Scott Ritter: US plans June attack on Iran , US "cooked" Jan 30 Elections

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,486
0
0
Originally posted by: Gaard
Originally posted by: alchemize

There's no question about it.

really?

Really. Feel free to try and disprove any of my bolded statements following your snipped edit. Or are you petitioning to join the LDIR/"BBOND"/Steeplerot NAMBLA fan club?
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,029
2
61
Maybe Bush and Putin have a little deal going.

First, Putin did this to help Bush....

Text

then, Bush did this....

Text

and this...

Text

so that Putin can do this....

Text


I dunno, just following the money trail.
 

Ldir

Platinum Member
Jul 23, 2003
2,184
0
0
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: Gaard
Originally posted by: alchemize

There's no question about it.

really?

Really. Feel free to try and disprove any of my bolded statements following your snipped edit. Or are you petitioning to join the LDIR/"BBOND"/Steeplerot NAMBLA fan club?

Kiss off you fascist Bush toadie. You are all a bunch of hypocritical liars. You belligerently reject any hint of Dub's crimes in spite of ample evidence from hundreds of sources. Dub is God. Dub is perfect. La la la la. But if it is someone like Ritter who challenges Dubya, you automatically convict them on the flimsiest evidence, even when you have to make it up. You are all slimeball hypocrites.

You made the claims. You have the burden of proof. Your article does not support your most serious claims. Back them up or STFU. I bet you really got your "facts" from some right wing nutjob hate site and you are dumb enough to believe they are true. Keep on bleating. You just expose yourself as a brainless Bush tool.


----------------------
Bush Apologists of America (BAA): pulling the wool over America's eyes since 1980
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Kiss off you fascist Bush toadie. You are all a bunch of hypocritical liars. You belligerently reject any hint of Dub's crimes in spite of ample evidence from hundreds of sources. Dub is God. Dub is perfect. La la la la. But if it is someone like Ritter who challenges Dubya, you automatically convict them on the flimsiest evidence, even when you have to make it up. You are all slimeball hypocrites.

You made the claims. You have the burden of proof. Your article does not support your most serious claims. Back them up or STFU. I bet you really got your "facts" from some right wing nutjob hate site and you are dumb enough to believe they are true. Keep on bleating. You just expose yourself as a brainless Bush tool.

The mind of a looney left on display.

 

Ldir

Platinum Member
Jul 23, 2003
2,184
0
0
Originally posted by: Genx87
Kiss off you fascist Bush toadie. You are all a bunch of hypocritical liars. You belligerently reject any hint of Dub's crimes in spite of ample evidence from hundreds of sources. Dub is God. Dub is perfect. La la la la. But if it is someone like Ritter who challenges Dubya, you automatically convict them on the flimsiest evidence, even when you have to make it up. You are all slimeball hypocrites.

You made the claims. You have the burden of proof. Your article does not support your most serious claims. Back them up or STFU. I bet you really got your "facts" from some right wing nutjob hate site and you are dumb enough to believe they are true. Keep on bleating. You just expose yourself as a brainless Bush tool.

The mind of a looney left on display.

America has lost all hope when presumption of innocence is a mark of the looney left. Why don't you neo-cons go back to the old communist Soviet Union? They liked your way of thinking.

 

yllus

Elite Member & Lifer
Aug 20, 2000
20,577
432
126
Originally posted by: fornax
Originally posted by: yllus

Yeah, fsck em! Let those children rot in those camps. What business is it of ours what goes on within those arbitrarily drawn borders of a nation? Our "imperialistic meddling" that led to the first free elections in decades and, soon, the drawing up of a constitution that will reflect the ideas and attitudes of Iraqis...well, clearly a dictator and his secret police are preferable.

Ladies and gentlemen, it's a shining example of morality we've got here. Take a bow.

yllus, I didn't see you protesting that we are holding quite a few children in Guantanamo. Speaks tons about your (and the administration's) morality. So when shall we see you on national TV denonouncing the children-imprisoning US administration? Or the children-executing Texas? Sorry, kid, you're not old enough to go to an NC-rated movie, but are old enough to execute, courtesy of the caring, loving, right-wing Christian Taliban.
lol, the children-imprisoning US administration? How ludicrous a comparison is that? One country detains teenagers found on the scenes of battles. The other imprisons toddlers up to pre-adolescents whose only crime was to be the offspring of political dissidents. Moreover, are you honestly equating the care prisoners receive by the American military to that of Hussein's ex-regime?

If you had started off comparing apples to apples, maybe you'd have a point here. Of course, all of this is immaterial to the actual issue in the thread; whether Ritter has a clue in hell of what the administration knows and is up to.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
America has lost all hope when presumption of innocence is a mark of the looney left. Why don't you neo-cons go back to the old communist Soviet Union? They liked your way of thinking.

They plea bargained out on misdermenor charges.

The process of presuming innocence is over.

 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: Genx87
America has lost all hope when presumption of innocence is a mark of the looney left. Why don't you neo-cons go back to the old communist Soviet Union? They liked your way of thinking.
They plea bargained out on misdermenor charges.

The process of presuming innocence is over.
So, when's the Constitution going to be amended to redact that annoying due process thingie?
 

Ldir

Platinum Member
Jul 23, 2003
2,184
0
0
Originally posted by: Genx87
America has lost all hope when presumption of innocence is a mark of the looney left. Why don't you neo-cons go back to the old communist Soviet Union? They liked your way of thinking.

They plea bargained out on misdermenor charges.

The process of presuming innocence is over.

Too bad you can not read. That is not what the story says. There were charges. There was no conviction. There is no proof of a plea bargain. Anyone can be charged with anything. I can charge you with pedophilia. I can claim I saw an article on the Internet proving it. That does not make it true. Back up your slander or STFU. If you go on bleating for your daddy in the Whitehouse you prove you are just another brainless tool.


--------------------
Bush Apologists of America (BAA): pulling the wool over their own eyes since 1980
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Too bad you can not read. That is not what the story says. There were charges. There was no conviction. There is no proof of a plea bargain. Anyone can be charged with anything. I can charge you with pedophilia. I can claim I saw an article on the Internet proving it. That does not make it true. Go on bleating for your daddy in the Whitehouse. You are just another brainless tool.

What are you talking about? They plea-bargained it out. If they didnt, then there would have been a trial and either a conviction or innocent verdict rendered. Instead they plea-bargained it out and said if you do this again we will bring you to trial. This happens on a daily basis in our court system with misdermenors.

If Ritter felt he was innocent then he should have went to trial. But chances are he felt he didnt have a good enough excuse as to why he met two undercover cops who posed as underaged girls in a chatroom to beat it. The DA felt it was a waste to prosecute on a misdermenor charge and plea-bargained it out.

We are past the part of presuming innocence. We can now pass judgement based on what we know.

 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: Genx87
So, when's the Constitution going to be amended to redact that annoying due process thingie?

Due process was served here.
Then what did you mean by "The process of presuming innocence is over."

Plea bargaining could have been a way to avoid being railroaded.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Then what did you mean by "The process of presuming innocence is over."

Plea bargaining could have been a way to avoid being railroaded.

Read above

If they were out to railroad him, then why would they plea bargain it out and seal the case?!?!?!?!?

Doesnt add up.

 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
1
0
Originally posted by: alchemize
You need to find a more credible diversion to change the subject. That is too blatant.

Don't be stupid. You cannot compare laughing at a comedian's jokes with using slander to discredit an expert who contradicts your president. When Ritter has a pedophile web site, we can talk. Until then you are slime.

I'm slime? lol. Who is defending child molestors? Ha ha that's quaint. I noticed you defended him vigorously of these crimes on the 2/11/04 thread as well. I'm wondering if there is some additional motivation here beyond the typical RBH...perhaps this crime hits a little close to home?

There's no question about it. He was arrested in a Burger King, there is footage of that, and there is a mug shot. He was charged with a crime. He has admitted that fact. There was an ACD (an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal - here's the relevant code in NY sec 170.55), and the case was sealed after he "was good for <6 months". He has never denied that fact, and never denied that the crime he was charged with was a sex crime against a minor. Please let me know if you'd like the relevant quotes, although I doubt you really care as evidenced by your over 1 year of denial.

For one who so easily can connect the dots of "Bush's lies", this simple exercise seems to be beyond you. Look's like you belong to a BAA club of your very own, and Steeplerot is your VP, and "BBOND" is your minister of information.

Damn, alchy. I was 'this' close to just telling you to fvck off, but then I remembered that you have a penchant for feigning anger. I figured you were just feigning being an ass. Why else would a one-word question trigger such a reply?
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0
Ritter was right on WMD, and he got a lot of heat for it. I applaud him for sticking to his guns.
At the same time, he is not qualified to comment on Iraqi elections because that's not his area of expertise.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: theGlove
we are getting closer and this story is looking more accurate

Maybe not.


From
http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...atid=52&threadid=1539955&enterthread=y
In regards to Iran, Hersh stated that his contacts and research points to four different groups of U.S. Special Forces being in place in Iran. A member of the audience questioned Hersh?s credibility and accused him of harboring an anti-Bush bias. Hersh replied to the written question that the articles he writes are based upon information from his contacts, many of which are very high up in the intelligence community, the Pentagon, and the government and his information usually shows up a few weeks later in the mainstream media as accepted fact. He hasn?t been wrong yet. Hersh only reveals the names of his sources when allowed to do so. Most of his contacts, however, work in intelligence and revealing their names would compromise their safety and their jobs. Hersh did say that some high-ranking Pentagon officials are very critical and upset with the Bush administration but are unable to make public comments to that effect. As far as Hersh?s comments that fighting with Iran is imminent, he was told that if he wrote the piece correctly, there wouldn?t be a fight (meaning, if he uncovered enough information and enough people read it and criticized the Bush administration, an invasion or an attack on Iran would not happen.)
 

kylebisme

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2000
9,396
0
0
Originally posted by: Genx87
Then what did you mean by "The process of presuming innocence is over."

Plea bargaining could have been a way to avoid being railroaded.

Read above

If they were out to railroad him, then why would they plea bargain it out and seal the case?!?!?!?!?

Doesnt add up.

It adds up to people presuming his guilt regardless of the fact that there was no such verdict.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Nice to see 2 month old threads come back to life

It adds up to people presuming his guilt regardless of the fact that there was no such verdict.

He ple-bargained, we are past the point of presuming innocence.

 

kylebisme

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2000
9,396
0
0
We? You got a mouse in your pocket? ;)

Seriously, plea bargoning only proves that one doesn't want to fight the charges, not his guilty of them. But that is besided my point that your comment "If they were out to railroad him, then why would they plea bargain it out and seal the case?" is nullified by people like yourself who assume that accepting a plea bargain is proof of guilt.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,589
5
0
Originally posted by: TheSnowman
We? You got a mouse in your pocket? ;)

Seriously, plea bargoning only proves that one doesn't want to fight the charges, not his guilty of them. But that is besided my point that your comment "If they were out to railroad him, then why would they plea bargain it out and seal the case?" is nullified by people like yourself who assume that accepting a plea bargain is proof of guilt.

Plea bargins is that one of the sides feel that procecution/fighting on the bigger charges can lead to risks because of some unknowns that the other side may have up their sleeve. Taking the lesser charge removes that risk of failure.
 

kylebisme

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2000
9,396
0
0
Plea bargining is also something the accused will go for when he thinks that they will be railroaded by a enough circumstantial evidence to sway the court despite the fact that he never actually commited the crime.
 

Taejin

Moderator<br>Love & Relationships
Aug 29, 2004
3,270
0
0
SteepleRot, you usually seem somewhat reasonable, but I would like to say that I am *really* skeptical. That said, I will be eagerly waiting to see if your far flung theories have any basis come June.