Bloodshed, Banter and Bluestone 42

Gadzooks and Odds-bodkins! Excuse my rather fruity language, but rather than issuing a screed of "F" and "C" words I thought I'd go back a few centuries and use minced oaths instead. You see, I've been severely provoked, boys and girls. BBC3 has dumped a fair amount of egesta doubling as comedy on our television screens over the years - I'm thinking specifically about the execrable White Van Man, the horrific Two Pints Of Lager… and the tragic Horne and Corden - it would appear that now they're reloading their Haddron Collider-sized slingshot with diseased horse faecal matter.  

Unless you're a sea-dwelling invertebrate you'll be aware that YouGov recently published the results of a poll reflecting the British public's attitude to the Iraq war 10 years on. It revealed that a significant majority felt the war was wrong and half of those polled believe Tony Blair deliberately set out to mislead the British public about the threat posed by alleged weapons of mass destruction. A quarter thought that Mr Blair should be tried as a war criminal, what with the war being just a little bit illegal and everything.

The other war with a slight tinge of illegality is, of course, the ongoing campaign being waged in Afghanistan. There are those far cleverer than me who argue that the invasion of Afghanistan was not legitimate self-defence under article 51 of the UN Charter. Anyway, 12 years later and British, American and Afghan officials admit that the country is unstable and the civilians continue to pay an inordinately high price. 

It is against this backdrop that we are presented with the latest "comedic" offering from BBC3, namely Bluestone 42. The series was written by the chaps who brought us Miranda (who knew that slapstick and buffoonery actually needed writing?), whilst the production team has also helmed the aforementioned Two Pints Of Lager… and Mrs Brown's Boys: hallmarks of the singularly unfunny if ever there were such a thing. The distinguished cast includes actors who have featured in programmes I really like: Oliver Chris (The Office, Green Wing, Nathan Barley), Kelly Adams (Hustle) and Tony Gardner (Lead Balloon, The Thick Of It).

The blurb on the BBC3 website says that the series "is packed with the lively workmate banter and relationship minefields.": an ironic choice of words given that the series follows a British bomb disposal detachment in Afghanistan. Essentially the programme is constructed as a workplace sitcom with the "sit" being an illegal war overseas. All the archetypes are in place for a by-the-numbers half-hour of pleasant entertainment: the try-hard everyman, the attractive, but unattainable object of affection, the detached, entirely task-oriented boss and a motley collection of comfortable stereotypes with familiar ticks and quirks masquerading as additional characters. 

As there is no contextual exposition Afghanistan and Afghans are reduced to mere background noise as we exclusively explore the tedium and futility of war through the eyes of the British Crusader. The only pain is that experienced by our brave soldiers delivering democracy to the unwashed via the end of a bazooka whilst having to endure what they perceive to be substandard catering.

An example of the shockingly callous lack of empathy that permeates this work can be seen early in episode one. There's a running gag which features a CIA operative's tiresomely bragging about his exploits in Fallujah. The place name is pronounced here "FA - LOOOOO - JER" for maximum comic effect. Did the writers not know that this was the site of a US military siege which bombed a city flat, subsequently mired in allegations of massacre, the specific targeting of civilians, the use of chemical weapons and a nuclear fallout from Depleted Uranium munitions worse than that of Hiroshima? I would contend that they knew, but didn't care. After all, the fetishisation of our military means that the benign intentions of the West's foreign policy remain presupposed and there is no suggestion that the unquestioning soldiers are merely serving the strategic, economic and regional interests of the British Government. As David Cameron summed up so eloquently when slapping down the top brass who dared to complain about their workload: "You do the fighting and I’ll do the talking".

The reviews of the show thus far have concentrated on the quality of this gentle comedy and trite observations about ribaldry, squaddie banter and camaraderie in difficult circumstances. None of the critics have questioned whether a programme making light of an illegal war should exist in the first place, but then that's the mainstream media playing to type. Perhaps next BBC3 should do a comedy about school shootings. We could follow the perpetrator as he downloads kiddie porn and shouts at passersby in his local Aldi whilst purchasing condoms. We could empathise with his daily struggles prior to watching him stroll into a primary school and delivering acerbic one-liners to camera before shooting smiling children in the face. He could mow down a new school every week.

There is a poignant irony to be found in the utterances of the British and American governments who claim to be exporting democracy, whilst pointedly ignoring public opinion in their own countries. The real military comedy set in Afghanistan has so far cost the UK taxpayer over £17 billion. Instead of turning out this jaw-droppingly offensive toss, the BBC could have spent our money making a series of programmes about how such a catastrophic waste of lives and resources was allowed to happen, why it is still going on and holding to account those responsible.

In the end, if I can bastardise a quote from Thomas Jefferson, we get the military comedy we deserve, not the one we need. My sense of outrage won't allow me to watch another episode, not without gnawing off my own left kneecap first. I predict that this series will precisely follow the template set by the war in Afghanistan: everyone thinks it's a bad idea from the outset, the endeavour flounders as people realise it's worse than a crime, it's a colossal blunder. It soon becomes apparent that the core resources aren't fit for purpose leading to massive public disaffection and a quiet withdrawal from theatre without having achieved the main objective.

The only criticism thus far has been from the Conservative MP Patrick Mercer, who said: "I wonder if a comedy based in Afghanistan, considering the war is ongoing, is in the best of taste." If a Tory, by definition an entity incapable of any feeling, thinks it's a bit dubious then you can bet it's both vile and loathsome. Only it's worse. It's an affront to the decency the West claims as its own preserve. If war is hell then Bluestone 42 is Satan's heated, unwashed, crusty sphincter. Zounds!

10 Years After...

I'm not too well at the moment - my left foot is now the size of a mid-budget B&Q kitchen with fake mahogany wine rack - and so I have trouble sleeping. Last night I watched the recently restored cut of Heaven's Gate, and the unexpurgated version of John Woo's Red Cliff. My pretentious 7 hour movie marathon was inspired, in part, by my physical affliction, but the main motivation was to catch the early editions of our nation's newspapers and assess how they marked the 10th anniversary of Tony Blair's impassioned House Of Commons speech which greenlit the invasion Iraq. 

You won't be surprised that he isn't mentioned much at all. There's just an awful lot of guff about poor planning and benign intentions, both of which are lies. In order to siphon off resources the country needed to be broken. 

The Independent had a piece on the politics of pubic hair (I tease mine into a defiantly militant afro), whilst The Sun was all about Rio and his fitness programme. The Guardian, has an article on dozens having been killed injured as Sunni extremists targeted Shia civilians in a series of blasts across Baghdad, a violent consequence of the West's plan to divide and rule in this part of the world. 

The Mirror, however, had a retrospective of their war coverage, whilst Richard Sanders in The Maily Telegraph dismantled the myth of shock and awe.

A couple of weeks ago Nick Cohen wrote an article in The Guardian with the headline "Ten years on, the case for invading Iraq is still valid". It wasn't even the mindlessly callous headline which raised my hackles. It was the smug, self-satisfied expression of Nick Cohen in his postage stamp sized photograph accompanying the piece: his body oddly twisted toward the camera as if he has been caught mid-defecation. He suggests that ridding the world of the very evil Saddam Hussein was worth the bloodshed and infers that those who oppose the invasion are apologists for totalitarianism and terrorism. 

However, his selective cherry picking of historic events and their frames of reference means he doesn't address the fact that Saddam, like most of the despots across the middle east, was installed and supported by the CIA and MI6: his murderous offensives against the Kurds were supported by British and American governments, who also supplied the chemical and biological weapons.

Nick Cohen makes no mention of the 1.2 million dead. What do they matter, right? Presumably any display of empathy comes as the exclusive result of being a closeted Islamofascist.

"…spilling blood and spending treasure in other people's conflicts," was begun as a concerted effort to stabilise global energy resources by taking them out of the hands of an individual who used to be "our bastard" in the middle east.

So we've established that Mr Cohen is a dead-hearted vampire, but what did the papers have to say 10 years ago?

In January of 2003 Iraq's envoy to the UN protested that his country had no weapons of mass destruction.

"We remain ready to actively cooperate, as we have done in the past, to respond to any doubts," Mr Douri added. "We open all doors to Mr Blix and his team. If there is something, he will find it. We have no hidden reports. Iraq is clear of weapons of mass destruction."

In Baghdad, Iraq's foreign minister, Naji Sabri called the Bush administration "warmongers".

"This evil administration and its ally, Mr Blair in Britain, have continued in their threats and aggression against Iraq," he said. "Their aim is not the weapons of mass destruction. These two governments know very well there are no weapons of mass destruction or related activities in Iraq. By controlling this region, they are dreaming of dominating the whole world."

But Our Tone had already made up his mind, cheered on by the mainstream media and Rupert Murdoch who Rupert Murdoch gave the proposed war his full backing to war, saying George Bush was acting "morally" and "correctly" and describing Tony Blair as "full of guts" for going out on a limb in his support for an attack on Iraq;

Daily Mirror Editorial, March 19, 2003
"Even though the Mirror disagrees strongly with Tony Blair over his determination to wage war on Iraq, we do not question his belief in the rightness of what he is doing. It is one thing to have principles others disagree with, another altogether to have no principles.

The Times, March 19, 2003
"This was a dogged attempt to change the minds of dissenting backbenchers, an attempt made against the headwind of the popular mood. It was a speech to admire for its willpower and its moral conviction rather than the elegance of its prose…"

Daily Telegraph Editorial, March 19, 2003
"In the Commons, as in every debating chamber, the side that wins the argument all too often loses the vote ... But any fair-minded person who listened to [Tuesday's] debate, having been genuinely unable to make up his mind about military action against Saddam Hussein, must surely have concluded that Mr Blair was right, and his opponents were wrong.

Independent Editorial, March 19, 2003
"[Tuesday's speech] was the most persuasive case yet made by the man who has emerged as the most formidable persuader for war on either side of the Atlantic.

"The case against President Saddam's 12-year history of obstructing the UN attempts at disarmament has never been better made ... Mr Blair made a coherent case ... that while disarmament and not regime change is the legal basis for the war, the prospect of the latter makes it possible to pursue the former with a 'clear conscience and a strong heart' 

The Sun Editorial, March 19, 2003
"With passion in his voice and fire in his belly, Tony Blair won his place in history alongside Winston Churchill and Margaret Thatcher. In the most momentous speech of his political life he set out the pressing reasons why there must now be war on President Saddam.

"The ringing tones were from Churchill, the cold logic that of Lady Thatcher ... It was a stirring call to arms that was backed with precise, detailed and persuasive arguments ... [that] kept a possible Labour revolt in check [and] will have convinced the nation that war is just ...

It may well be that I'm a little tetchy at the moment, but it truly angers me that no-one has been taken to task for the destruction of a country and the theft of its resources. No-one. Indeed Tony Blair has been rewarded for his actions by being made Middle East Peace Envoy (!) and Dick Cheney’s Halliburton stock value doubled over the eight years he was Vice President, from approximately $5 million to over $10 million. Which means is about $5 per Iraqi death. Who says they didn't value the lives of the Iraqi citizens? The whole episode beautifully reveals both the West's foreign policy and the workings of our mainstream media: if you have resources they belong to us and our journalists will amplify the prevailing orthodoxy.

10 years on and what has been learned? 

1. The Irish are a righteous people, more engaged social commentators, and hold public officials to a higher standard than our own "free" press. They hurled shoes and eggs at Tony Blair at the first public signing for his memoirs in Dublin back in 2010. They also shouted: "Hey, hey Tony, hey! How many kids have you killed today?" Our Tone had to cancel the rest of his book-signing tour.

2. International courts work at the behest of Western Powers, thus the best way to get away with horrific crimes against humanity is to be a western politician.

3. The wealthy still send the sons and daughters of the poor to steal the wealth of people in foreign lands and then we make a limp half-hour BBC3 comedy about it. Written by the team who wrote Miranda. FACT.*

*See next blog

The eyes have it (Part 2)

"For those with eyes who choose to see, this nation is afraid of thee."

Brother B 'Counting Backwards To Zero'

There's a famous anecdote on social policy which goes as follows:

NERO was Emperor and the mob had been rioting uncontrolled in the streets of Rome for two weeks. The economy of the world's greatest empire was disintegrating.

The cost of maintaining Rome’s War Machine in addition to the heavy subsidies that had to be paid to the many nations dependent on Rome for support meant that the impoverished government had neither the funds nor the power to stop the riots.

In this tense situation, the Head of Shipping rushed by chariot to talk to the First Tribune.

"The merchant fleet is in Egypt awaiting loading,” he announced. “The ships can be loaded either with food for the starving people or with the special sand used in the Gladiator Stadiums. Which do you want?"

"Are you crazy?" screamed the Tribune. "Things here are out of control. The emperor's mental, the army's about to mutiny and the people are dying of hunger. For the gods' sake, get the sand! We have to get their minds off their troubles!"

Ignoring Western crimes and unconscionable iniquities is a staple of the corporate Western media. Its job is to keep us distracted and fearful enough to avoid asking awkward questions - anyone remember the tanks around Heathrow Airport?

Last summer in a Facebook conversation with a friend I posed a question, swiftly followed by an adroit observation: "Damn! What's with these Somali fishermen pirates? They're a bit intense." Further digging revealed that these fishermen police the waters of Somalia protecting the coastline from poaching (Western vessels steal an estimated GB£300 million in seafood annually from the region) and the dumping of nuclear and other toxic waste. These violations are, and have consistently been, routinely ignored by both the UN and maritime authorities. Thus, with the unswerving support of the population, the fishermen have taken matters into their own hands - a kind of Aqua Robin Hood and his Watery Men. So next time Bob and Lynne Everyman from Marple, holidaying in their luxury Bowrider Motor Yacht just off Puntland, Somalia get kidnapped and their captors demand a ransom of GB£1 million, you now know the reason why, because if you read the mainstream press you wouldn't.

During a night raid on December 27 last year, US-led troops dragged a group of 10 Afghan children from their beds and shot them dead. Afghan government officials said that eight of the dead were schoolchildren, and that a number of them had been handcuffed before being killed. UK news media obsessed with telling us about Jordan 'n Pete, Judy Finnegan's alleged drink problem, Wayne Bridge and John Terry, Ashley Cole, Gordon Brown's bullying and Tiger Woods' porn star texts reverted to type and managed to avoid mentioning it at all.

Assadullah Wafa, a former governor of Helmand province, led the investigation:

“I spoke to the local headmaster. It’s impossible they were al-Qaeda. They were children, they were civilians, they were innocent. I condemn this attack.”

The Western myth or ideology is that, whilst there may well be “mistakes”, the aims of the government are benevolent. But children are a legitimate target: the inhuman spawn of the enemy which hates us for our freedoms. Whether we choose to acknowledge it or not, some lives are worth more than others. How else to explain the military's indiscriminate use of depleted uranium? The word "depleted" is of course pure PR spin. It makes it sound like the 'nuclear' aspect of the weaponry is insignificant. It isn’t though. It’s Uranium. U. R. A. N. I. U. M. We're conducting Nuclear War. Some facts:

Depleted uranium (DU) weaponry meets the definition of weapons of mass destruction in two out of three categories under U.S. Federal Code Title 50 Chapter 40 Section 2302.

Since 1991, the U.S. has released the radioactive atomicity equivalent of at least 400,000 Nagasaki bombs into the global atmosphere. The global atmosphere is permanently contaminated, with radioactive pollution having a half-life of 2.5 billion years.

DU on the battlefield has three effects on living systems: it is a heavy metal "chemical" poison, a "radioactive" poison and has a "particulate" effect due to the very tiny size of the particles that are 0.1 microns and smaller.

In some studies of soldiers who had normal babies before military manoeuvres in Iraq, 67 percent of their post-war babies are born with severe birth defects – missing brains, eyes, organs, legs and arms, and blood diseases.

In southern Iraq, scientists are reporting five times higher levels of gamma radiation in the air, which increases the radioactive body burden daily of inhabitants.

Two weeks ago, whilst we all cried for Becks and his missing this Summer's World Cup, a night raid carried out by US troops led to the deaths of two pregnant women, a teenage girl and two local officials. This is an atrocity which Nato tried to cover up and has gone unreported in the western media.

General elections in Britain are a time for us to talk in reverential tones about democracy and the importance of genuflecting before the altar that is the ballot box. The media will endeavour to persuade us to vote whilst insisting on us taking the views of the two main political parties seriously, heaping scorn on those who point out the futility of trying to choose between different cheeks of the same unwiped arse. The media will spew endlessly that this, like all other elections which have come before, is the fulcrum point at which we decide the fate of the nation, but in fact it merely highlights that the media are the ulcerated sphincter.

My eye's much better, thanks.