What would be my answer to the question, "So, how wealthy do you think that you'd be if you had 10-spot for every time that wd typed the words, George Bush war criminal, into a search engine?"
And I'd be exceedingly wealthy if I had 10-spot for every time Will authored a post defending the war criminal George bush against charges of being a war criminal.
Also if I had a 10-spot for every time dmarks lied about this Francis Boyle fellow... an individual I quoted a few times who dmarks has strangely become obsessed with.
What is strange that you quote him as some sort of authority on war criminals, when:
1) He uses antisemitic slurs like "Jewistan" for an entire nation. This is like Jesse Jackson and "Hymietown" but worse.
2) He writes of a bright future he favors, when Jewish people are ethnically cleaned from Israel.
3) He called an American attorney a "war criminal" just because this attorney is Jewish and outspoken against antisemitism
4) He's one of the only people in the civilized world who is strongly in favor of Iran's nuclear weapons program.
5) He went out on a limb and lied in order to defend an actual war criminal, Khadaffi of Libya.
---- Yet, you use him as a major source for your completely unconvincing claim of Bush being a war criminal.
Him, and a convinced rapist of children who was Saddam's paid mouthpiece during Saddam's regime.
You really know how to pick 'em. These two anyway only severely damage your case.
The other you you named, Blix and Annan, provide some support, actually. But it is very small. All you have is some off the cuff remarks from them about their personal opinion of the war being illegal. Nothing about Bush being a war criminal. Absolutely nothing at all that goes in the direction of anything that has any weight, such as a UN resolution. Just some comments by some UN officials who didn't feel strongly enough about it to make anything official.
dmarks lied: Yet, you use him as a major source for your completely unconvincing claim of Bush being a war criminal.
No, I didn't. And someone can be anti-Israel and not an anti-Semite. Anti-Semite is just a slur you happen to like.
Marjorie Cohn -- a professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, president of the National Lawyers Guild, and the US representative to the executive committee of the American Association of Jurists -- also argues that bush is a war criminal.
And she's Jewish... imagine that! To hear dmarks tell it antiSemitism and accusing bush of war crimes go hand-in-hand.
As for Scott Ritter, you stated (as if it were factual) several times the lie that Scott Ritter was bribed by Saddam. And you presented no proof at all to back up your slanderous accusation.
BTW, Scott Ritter is not a "convinced rapist of children". Scott Ritter "raped" zero children. None at all.
dmarks: Boyle hates Israelis because they are Jewish, and there are plenty of examples of his antisemitism.
Yet you have never provided any.
dmarks: [Scott Ritter] was paid several hundreds of thousands of dollars to lie for Saddam.
Scott Ritter was neither charged nor convicted of taking bribes from Saddam, therefore your accusations are false... nothing more than the insane ravings of a crank.
Scott Ritter told the truth about Iraq's nonexistent WMDs. What he did years later has nothing to do with his exemplary service as a UN weapons inspector.
And I never went out on a limb to defend "another" despicable human being... I simply point out the facts... Obviously dmarks views facts only to be "technicalities".
dmarks: There are indeed many self-hating Jews.
Suggesting that Marjorie Cohn might be an antiSemite simply because she points out the bush administration war crimes is detestable. dmarks should be ashamed.
dmarks: ...now you defend antisemitism.
Another detestable lie... something dmarks obviously excels at.
Convicted child abuser Scott Ritter was paid $400,000 to lie for Saddam Hussein. This is part of his resume. It is not a crime" so pointing out that he has not been charged is boneheaded of you. Convicted felon Ritter's service as the mouthpiece of a terrorist kingpin was exemplary. His service as a UN weapons inspector is without credibility.
Armchair attorney Francis Boyle is somehow defended because he wants to see millions of Isrealis eliminated...but not all Jews as such. And he passes out unsupported "war criminal" accusations like candy. I provided 4 examples of Boyle's antisemitism, and started with his "hymietown" moment: the Jewistan slur.
Having either man on my side is not something I'd admit, and I certainly would not lie about child abuse and antisemtism as WD is here.
"Suggesting that Marjorie Cohn might be an antiSemite simply because she points out the bush administration war crimes is detestable. dmarks should be ashamed."
No, I have no idea if she is an antisemite or not. No idea if she hates Israelis for being Jewish ("Jewistan") as Boyle does. I was just pointing out that your idea that someone can't be antisemitic if they are Jewish is completely illogical.
Interesting article on Mr. Ritter. It seems that the fellow has had a variety of views over the years - .http://emperors-clothes.com/analysis/ritter.htm
"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." Scott Ritter December 1998
p "Once effective inspection regimes have been terminated, Iraq will be able to reconstitute the entirety of its former nuclear, chemical, and ballistic missile delivery system capabilities within a period of six months." Again, from December 1998.............And, no, I haven't changed my mind about the Iraq War. I still say that we had Saddam in a box and that the Ba'athist regime was still an effective counter-foil against Iran. But there seems to be more than a little ambiguity here on WMD.
Will: And you can see how rock steady Ritter's views were once he got paid hundreds of thousands of dollars by Saddam Hussein.
I've also read allegations that Saddam provided Ritter children to rape. Part of the background which led to the sting, probably. There's no need for a sting like this unless someone has a reputation of sexual assault against children.
Where do these "allegations" come from dmarks? Obviously not from a credible source, which is why you refuse to cite them. dmarks should be ashamed to be peddling these blatant lies.
Scott Ritter accepting bribes from Saddam and raping children in Iraq is a fantasy dreamed up by cranks like dmarks.
And concerning the article that Will linked it -- it's a sliming of Scott Ritter by an individual named Jared Israel. Wikipedia says, "Israel served as one of the co-chairmen of the International Committee to Defend Slobodan Milošević. He has condemned Kosovo's independence as being illegal and in fact having been orchestrated by the United States, Germany and the Vatican".
Clearly this person is a crank of the highest order.
FYI, Ritter's views changed because he is a Republican who was fully on board with the bush administration's views (and bought into their lies)... he changed his mind after he discovered the truth... which, as a UN Weapons inspector, he was in a position to discover.
And, in regards to dmarks describing Ritter and Boyle as being "on my side"... this isn't a claim I've ever made. I disagree with Boyle's views on Israel, and I find contemptable what the Republican Ritter did years after he left Iraq and his job as weapons inspector (where he told the truth).
They aren't "on my side", they are just right on bush being a war criminal (Boyle) and Iraq not having WMD (Ritter)... that's all, nothing more.
dmarks muzzily said: There's no need for a sting like this unless someone has a reputation of sexual assault against children.
Scott Ritter got caught in a sting to catch generic sexual predators. The authorities did not target him specifically. Your claim that the sting specifically targeted Scott Ritter is categorically false... and it proves dmarks is flinging around accusations while having absolutely no clue as to what really happened...
...in regards to the sex predator sting and in regards to these baseless and unproven claims about accepting bribes to lie about WMD Iraq didn't have.
And neither is 'right'. Not ethnic cleansing advocate Boyle, with his false charges which are rejected by the UN and ICC, nor serial assaulter of children Scott Ritter, who stopped telling the truth about Iraq once he got paid to lie by Saddam Hussein.
And here we have yet another smoking gun about convicted serial child molester Scott Ritter. In this, he openly admits lying about and covering up conditions in Iraq in order to help Saddam Hussein:
"The prison in question was inspected by my team in Jan. 1998. It appeared to be a prison for children - toddlers up to pre-adolescents - whose only crime was to be the offspring of those who have spoken out politically against the regime of Saddam Hussein. It was a horrific scene. Actually I'm not going to describe what I saw there because what I saw was so horrible that it can be used by those who would want to promote war with Iraq, and right now I'm waging peace."
Yes, a "peace" which included a war against children.
This shows that Ritter's lying in defense of Saddam on other issues was just part of a pattern.
dmarks: In his blind quest to slander George W. Bush, WD is actually defending child abuse.
This is happening purely in your imagination. Especially seeing as we're discussing "child abuse" that never happened.
The "quote" you provided is no "smoking gun". And you can keep saying Scott Ritter was bribed to lie by Saddam, but that does not make it true. Like I said before, the source of these vile accusations must be totally non-credible, or dmarks would have linked to them already.
Will: You can slime Mr. Israel all that you want, wd, but what did he say that was factually inaccurate?
The guy is a crank... I don't need to point to anything factually inacurate... that's the dmarks' MO, and you don't object when he does it.
Attempted child abuse... with multiple arrests. Again and again you are defending Scott Ritter' record in this matter. You defend the worst things.
As for the rest, Ritter lying about Iraq after Saddam paid him huge sums is what is the problem. Google it. I don't have to make up for your laziness and uncritical mind in the matter of this very well known part of Ritter's career. Its so easy to find... unless you are too lazy to.
dmarks: Again and again you are defending Scott Ritter' record in this matter.
I haven't done this once. I just point to the facts that contradict your lies.
dmarks: ...this very well known part of Ritter's career. Its so easy to find... unless you are too lazy to.
[1] It can't be "well known" because it never happened.
[2] You're the one making the accusations, thus it falls on your shoulders to provide the proof. You're the lazy one in this matter, or (and this is infinitely more likely) the sources of this information are totally non-credible and you know they'll be easily refuted if you link to them.
As for Mr. Ritter's sexual perversions, the dude cyber masturbated in front of who he thought was a 15-year-old girl. I consider that pretty damned bad, wd. You do not?
WD doesn't. That must be why he is lying about Ritter's crimes in this regard.
WD the onus is on you. One must assume that at least you know your subject. But in the case of Ritter well known matters such as his PR work for Saddam Hussein seem like a total surprise to you. So you sputter and disemble. Ritter was paid off by Saddam and lied about Iraq as a result. The smoking gun quote by Ritter about the childrens prisons is a perfect example of him covering up to protect his terrorist kingpin boss.
Will: I consider that pretty damned bad, wd. You do not?
I do. And fuck for suggesting I wouldn't (stating in another thread that you were waiting for my spin). But the two issues aren't related. He accurately reported Iraq had no WMD years earlier.
dmarks: WD the onus is on you. ...his PR work for Saddam Hussein seem like a total surprise to you. So you sputter and disemble.
The onus is on YOU. Any idiot knows the one making the accusation is the one who needs to back it up. And no, I've never heard this lie before... but I don't frequent far Right websites where cranks post their delusional rantings.
dmarks is sputtering and disembling. This explains his incredibly feeble attempt to prove Scott Ritter guilty by insisting I must prove him innocent first... when EVERYONE knows "innocent until proven guilty" is how our judicial system works.
24 comments:
Certainly enough for an extended European vacation I'm thinking.
At least enough to buy Francis "Wipe out Jewistan!" Boyle a copy of this videogame he will really love
And I'd be exceedingly wealthy if I had 10-spot for every time Will authored a post defending the war criminal George bush against charges of being a war criminal.
Also if I had a 10-spot for every time dmarks lied about this Francis Boyle fellow... an individual I quoted a few times who dmarks has strangely become obsessed with.
What is strange that you quote him as some sort of authority on war criminals, when:
1) He uses antisemitic slurs like "Jewistan" for an entire nation. This is like Jesse Jackson and "Hymietown" but worse.
2) He writes of a bright future he favors, when Jewish people are ethnically cleaned from Israel.
3) He called an American attorney a "war criminal" just because this attorney is Jewish and outspoken against antisemitism
4) He's one of the only people in the civilized world who is strongly in favor of Iran's nuclear weapons program.
5) He went out on a limb and lied in order to defend an actual war criminal, Khadaffi of Libya.
----
Yet, you use him as a major source for your completely unconvincing claim of Bush being a war criminal.
Him, and a convinced rapist of children who was Saddam's paid mouthpiece during Saddam's regime.
You really know how to pick 'em. These two anyway only severely damage your case.
The other you you named, Blix and Annan, provide some support, actually. But it is very small. All you have is some off the cuff remarks from them about their personal opinion of the war being illegal. Nothing about Bush being a war criminal. Absolutely nothing at all that goes in the direction of anything that has any weight, such as a UN resolution. Just some comments by some UN officials who didn't feel strongly enough about it to make anything official.
dmarks lied: Yet, you use him as a major source for your completely unconvincing claim of Bush being a war criminal.
No, I didn't. And someone can be anti-Israel and not an anti-Semite. Anti-Semite is just a slur you happen to like.
Marjorie Cohn -- a professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, president of the National Lawyers Guild, and the US representative to the executive committee of the American Association of Jurists -- also argues that bush is a war criminal.
And she's Jewish... imagine that! To hear dmarks tell it antiSemitism and accusing bush of war crimes go hand-in-hand.
As for Scott Ritter, you stated (as if it were factual) several times the lie that Scott Ritter was bribed by Saddam. And you presented no proof at all to back up your slanderous accusation.
BTW, Scott Ritter is not a "convinced rapist of children". Scott Ritter "raped" zero children. None at all.
These lies severely damage your case.
dmarks: Boyle hates Israelis because they are Jewish, and there are plenty of examples of his antisemitism.
Yet you have never provided any.
dmarks: [Scott Ritter] was paid several hundreds of thousands of dollars to lie for Saddam.
Scott Ritter was neither charged nor convicted of taking bribes from Saddam, therefore your accusations are false... nothing more than the insane ravings of a crank.
Scott Ritter told the truth about Iraq's nonexistent WMDs. What he did years later has nothing to do with his exemplary service as a UN weapons inspector.
And I never went out on a limb to defend "another" despicable human being... I simply point out the facts... Obviously dmarks views facts only to be "technicalities".
dmarks: There are indeed many self-hating Jews.
Suggesting that Marjorie Cohn might be an antiSemite simply because she points out the bush administration war crimes is detestable. dmarks should be ashamed.
dmarks: ...now you defend antisemitism.
Another detestable lie... something dmarks obviously excels at.
Convicted child abuser Scott Ritter was paid $400,000 to lie for Saddam Hussein. This is part of his resume. It is not a crime" so pointing out that he has not been charged is boneheaded of you. Convicted felon Ritter's service as the mouthpiece of a terrorist kingpin was exemplary. His service as a UN weapons inspector is without credibility.
Armchair attorney Francis Boyle is somehow defended because he wants to see millions of Isrealis eliminated...but not all Jews as such. And he passes out unsupported "war criminal" accusations like candy. I provided 4 examples of Boyle's antisemitism, and started with his "hymietown" moment: the Jewistan slur.
Having either man on my side is not something I'd admit, and I certainly would not lie about child abuse and antisemtism as WD is here.
I missed this one:
"Suggesting that Marjorie Cohn might be an antiSemite simply because she points out the bush administration war crimes is detestable. dmarks should be ashamed."
No, I have no idea if she is an antisemite or not. No idea if she hates Israelis for being Jewish ("Jewistan") as Boyle does. I was just pointing out that your idea that someone can't be antisemitic if they are Jewish is completely illogical.
Interesting article on Mr. Ritter. It seems that the fellow has had a variety of views over the years - .http://emperors-clothes.com/analysis/ritter.htm
"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." Scott Ritter December 1998
p "Once effective inspection regimes have been terminated, Iraq will be able to reconstitute the entirety of its former nuclear, chemical, and ballistic missile delivery system capabilities within a period of six months." Again, from December 1998.............And, no, I haven't changed my mind about the Iraq War. I still say that we had Saddam in a box and that the Ba'athist regime was still an effective counter-foil against Iran. But there seems to be more than a little ambiguity here on WMD.
Will: And you can see how rock steady Ritter's views were once he got paid hundreds of thousands of dollars by Saddam Hussein.
I've also read allegations that Saddam provided Ritter children to rape. Part of the background which led to the sting, probably. There's no need for a sting like this unless someone has a reputation of sexual assault against children.
Where do these "allegations" come from dmarks? Obviously not from a credible source, which is why you refuse to cite them. dmarks should be ashamed to be peddling these blatant lies.
Scott Ritter accepting bribes from Saddam and raping children in Iraq is a fantasy dreamed up by cranks like dmarks.
And concerning the article that Will linked it -- it's a sliming of Scott Ritter by an individual named Jared Israel. Wikipedia says, "Israel served as one of the co-chairmen of the International Committee to Defend Slobodan Milošević. He has condemned Kosovo's independence as being illegal and in fact having been orchestrated by the United States, Germany and the Vatican".
Clearly this person is a crank of the highest order.
FYI, Ritter's views changed because he is a Republican who was fully on board with the bush administration's views (and bought into their lies)... he changed his mind after he discovered the truth... which, as a UN Weapons inspector, he was in a position to discover.
And, in regards to dmarks describing Ritter and Boyle as being "on my side"... this isn't a claim I've ever made. I disagree with Boyle's views on Israel, and I find contemptable what the Republican Ritter did years after he left Iraq and his job as weapons inspector (where he told the truth).
They aren't "on my side", they are just right on bush being a war criminal (Boyle) and Iraq not having WMD (Ritter)... that's all, nothing more.
dmarks muzzily said: There's no need for a sting like this unless someone has a reputation of sexual assault against children.
Scott Ritter got caught in a sting to catch generic sexual predators. The authorities did not target him specifically. Your claim that the sting specifically targeted Scott Ritter is categorically false... and it proves dmarks is flinging around accusations while having absolutely no clue as to what really happened...
...in regards to the sex predator sting and in regards to these baseless and unproven claims about accepting bribes to lie about WMD Iraq didn't have.
Ho hum. In his blind quest to slander George W. Bush, WD is actually defending child abuse.
And neither is 'right'. Not ethnic cleansing advocate Boyle, with his false charges which are rejected by the UN and ICC, nor serial assaulter of children Scott Ritter, who stopped telling the truth about Iraq once he got paid to lie by Saddam Hussein.
You can slime Mr. Israel all that you want, wd, but what did he say that was factually inaccurate?
And here we have yet another smoking gun about convicted serial child molester Scott Ritter. In this, he openly admits lying about and covering up conditions in Iraq in order to help Saddam Hussein:
"The prison in question was inspected by my team in Jan. 1998. It appeared to be a prison for children - toddlers up to pre-adolescents - whose only crime was to be the offspring of those who have spoken out politically against the regime of Saddam Hussein. It was a horrific scene. Actually I'm not going to describe what I saw there because what I saw was so horrible that it can be used by those who would want to promote war with Iraq, and right now I'm waging peace."
Yes, a "peace" which included a war against children.
This shows that Ritter's lying in defense of Saddam on other issues was just part of a pattern.
dmarks: In his blind quest to slander George W. Bush, WD is actually defending child abuse.
This is happening purely in your imagination. Especially seeing as we're discussing "child abuse" that never happened.
The "quote" you provided is no "smoking gun". And you can keep saying Scott Ritter was bribed to lie by Saddam, but that does not make it true. Like I said before, the source of these vile accusations must be totally non-credible, or dmarks would have linked to them already.
Will: You can slime Mr. Israel all that you want, wd, but what did he say that was factually inaccurate?
The guy is a crank... I don't need to point to anything factually inacurate... that's the dmarks' MO, and you don't object when he does it.
Attempted child abuse... with multiple arrests. Again and again you are defending Scott Ritter' record in this matter. You defend the worst things.
As for the rest, Ritter lying about Iraq after Saddam paid him huge sums is what is the problem. Google it. I don't have to make up for your laziness and uncritical mind in the matter of this very well known part of Ritter's career. Its so easy to find... unless you are too lazy to.
dmarks: Again and again you are defending Scott Ritter' record in this matter.
I haven't done this once. I just point to the facts that contradict your lies.
dmarks: ...this very well known part of Ritter's career. Its so easy to find... unless you are too lazy to.
[1] It can't be "well known" because it never happened.
[2] You're the one making the accusations, thus it falls on your shoulders to provide the proof. You're the lazy one in this matter, or (and this is infinitely more likely) the sources of this information are totally non-credible and you know they'll be easily refuted if you link to them.
All that Mr. Israel did was quote Scott Ritter in early 1998 and then again in later 1998. The dude obviously flip-flopped, wd. Why?
As for Mr. Ritter's sexual perversions, the dude cyber masturbated in front of who he thought was a 15-year-old girl. I consider that pretty damned bad, wd. You do not?
WD doesn't. That must be why he is lying about Ritter's crimes in this regard.
WD the onus is on you. One must assume that at least you know your subject. But in the case of Ritter well known matters such as his PR work for Saddam Hussein seem like a total surprise to you. So you sputter and disemble. Ritter was paid off by Saddam and lied about Iraq as a result. The smoking gun quote by Ritter about the childrens prisons is a perfect example of him covering up to protect his terrorist kingpin boss.
Will: I consider that pretty damned bad, wd. You do not?
I do. And fuck for suggesting I wouldn't (stating in another thread that you were waiting for my spin). But the two issues aren't related. He accurately reported Iraq had no WMD years earlier.
dmarks: WD the onus is on you. ...his PR work for Saddam Hussein seem like a total surprise to you. So you sputter and disemble.
The onus is on YOU. Any idiot knows the one making the accusation is the one who needs to back it up. And no, I've never heard this lie before... but I don't frequent far Right websites where cranks post their delusional rantings.
dmarks is sputtering and disembling. This explains his incredibly feeble attempt to prove Scott Ritter guilty by insisting I must prove him innocent first... when EVERYONE knows "innocent until proven guilty" is how our judicial system works.
Post a Comment