That is, those who are wondering why anyone would think that the BBC is biased against the US (and against the West in general). Why would they want to know about allied troop movements in the current offensive? Surely not to publicize them, and tip off the enemy?

Even in england that is a clear indicator of treason.

I suppose one way to spike their treachery, if they put the request back up on their website, would be for everyone to flood them with fake reports.

Invading Iraq was an act of treason on both sides of the pond, idiots.

How can the BBC be biased against the West? They are PART OF the West, being located in England where the Anglosphere originated.

If two brothers disagree on policy, they disagree but they are both still family.

White would excuse Cain for killing Abel.

Hanging them would accomplish the same thing Mark, only with a more significant detterent effect.

Mr. Swiderski,

Against what government was this alleged act of treason?

Wickedpinto, if Britain decides to hang them I'd be the last person to raise any objection. On our own side of the pond, I've long felt that the entire editorial board of the NYT should be hanged for treason for deliberately revealing sensitive national security information to our nation's enemies in a time of war for monetary gain.

But my suggestion (swamp the BBC with false troop movement reports) was for something that the blogosphere could do about that problem, and which therefore has a chance of actually happening.

Invading Iraq was an act of treason on both sides of the pond, idiots.

It wasn't an invasion. The attack on Iraq was in response to the blatant disregard for UN resolutions. Now Iraq is a free society that needs our help dealing with foreign extrem,ists that don't want them to be free. Pretty much the same way you feel Brian, you don't want Iraq to be free. I don't know what the Iraqis did to you Squiddie, but they deserve better than they had, and they're getting there.

"Invading Iraq was an act of treason on both sides of the pond, idiots."

Projecting with that insult, Brian?

"It wasn't an invasion. The attack on Iraq was in response to the blatant disregard for UN resolutions."

+1/2, since it still probably technically was an invasion, unless you want to argue about words and suggest "incursion" or something was more accurate, but I'm not really interested in doing that.

Under the Constitutional definition of treason, invading Iraq cannot possibly have been treason, since it did not involve "levying war against [the United States], or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."

Also, it looks like Brian got up on the wrong side of bed this morning.

I think that Brian gets up on the wrong side of bed every morning. It must suck to be him, consumed with all that anger and hate.

It must suck to be him, consumed with all that anger and hate.

No doubt. It really is sad.

I wonder how they would feel if a bunch of military personnel put up a website asking about the locations and movements of reporters. I suspect they'd take a dim view of the idea. After all, if everyone knew where the reporters were, they'd be easier targets for kidnapping and worse.

I yield to few in my disdain for the Beeb, but I wonder, in this case, if we aren't simply looking at world-class cluelessness rather than attempts to elicit information of an aid-and-comfort-to-the-enemy type. I'm guessing that the right honorable twits of the BBC are simply so disconnected from the reality of anything so grubbily military as tactical security that the aforementioned solicitation of information was most likely issued entirely, in their minds, in the service of knowing where to go for fresh gee-whiz pictures of people getting killed and stuff getting broken - the enterprising-reporter-with-police-scanner mentality, if you will.

Beware attributing to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

Perhaps the copulation of certain people constitutes a true act of treason against humanity. BS's parents would be a case in point.

"but I wonder, in this case, if we aren't simply looking at world-class cluelessness rather than attempts to elicit information of an aid-and-comfort-to-the-enemy type."

No, my intellectual friends all assure me that the BBC is the paragon of intelligent and thoughtful journalism.

Mr. Swiderski,

I still await your reply to my question to you in this thread.

I would HATE to think that you are so cowardly as to avoid owning up to the foolishness of your post on this thread.

Regards,