You did not need Ritter to tell you this. Putin has said as much himself just a week ago. Why do you need Ritter to tell you this when you have first hand sources telling you the same thing?

Ritter is actually very critical of the US government and in no way shape or form a state actor.

People like Ritter are being called traitor / Putin loyalist / and so on because they offer the public the other side of the story. Just like Tucker Carlson recently.

We're told by MSM trash outlets that all these people need to be crucified and people like you lap it right up. Yikes

So by being critical now, he isnt a state actor? Do you know what being a "state actor" means? Do you agree that Scott Ritter was employed by the US government?

Ritter is quite literally loyal to Kreml, he holds paid speeches on their behalf, it's not my opinion but what he does for a living. If you need me to send the source again I gladly will. I don't know why you're rambling about Tucker Carlson however, since he hasn't been brought up once.

You're not discussing with "MSM trash outlets" right now, it's you and me. Is MSM trash outlets in the room with us right now?

first of all, you did use the pedo angle to discount his assessment, here:



you continued with :



which is a vague statement anyone and everyone can agree on, but is not as precise as Scott Ritter's assessment.

you continued with :



which is basically a personal (and weak) attack and not relevant to the assessment of the video.

finally, if you are saying all pedo's military assessments are invalidated, someone could just as easily leap to the failed logic that all marines are pedo's. TLDR: we are not looking at Scott Ritters worth as a human being / morality, we are assessing his comments relating to a military conflict about which he IS knowledgeable and he is certainly an expert when it comes to Russia.

This post was edited by ferdia on Feb 17 2024 04:01am

but really, who's worse, pedophiles or nazis?

So you disagree that Scott Ritter is a convicted pedophile who got fired from his job in the US because of it? It's not an opinion, it's why he stopped being an actor for the United States government.

Can you explain how Scott Ritters assessment is different from Putins explicit justifications? I quote you: "So briefly, What Scott is alluding to in the video is that it may be Putin's goal to invade and claim everything east of the dniepo river, in Ukraine. That looks to be a hell of a lot of land." - This is what Putin said he would do, so I'll ask you again since you refuse to answer the question: Why do you need convicted pedophile Scott Ritter to tell you this?

A pedophile nazi.

You are right about fallacious appeal, however be aware that committing logical fallacies is allowed to win debates. No one wins debates by pointing out fallacies, but by constructing a more convincing argument which may or may not include logical fallacies or fallacious appeals.

When it comes to Ritters persona - he should be viewed as a pro-Russian voice with a deep knowledge of US military and how they operate and his arguments and appeal should be judged as such. He also knows cultural norms of the west having grown up in the US and can make a more meaningful appeal to the western audience. Invalidating him as a source on an unrelated charge does not invalidate the argument he is making. Neither does that invalidate arguments pf Snowden or Assange due to treason charges brought against them. The information they brought to the table should be viewed on its own merit, separate from their personas.

Ritter has served his time for his misdemeanor and is a registered sex offender. I would not want him anywhere near my kids and I find him a bit boring to listen to, but that does not invalidate his military knowledge and arguments he can make through his experience .

The truth ultimately is somewhere between pro-US/pro-Russia sources and third-party sources not directly involved in the conflict discussed - like eg BRICS.

So he's still a US state actor because he worked for the US govt in the past. That he no longer works for the US govt and in fact highly critical doesn't count. Got it

He's now also paid by the Kremlin so perhaps a Russian state actor as well, right?

Double state actor

lol you just did it again. where did i disagree that Scott Ritter is a convicted pedo? I am saying it is not relevant to the debate at hand. you argue the position, not the person. I already answered your question above but i will copy paste it for you again:

Quote (Hobbiks @ Feb 17 2024 09:04am)
On topic: Putin wants to take land, he was explicit about it in his latest interview.

which is a vague statement anyone and everyone can agree on, but is not as precise as Scott Ritter's assessment.