Definition of a conspiracy theorist:
When he hears something he agrees with, he is glad the truth is coming out. When he hears something he disagrees with, it must have been the result of torture, coercion, or a lie.
I stand solidly with Rick Moran and the story of the testimony. I calmly await PROOF of any alternative claims.Comment Posted By DevX On 21.07.2007 @ 21:14
I believe the first nuclear target of Iran is Israel, or Tel Aviv more specifically. I am certain that that would not be last target, either. It is in no one's best interests to allow Iran to go nuclear.
If you examine history, you have to ask yourself how things will look a year from now... two years from now... five years from now. Wisdom lies in taking the right action at the right time. Think carefully before you advocate acting too soon; or acting too late; or in closing your eyes and wishing like a child for a different reality.
Every one of us should ask ourselves now: What are the events and conditions that need to happen, for me to at that time say, "Go, Bomb Iran, now. Attack." For some of the commenters above, such a day when they would agree to attack Iran will NEVER arrive, not for them, not for any provocation.Comment Posted By DevX On 21.07.2007 @ 21:38
Vice President Daniels is the most howlingly funny caricature I've seen on any TV show this season. Terrible writing, terrible plot. I too think 24 is jumping the shark this season.
I almost expect Grudenko to be exposed as a Mossad agent, and its really the Jews who are behind this plot, and not Russia.
This whole season has been stuffed with plot devices and characters that make it difficult to keep watching.Comment Posted By DevX On 28.03.2007 @ 06:46
I vote for Milo being the mole. In his younger days he hung out with freako artsy Claire, having sex in the back of a hearse. Nuff said. I cannot take him seriously in CTU. I want him dead, and I think I'll get my wish.
I wish they hadn't cut this scene.
"Mr. Vice President, we have identified the target of the drone. It's going to hit San Francisco."
"Hmmm. What are our options?"
"The pilots are nearing intercept. But these are Stealth Drones. They won't be able to target them except by eyesight."
"Interesting," the Vice-President muses. "So if the drone were to succeed, we'd hardly be to blame, right?"
"I know, I know", he said, waving his hand deprecatingly. "I was just speaking hypothetically. Karen?"
"Um... by the way, in which direction *IS* the wind blowing in Northern California today?"
"Mr. Vice President!"
"Okay, okay. Just wondering. General!"
"If we were to shoot at the drone with missiles but accidentally hit the anti-war protesters in the Mission District, could we claim the missiles were fired from the drone? And then shoot the drone down?"Comment Posted By DevX On 25.03.2007 @ 09:56
Mr. Moran, I never understand why the solutions always have to be 'all or nothing'. The thought is that we have to engage solely in negotiations, or solely in an all-out military attack, or all out in supporting subversives within Iran.
These all-or-nothing approaches seem to be predicated on the idea that "we musn't piss them off!" Even though they piss us off every day.
Iran is not engaged in an all-out attack against our forces in Iraq. They nibble and strike, nibble and strike. We can do the same. I know the Senate is trying to refuse us the option of very limited strikes JUST across the border into Iran. But I think we need to introduce uncertainty into their nefarious deliberations. We need to break our own rules a little bit. They should not be able to predict us. A little uncertainty could be a great thing.Comment Posted By DevX On 11.02.2007 @ 23:14
1. We tried to create a Western-style democracy in a country where there is absolutely NO APPRECIATION for Western-style democracy. It is like trying to create tribal government in the United States.
2. We wanted to create a series of bases in Iraq to replace our bases in Germany. This is a re-orientation of our international military presence. The old orientation was a bulwark for the West against the Russian menace. The new orientation is to have a strong military presence in Southern Asia against a variety of threats. Unfortunately, the people of Iraq perceive these geo-political military bases as a permanent military occuptation. We have no support, anywhere in Iraq, for this.
3. Bush Sr. wantd a "kinder, gentler nation." This Bush wanted a kinder, gentler war. This has been a war fought by the rules of diplomacy. What a joke. We will be widely perceived as weak, ineffective hand-fluttering dilettantes when it comes to the use of force. Most of the world has a less-refined view on force, and their conclusion will be that we are utter cowards. (That's a wrong conclusion, but it is the one that they will draw.) To allow our avowed enemy Moqtada al Sadr free reign against us is a complete outrage.
4. The use of insurgency to resist a powerful traditional military force is now in full bloom. Strategy and tactics have been refined for decades by insurgent and terrorist movements. Nations with powerful militaries have NOT ONE PROVEN STRATEGY for fighting and defeating insurgencies and terrorists. Not one. We'll never win a war against them until we find at least one. They will always simply outlast our vague, meandering, muddled efforts.
5. Much of the above is perhaps unfair, because: the war in Iraq is perceived as a war of CHOICE. There is no sense that our nation is at risk. There is no sense that we are down to survival. When we finally do REALLY go to war against Islamofascists, when we do see them as a threat to our very survival, we will not be nearly so nice, nearly so genteel.
But that's for the future. For the present, we have utterly lost.Comment Posted By DevX On 9.12.2006 @ 10:31
The decline of standards within the MSM will have tragic consequences. We who prefer the blogosphere cheer this sometimes, since we view the MSM as dinosaurs, and if they will assist in their own decline, then, great.
But they are still a NEWS SOURCE. Just as a physician should practice by the oath "Do No Harm", any news source should always practice by the oath "Never Deceive".
If a news source has a bias, they should proudly admit it. I believe bias is not a problem. You can be biased and still rigorously report the news, so long as you are careful to not deceive. But I am becoming more and more convinced that the AP and other MSM outlets are engaged in deliberate deceit.
There are Muslims who believe that deceiving the kaffir is perfectly acceptable under Islam, so long as their agenda (the spread of Islam) is the goal.
Deceit is always driven by an agenda.
I am convinced that most of the MSM have an agenda, and they are perfectly comfortable in the use of deceit to achieve the agenda.
They have a bias, but they claim to be objective - while knowing they are not objective; the DENIAL of bias, not the bias itself, is another deceit. The slanted coverage, the suppression of truths, the use of propaganda, the DEFENSE of that propaganda even when it is shown to be faulty or deceptive itself... these show us what they are really up to.
There was a time, not too many decades ago, when an industry practioner would have been horrified to be found to be violating industry standards. I suppose this was caused by Shame, which is being purged from Western Civilization. Nowadays, industry standards are given only lip service; and the standards are usually ignored, and the noble spirit behind them is even mocked.
Deceit, not bias, is the assassin of Truth. Our MSM are now openly deceitful.Comment Posted By DevX On 2.12.2006 @ 09:23
I agree with Mr. Moran that the Republicans are in danger of being a marginal party that can hold most of the South, and most of the West, but will not be able to win elections.
If they purge the non-true-believers, this will come to pass, and they will be a regional party for up to, or longer than, a decade.
That might be a good thing.
I don't think the Democrats will screw things up enough in JUST two years for the national public to regret what they have just done this November 2006. It will take more than two years for the disaster to become clear.
- The Democrats will not be blamed for what happens in Iraq the next two years, though the American people might give them an equal share of the blame. If it goes WELL, they will try to seize the credit. Iraq will remain a Republican albatross. Now I know that's not fair - but it will be the perception.
- The economy is so big and so strong, that the disaster caused by the Democrats will take more than two years to become apparent.
- The Republicans will purge and fight to set a new direction. Will a winning coalition be able to come together in time?
In short, it doesn't look good for 2008. Unless the Deomocrats do in fact totally screw it up. Given their history, they just might. I am REALLY hoping for it. Because I do not believe the Republicans will be able to settle on a good winning message in time.Comment Posted By DevX On 11.11.2006 @ 01:04
The same voters who kept Republicans in power over the last decade have now handed control to the Democrats. If the voters weren't stupid before, then they're not stupid now. It's sour grapes to simply claim they're stupid now when they weren't stupid before.
The Democrats were energized; the Republicans slightly less so. It was enough to make the difference. Corruption and Iraq appear to be highest on voters' minds this time around.
Many new Democrat victors ran very conservative campaigns. Their voters appear to have voted for a change of direction, making this vote simply a rebellion against the status quo.
Put it all together. My take: Americans are result-oriented, and there was a shift in perspective that the Republicans were not providing results any longer. Lack of success in Iraq, and corruption, were the difference-makers. Because the Democrats won with a slate of conservative Democrats, they had better govern from the center. Otherwise, in 2008 and 2010 the voters will return conservatives to power, and this election will have been merely an odd blip, of interest to political historians only.Comment Posted By DevX On 8.11.2006 @ 09:56
Over the course of the last year I have developed an affliction. It only gets worse with time. It flares up with agonizing effect every time - EVERY TIME - Dhimmi Carter opens his mouth. My vision fades, my stomach boils, my neurons fire with nearly-insane rage.
I have CDS - Carter Derangement Syndrome. There is no cure.Comment Posted By DevX On 29.08.2006 @ 07:48
Harlan Ellison: "I have no mouth, but I must scream."
Dhimmi Carter: "I have no brain, but I must speak."
Pages (2) :  2