Gadaffit gets Pwned (I think)

So from your posts I read that all UK news must be neutral unlike American TV which is notoriously biased but a lot less biased than UK news.

Do you see the issue with that?

There is this old gadget called, 'backing up your assertions with sources of information that can be examined.'  

You are forgetting about the internet again...

I get the clear impression he is even worse at chess than Napoleon. But Kirzan is worse at international relations.

I clarified that only the bbc must be neutral.

As a long time resident of the Middle East with Arab friends and colleagues of almost all neighbouring countries, I can state from their stories that Gaddafi and his like are indeed vicious murdering despots quite capable of turning the full force of their security services on their own people for the simple act of voicing criticism.  I have no reason to think these people are making up stories to support CIA manipulation of Western media outlets.  It is true that Western countries have engaged in self-interest and hypocrisy, albeit in the name of real politik.  Short term goals have trumped moral rectitude more than they should and still do in many cases. But to suggest there is some sort of moral equivalence between Qadaffi, Assad or Saleh and democratically elected leaders now trying to work out how best to support respective rebel groups is absurd and such an opinion deserves only contempt. Anything less is a huge disservice to those brave people who have found the courage to reject cruel systems under which they suffer.

Uncritical rejection or acceptance of news from any source is equally pathetic. I doubt that YouTube or “The Internet” are more reliable than a balanced look at BBC and Al Jazeera but they can provide insight sometimes, along with plenty fodder for the dedicated conspiracy theorist.  Disparaging Western journalism is not a basis for uncritical appraisal of the despots under threat from their own populations.

Bernie Ecclestone (finally and after a bit of thought) cancelled the Bahrain Grand Prix. Chess representatives should not be playing happy chess games while Libya melts down.

?!?

But if it is more biased than the tv you called notoriously biased how is that neutral?

Sorry, I wrote biased, but meant far. :)

None of these channels are British, so I don't understand.

Too late for selling the bridge. The original London Bridge was sold in 1962 and moved to Arizona.

Yeah...FOX stands alone as not being slavish to the left. Viva FOX!

The point is what were the moves in that game?

If they really wanted publicity (assuming that Kirsan won), all the president had to do was shoot Gaddafi when he said "Checkmate". Chess players, killing dictatorships one checkmate at a time.

Of course, this would also get Kirsan in major trouble and paint chess players as demented vigilantes...

I'd settle for that over "nerdy, Mummy's boy".

Here's an excellent documentary on the media:

"slavish to the left", not even worth a comment.

Don't forget the National Enquirer which is even more willing than Fox to bare the truth, defying even the liberals' anti-bigfoot agenda.

What people in the US don't seem to understand is how far right you are as a country. You think national health care is a bad thing - perhaps you are the only country which is well developed to have that attitude. If your parties are anything to go by, your idea of liberal should be quite moderate.

Obama and "Obamacare" are probably the best things that have happened to your country. The republican party is a joke. If you don't like Obama are you suggesting that Donald Trump or Sarah Palin would do better?

Sarah Palin is as good as Cameron? That's beyond a joke. Don't joke about things like that. Sarah Palin would probably nuke South Korea by mistake.

Nuke? Nah

Squirmish? You bet!

Not quite. Some prefer to post the same tired images, time after time, regardless of context or viewer fatigue.