Watch Christopher Hitchens Get Waterboarded

[John56{vg}]

If you think its obvious, then you must see the reasoning behind it; you do repeat your claims quite a bit. I don't understand why the correlation seems to concern you so much. The fact that Hitler was repetitious has nothing to do with why he is vilified.

I'm a non-smoking white male vegetarian of north European extraction; so was Hitler. Ergo, it is perfectly accurate to say that I have an awful lot in common with Hitler! Despite that, I am not a genocidal fascist.



I don't understand this either. I think I've been pretty civil; further, I'm not making esoteric claims, but rather asking concrete, refutable questions. I do appreciate that you won't answer them though, and I respect your choice. For what it's worth, I am sorry that I've offended you, it was never my intention.

Again I find it necessary to respond. I have answered eveything you have asked. I explained why the BBC and NPR are two good news sources. You not accepting those answers is not the question. So your assumption is wrong IMHO.

And if I repeat myself it is because what I have said has been misinterpreted and misrepresented because of the prejudices of the posters. I have written THIS before. I DO have strong opinions and I don't like repeating myself. But if I am misrepresented I will answer that charge even if it means repeating myself.

[Virulent]

I have answered eveything you have asked

One, in particular you did not answer that I was wondering how you explained is below; I think this came after you started giving me the silent treatment.

Do you remember when the BBC reported that Tony Blair's statement that Iraq could have WMDs ready in 45 minutes was exaggerated? Do you remember how Tony Blair got really angry, and then the chairman and director general of the BBC both resigned, and its vice-chairman publicly apologized?

Why were they sorry? Was it in fact true that Iraq could have WMDs ready in 45 minutes? If a news source made a factual criticism (and, as we all know, a massively understated one), and then people got angry... and members of the staff were fired... doesn't that demonstrate that the angry people have some sort of executive oversight?

I really don't know how to interpret the above, recent example except by concluding that people at the BBC should be afraid of losing their livelihoods if they challenge the government line.