George's interview with Scott 'I don't give two hoots' Ritter
Posted by Ed on March 29, 2025, 11:03 pm
Can't work out why he even mentions international law...especially in the light of Iraq. So he says he got the Iraqis to comply with it...how did that work out for them?
Well, quite. He's presenting himself as the adult in the room, talking gravely about Law Law Law but to me it just shows a continued investment in a broken system. Or more precisely: a childish faith in the promises made by the spokespeople of a system which the real powers-that-be never had any intention of adhering to, certainly not if it affected their own geopolitical goals. Finkelstein does the same, even though he of all people should know how utterly ineffective the vaunted international bodies have been in offering any meaningful protection to the Palestinians. The only countries that have so far had some success in resisting the insatiable appetites of the current global hegemon have done so through actions considered illegal by the two-faced weasel lawyers of the imperial west (apologies to weasels). That's why Putin supposedly watched footage of Gaddafi getting sodomised to death every day in the run up to the Ukraine invasion - to remind himself of the true nature of the people he was up against and avoid the same thing happening to him and Russia.
Might makes right, and the Empire only responds to force. Now everybody knows. Except Scott Ritter apparently.
I have to say, he seems remarkably sanguine about the number of people he says he killed or targeted for killing in Iraq...putting it all down to "well, it's war, civilians get killed in wars." But the actual lying pretence for these war crime attacks and invasions doesn't seem to register or worry him. It really doesn't come down to "well it's war, civilians get killed in wars", it comes down to what the feck were you doing killing and targeting victims for the overtly corrupt, murderous, hypocritical and blood soaked US regime? To paraphrase your closing remark...everybody should be asking that, except Scott Ritter apparently.
I was a little surprised that Galloway wasn't more combative with Ritter's arguments, such as they were, I suppose he might consider Ritter a draw for the show. If a caller to MOATS had spewed such bollox, I suspect Galloway would have savaged them, and rightly so.
FBI raided Ritter's house recently. I've read speculation that he's been compromised
I think he still sees himself as the Good Soldier, fighting patriotically for his Homeland. Hence still wearing the marines t-shirt (how are you supposed to take that if you're one of the 100s of thousands across the world who have been brutalised by that force over the years?), hence his venom for Syrian soldiers who failed to prevent the invasion of HTS (direct quote: 'I spit on you', seen in various vids at the time), hence these comments made around the first assassination attempt on Trump:
'On March 21, 1981, I was in the Student Union of Franklin and Marshall College checking my mail when the news broke about the attempted assassination of President Reagan. “I hope he dies,” one of my fellow students announced, after watching the shooting on a television located in the common area.
I immediately put him up against the wall and told him I took violent exception to his support for the attempted assassination of my commander in chief (I was fresh out of the Army at that time).
My antics earned me a trip to the Dean of Student Affairs, who informed me (I was a newly arrived Freshman) that I would probably be expelled from college.
“We don’t tolerate acts of violence among students,” the Dean said.
“But you do tolerate the promotion of the political assassination of the President of the United States,” I retorted. “I’m curious what the Secret Service would think about that.”
The Dean thought on my words, and the incident was resolved by having me apologize to the student in question for roughing him up, and the student apologizing for his “insensitive” comments about President Reagan. - https://scottritter.substack.com/p/the-dead-zone-revisited
Christ knows why he still maintains this kind of loyalty after the way the entire media & political establishment treated him after his dissent over the '03 Iraq invasion/occupation. Pity because it makes him untrustworthy and potentially dangerous to a genuine anti-imperialist, anti-state movement, when he should be the first to support such efforts, given what he's seen & been through.
on March 29, 2025, 11:03 pm