Scott Ritter, you are against any strike attack on Iraq for the reasons currently being given. Can you explain why?

RITTER: No one has substantiated the allegations that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction or is attempting to acquire weapons of mass destruction. And of course that is the reason we have been given for going to war against Iraq -- because of the threat posed by these weapons. It has been nothing but rhetorically laced speculation, not hard facts, that have been presented by either the United States or Great Britain to back this up, and until they provide hard facts, there is no case for war.

SWEENEY: But didn't the United Nations present a report last year saying they believed there were weapons?

RITTER: No, the U.N. presented a report saying they could not account for everything.

SWEENEY: But it is hard to account if you cannot get into the country.

RITTER: That's right. Then why did the United States pick up the phone in December 1998 and order the inspectors out -- let's remember Saddam Hussein didn't kick the inspectors out. The U.S. ordered the inspectors out 48 hours before they initiated Operation Desert Fox -- military action that didn't have the support of the U.N. Security Council and which used information gathered by the inspectors, to target Iraq.

SWEENEY: So you are saying that even before this administration came into power, that they were gunning for Iraq?

RITTER: Removing Saddam Hussein has been the policy of every American president since George Herbert Walker Bush.

*********

 

I've already answered that. How is it at all relevant?

What does Ritter's knowledge of WMDs in Iraq - which was blatantly obvious to most international observers - have to do with his knowledge (or lack thereof) of an American plan to attack Iran?

 

Good question Skip!

 

Thats true..

 

You people give true progressives a bad name. One can be opposed to the Bush administration, and still not accept every stupid anti-Bush theory that finds its way on to the internet without the slightest bit of skepticism. It's called critical thinking.

I'd hardly call my questioning the evidence (or lack thereof) "spouting drivel." But I guess mere evidence isn't necessary as long as the article agrees with what you already think...

What do I do for a living? Not that it's any of your business, but I'm a biology professor at a major university. Why?

 

I haven't criticised Ritter at all. All I've done is criticise Rense. That's not defending BUSHit. Rense is an embarassment for any sane person who doesn't like Bush.

 

well kandahar, it seems thats not what he said at all.

my geuss would be, invasion in july, conscription by august.

 

I'll ask you again, since you quoted me and then chose to ignore everything I said: What does Ritter's knowledge of WMDs in Iraq - which was blatantly obvious to most international observers - have to do with his knowledge (or lack thereof) of an American plan to attack Iran?

 

If anything there might be some limited tactical airstrikes, although I'd say the odds are against even that on the timescale you mentioned. A full-scale invasion on the timescale you propose is just ridiculous.

I'll give you 10:1 odds that there's no full-scale invasion of Iran as of July 31, 2005.
I'll give you 1000:1 odds that there's no conscription or military draft in the United States as of August 31, 2005.

The bet can be any sum you like, payable to your favorite charity. Is it a bet?

 

I agree. It's sad that people like Pressed Rat can defend Rense as a "legitimate news source" with a straight face. One needs to look no further than some of the headlines on their main page to see Rense's ties to anti-semitism, mysticism, and metaphysics.

Hey Rat, when Rense figures out what the aliens meant with the latest crop circle pattern, be sure to let us know.

 

What do you consider a "legitimate" news source, Kandahar?

CNN? FOX News? NBC? CBS?

I use those sources. But I also use alternative sources as well because they cover things you're not going to see and hear coming from the corporate, elite-owned media.

I get my news from a wide array of sources, both mainstream and not-so-mainstream. Rense.com is just one of them.

 

Those are all legitimate. They have various biases, but they all basically follow journalistic standards.

Any website (such as Rense) that seriously entertains the idea of crop circles created by UFOs *deserves* to be mocked and not taken seriously.

 

Right. The "journalistic standards" of the world bankers, who dictate their "journalistic standards" to the institutions within (and beyond) the federal government, such as the CFR, Trilateral Commission and CIA, who dictate their "journalistic standards" to the various elite-established foundations, which fund these networks, who dictate their "journalistic standards" to the hand-picked editors who control these networks' news output, who decide what should be presented and what shouldn't be presented to the herd (that's us). If it goes against both the socialist-globalist agenda of the world bankers, and the neoconservative-globalist agenda of those elites high within the echelons of the US government (depending on if it's a phony "left" or "right" source/publication), these networks lose their funding, causing them to eventually go belly-up.

That's probably why anything that doesn't subscribe to these bogus standards -- such as that found in the independent and alternative media -- is shunned by narrow-minded, shallow thinking people, whose thoughts and world view have been shaped by the mainstream media. Anything that falls outside of the version of reality dictated to them by the media they have been conditioned by for so many years is shunned as being "conspiracy theory."

Even the majority of dumbed-down Americans claim not to place a lot of trust in the media, but you seem to believe everything they tell you is 100% truthful. That requires such a minimal amount of thinking, to just automatically accept everything you are presented, never questioning anything or thinking for yourself.

And you consider yourself a critical thinker? I don't think there is anyone on these boards who would agree with that.

That is no better than me believing everything I read on Rense (which I don't).

So, if UFO's are not a legitimate subject, how come Peter Jennings -- one of the media gods whom you place so much of your trust in blindly -- is hosting a two-hr. special on UFO's tommorow night on ABC?

Lots of intelligent people believe in extra-terrestrial life, and for you to mock them only shows how ignorant and close-minded you are. It's one thing not to believe, it's another to mock something you have never researched before.

 

Journalistic standards at the major networks are pretty good, which is why heads roll every time there is a scandal like Jayson Blair or Dan Rather. I have a great deal of respect for the mainstream news media. While I don't always agree with the content of their reports (spending more time on Scott Peterson than Darfur, for example), I do respect the fact that they try to at least get the information right.

News media make mistakes too. Reporters have biases. I get news from some "alternative" sources too AS LONG AS THEY RESPECT JOURNALISTIC INTEGRITY. There are plenty of blogs out there that report some version of the truth. Rense is not one of them.

How should I know? I'm not Peter Jennings. Maybe because he thinks it's an interesting subject, or because his bosses told him to do it, or because he actually believes this nonsense. Who knows? You just finished criticizing arguments from authority, and then you go and make this foolish statement.

I've done plenty of research into the prospect of extraterrestrial life. And to think that it's somehow related to these idiot UFOlogists and their crop circles does a real disservice to scientists legitimately interested in finding out if there's extraterrestrial life.

The association that because I don't believe in your crop circles, I must necessarily think that we're alone in the universe, is idiotic.

 

I know its fun to say things like that, but it only looks like you need to insult people for lack of anything of substance to say. When was the last time Kandahar or I quoted ANYTHING from major media which wasn't an undisputed fact anyway? This is becoming that standard HipForums approach - if anyone disagrees with the standard party line, just scream "sheeple" or "Fox news" or "the media" and you're done, no need to actually formulate a relevant response.

So while you are busy making totally unsubstantiated claims that we "believe everything" major media says, let me point out a typical passage from one of your Rense stories:

This is howling at the moon lunacy, and its not like I went to Rense and took the dumbest thing I could find, this is something you actually cut out and pasted in the forum.