Reality TV

Do you ever watch 'Newswatch' on the BBC? It's worth a look - but only if you like to laugh at the stupidity of some of the viewers comments or to throw your eyes up in disbelief at the bland and pointless justifications that BBC executives come up with in reply.

Anyway, the one I watched this last weekend got me thinking. The viewer in question was criticising the BBC for the showing shocking scenes from Libya that were being shown on the 6 o'clock news and saying that they should be more careful to observe the watershed.

The BBC editor in response - who is, of course, never wrong - went on to say that they didn't show the worse scenes and went on to show a piece by Olga Guerin from the scene of a mass murder of Gaddafi's opponents in Tripoli. She stopped at the gate and told the camera that she couldn't show you what was inside because it was so horrific.

Full marks then to the Daily Mirror for this piece from which the above picture has been lifted.

Maybe it's about time that TV in general and the BBC in particular stopped sanitising what we are allowed to watch. War is horrific; it's not a video game where people get killed and then miraculously get up again and only have another 4 lives left. 

Last week, the people of Royal Wooten Basset paid their last respects to the fallen of Afghanistan and Iraq. These young men did not get up again after being killed. They were shot, blown up and murdered. If they were lucky it was quick and painless.

Spare a thought for the maimed and disabled and disfigured that war produces. 

Maybe it's time for proper reality TV. Maybe if we were shown the full horror, we might be a little more reluctant to start shooting? 

Reality TV

Do you ever watch 'Newswatch' on the BBC? It's worth a look - but only if you like to laugh at the stupidity of some of the viewers comments or to throw your eyes up in disbelief at the bland and pointless justifications that BBC executives come up with in reply.

Anyway, the one I watched this last weekend got me thinking. The viewer in question was criticising the BBC for the showing shocking scenes from Libya that were being shown on the 6 o'clock news and saying that they should be more careful to observe the watershed.

The BBC editor in response - who is, of course, never wrong - went on to say that they didn't show the worse scenes and went on to show a piece by Olga Guerin from the scene of a mass murder of Gaddafi's opponents in Tripoli. She stopped at the gate and told the camera that she couldn't show you what was inside because it was so horrific.

Full marks then to the Daily Mirror for this piece from which the above picture has been lifted.

Maybe it's about time that TV in general and the BBC in particular stopped sanitising what we are allowed to watch. War is horrific; it's not a video game where people get killed and then miraculously get up again and only have another 4 lives left. 

Last week, the people of Royal Wooten Basset paid their last respects to the fallen of Afghanistan and Iraq. These young men did not get up again after being killed. They were shot, blown up and murdered. If they were lucky it was quick and painless.

Spare a thought for the maimed and disabled and disfigured that war produces. 

Maybe it's time for proper reality TV. Maybe if we were shown the full horror, we might be a little more reluctant to start shooting? 

Mission Creep

Much has been said recently about the phenomenon known as 'Mission Creep' in respect of this country's involvement in Libya.

As far as I can see, it's a clear case of here we go again. First Iraq, then Afganisan and now Libya. Frankly, all these things are sod all to do with us.

As far as Libya is concerned, the UN gave us a mandate to enforce a no fly zone to protect civilians from ethnic cleansing by Gaddafi.

Regime change was not an aim - oh, hang on, now we can't see a solutuon without removing Gaddafi.

None of our troops will be involved on the ground - oh, hang on, we need the SAS to target spot for us and to train the rebels.

Any of this sound familiar? If you are American then it should - it was called Vietnam...

Mission Creep

Much has been said recently about the phenomenon known as 'Mission Creep' in respect of this country's involvement in Libya.

As far as I can see, it's a clear case of here we go again. First Iraq, then Afganisan and now Libya. Frankly, all these things are sod all to do with us.

As far as Libya is concerned, the UN gave us a mandate to enforce a no fly zone to protect civilians from ethnic cleansing by Gaddafi.

Regime change was not an aim - oh, hang on, now we can't see a solutuon without removing Gaddafi.

None of our troops will be involved on the ground - oh, hang on, we need the SAS to target spot for us and to train the rebels.

Any of this sound familiar? If you are American then it should - it was called Vietnam...

Arming the Libyans

OK. So we are now embroiled in a 'military action' in Libya which 'does not involve regime change' and in which we will 'not be deploying ground troops' and which is, apparently, less popular than the invasion of Iraq so famously launched illegally by Tony Blair.

The problem is that Gaddafi's troops are disciplined and well armed and the rebels aren't. There was a case earlier this week of one of their men being killed by his own gun while he was trying to figure out how to work it. Apparently, one of our aircraft obliterated a bunch of rebels who mistakenly opened fire on a NATO aircraft. This latter incident was particularly strange as  there are no Libyan planes in the air at the moment, so it only goes to illustrate the discipline problem.

It would also appear that some of our non-deployed ground troops are telling the aircraft where to drop their bombs and that Gaddafi is not a target unless, of course, 'he happens to get in the way of our bombs'.

So can we believe a word of it when we are told that we will not be supplying arms to the rebels? I suspect not.

Eventually, if it is not happening already, other nations - possibly Arab - will be supplying arms to either or both sides in this bloody civil war. But they won't be getting them from us. Or will they?

Gaddafi's forces are armed by weapons supplied by this country. Some of the army units have defected to the rebel side so they also have weapons supplied by us. It's a lucrative business. But of course it would be immoral and possibly illegal to supply arms to both sides in a war - especially when we are then also engaged in destroying the very materiel that we supplied in the first place.

However, let's not forget that our illustrious PM was recently involved in a tour of the Gulf accompanied by a bunch or - er - arms dealers! And, after all, if those countries then decide to sell them on to Libya then it's nothing to do with us...

Arming the Libyans

OK. So we are now embroiled in a 'military action' in Libya which 'does not involve regime change' and in which we will 'not be deploying ground troops' and which is, apparently, less popular than the invasion of Iraq so famously launched illegally by Tony Blair.

The problem is that Gaddafi's troops are disciplined and well armed and the rebels aren't. There was a case earlier this week of one of their men being killed by his own gun while he was trying to figure out how to work it. Apparently, one of our aircraft obliterated a bunch of rebels who mistakenly opened fire on a NATO aircraft. This latter incident was particularly strange as  there are no Libyan planes in the air at the moment, so it only goes to illustrate the discipline problem.

It would also appear that some of our non-deployed ground troops are telling the aircraft where to drop their bombs and that Gaddafi is not a target unless, of course, 'he happens to get in the way of our bombs'.

So can we believe a word of it when we are told that we will not be supplying arms to the rebels? I suspect not.

Eventually, if it is not happening already, other nations - possibly Arab - will be supplying arms to either or both sides in this bloody civil war. But they won't be getting them from us. Or will they?

Gaddafi's forces are armed by weapons supplied by this country. Some of the army units have defected to the rebel side so they also have weapons supplied by us. It's a lucrative business. But of course it would be immoral and possibly illegal to supply arms to both sides in a war - especially when we are then also engaged in destroying the very materiel that we supplied in the first place.

However, let's not forget that our illustrious PM was recently involved in a tour of the Gulf accompanied by a bunch or - er - arms dealers! And, after all, if those countries then decide to sell them on to Libya then it's nothing to do with us...

Coalition strength Cillit Bang

Speaks for itself...

Coalition strength Cillit Bang

Speaks for itself...

The truth about the Nazis and the EU

I think that my views on the EU - or the Fourth Reich as I refer to it - are fairly well known through my writings in this publication. However, these are the chilling facts :

By 1944 Germany knew that it was losing the war. On the 10th August, the Nazis met in the Maison Rouge in Strasborg - less than coincidentally now the home of the European Parliament - to make plans for the resurrection of their Greater Germanian dream after the fighting was over.

The details were reported in a now declassified US Intelligence Report reference EW-Pa 128 - known as the Red House Report. It details how Nazi officials ordered an elite group of German industrialists to plan for Germany's post-war recovery, prepare for the Nazis' return to power and work for a 'strong German empire'. In other words: the Fourth Reich.

The plan was for leading industrials to syphon money into Switzerland. These companies included Volkswagen, Krupp and Messerschmidt. Reresentatives of the Navy and Ministry of Armaments also attended. They decided that the future German empire would be built by economic rather than military force.

Although defeated militarily, powerful Nazi era bankers, industrialists and civil servants did rise from the ashes of the war but now presenting themselves as democrats. Together they have worked tirelessly for a new Europe based on ever closer economic and political union. The EU and the Fourth Reich are, indeed, one and the same thing.

If you doubt this remember the words of Joseph Goebbels, Hitler's propaganda chief, who once said: 'In 50 years' time nobody will think of nation states.'

The question I cannot answer is this : "Our leaders know all this, so why are we buying into it?"

If you want to know more, then there is an excellent article in the Daily Mail which you can read by clicking here

The truth about the Nazis and the EU

I think that my views on the EU - or the Fourth Reich as I refer to it - are fairly well known through my writings in this publication. However, these are the chilling facts :

By 1944 Germany knew that it was losing the war. On the 10th August, the Nazis met in the Maison Rouge in Strasborg - less than coincidentally now the home of the European Parliament - to make plans for the resurrection of their Greater Germanian dream after the fighting was over.

The details were reported in a now declassified US Intelligence Report reference EW-Pa 128 - known as the Red House Report. It details how Nazi officials ordered an elite group of German industrialists to plan for Germany's post-war recovery, prepare for the Nazis' return to power and work for a 'strong German empire'. In other words: the Fourth Reich.

The plan was for leading industrials to syphon money into Switzerland. These companies included Volkswagen, Krupp and Messerschmidt. Reresentatives of the Navy and Ministry of Armaments also attended. They decided that the future German empire would be built by economic rather than military force.

Although defeated militarily, powerful Nazi era bankers, industrialists and civil servants did rise from the ashes of the war but now presenting themselves as democrats. Together they have worked tirelessly for a new Europe based on ever closer economic and political union. The EU and the Fourth Reich are, indeed, one and the same thing.

If you doubt this remember the words of Joseph Goebbels, Hitler's propaganda chief, who once said: 'In 50 years' time nobody will think of nation states.'

The question I cannot answer is this : "Our leaders know all this, so why are we buying into it?"

If you want to know more, then there is an excellent article in the Daily Mail which you can read by clicking here

That special relationship....

Obummer has just had a birthday and we've had a change of leader. So why not take a moment to reflect on the 'Special Relationship'?

America is pulling its troops out of Iraq, so there's a glimmer of hope that we might get out of there soon too. Unfortunately, this means that there will be troops released to go to Afghanistan - where, as we already know, it is dangerous for our troops to stand in front of theirs - or indeed to be found anywhere under the USAF.

Still, we junior partners know our place - which is why we are being directed by an American general.

Then there is the impending takeover of BP by Exxon much whispered about by the underground press. They've already got rid of Tony Hayward and replaced him with one of their own. And they have also conveniently overlooked the fact that the troubled well was drilled by a rig leased from them and operated by Americans. If Dave allows that to happen, then we might as well apply to be the next state! At least that will get us out of the EU...

And then there is the Magrahi affair. These cheeky fuckers have the nerve to summon Jack Straw, the Scottish Justice Minister and Tony Hayward to attend a Congressional Enquiry. When they all declined, the yanks decided to send one of theirs over to interview them. Thankfully, the Scots showed some admirable backbone and told them to get stuffed thus halting yet another devious manoeuvre in the BP takeover.

Well done Scotland. Your country is not an American state, although ours appears to be in danger of becoming one...

That special relationship....

Obummer has just had a birthday and we've had a change of leader. So why not take a moment to reflect on the 'Special Relationship'?

America is pulling its troops out of Iraq, so there's a glimmer of hope that we might get out of there soon too. Unfortunately, this means that there will be troops released to go to Afghanistan - where, as we already know, it is dangerous for our troops to stand in front of theirs - or indeed to be found anywhere under the USAF.

Still, we junior partners know our place - which is why we are being directed by an American general.

Then there is the impending takeover of BP by Exxon much whispered about by the underground press. They've already got rid of Tony Hayward and replaced him with one of their own. And they have also conveniently overlooked the fact that the troubled well was drilled by a rig leased from them and operated by Americans. If Dave allows that to happen, then we might as well apply to be the next state! At least that will get us out of the EU...

And then there is the Magrahi affair. These cheeky fuckers have the nerve to summon Jack Straw, the Scottish Justice Minister and Tony Hayward to attend a Congressional Enquiry. When they all declined, the yanks decided to send one of theirs over to interview them. Thankfully, the Scots showed some admirable backbone and told them to get stuffed thus halting yet another devious manoeuvre in the BP takeover.

Well done Scotland. Your country is not an American state, although ours appears to be in danger of becoming one...

Paki bashing

Seems that Call-me-Dave has pissed off the Pakis!

Those of us that grew up in the sixties will remember that Paki bashing was a national pastime in those days. Then we got used to seeing them everywhere and them having a shop on every corner, so we accepted them as part of the national landscape.

Nothing wrong with that. The vast majority are law abiding, hard working citizens - so it's a good thing that the bigotry has gone.

Also, the Pakistanis in this country are a damn sight safer than they would be in their country of origin. It should be remembered that until recently, Pakistan was a military dictatorship which is about as far from a democracy as it is possibe to get! And old habits die hard...

Pakistan nominally allys itself with the United States in the global war on terror. However, terrorism is rife in the country mainly due to reactions to General Zia ul-Haq's controversial "Islamization" policies and his involvement in the Soviet-Afghan War, which led to greater influx of ideologically driven Afghan Arabs in the tribal areas and the explosion of kalashnikov and drugs culture. The state and the CIA encouraged the "mujahideen" to fight the proxy war against the Soviet Union, most of these groups were never disarmed after the war and were later encouraged by the Taliban to achieve the state's agenda in Kashmir and Afghanistan. The same groups are now taking on the state itself.

Between 2007 and 2009, more than 5,500 people were killed in terrorist attacks on civilians. These are attributed to a number of sources: sectarian violence - mainly between Sunni and Shia Muslims, the easy availability of guns and explosives of a "kalishnikov culture" and influx of ideologically driven "Afghan Arabs" based in or near Pakistan, Islamist insurgent groups and forces such as the Taliban and Lashkar-e-Taiba, and secessionists movements blamed on regionalism problematic in a country with Pakistan's diverse cultures, languages, traditions and customs.

So Pakistan has a double problem. It needs to be seen to support the US in its war in Afghanistan, and at the same time is being terrorised at home by sectarian and separatist terrorists. But on the other hand, it has been manouevred by the Taliban to support actions in disputed areas such as Kashmir. So at the same time it is trying to both fight and support the Taliban.

This would seem to make David Cameron's remarks about them trying to look both ways highly pertinent...

Paki bashing

Seems that Call-me-Dave has pissed off the Pakis!

Those of us that grew up in the sixties will remember that Paki bashing was a national pastime in those days. Then we got used to seeing them everywhere and them having a shop on every corner, so we accepted them as part of the national landscape.

Nothing wrong with that. The vast majority are law abiding, hard working citizens - so it's a good thing that the bigotry has gone.

Also, the Pakistanis in this country are a damn sight safer than they would be in their country of origin. It should be remembered that until recently, Pakistan was a military dictatorship which is about as far from a democracy as it is possibe to get! And old habits die hard...

Pakistan nominally allys itself with the United States in the global war on terror. However, terrorism is rife in the country mainly due to reactions to General Zia ul-Haq's controversial "Islamization" policies and his involvement in the Soviet-Afghan War, which led to greater influx of ideologically driven Afghan Arabs in the tribal areas and the explosion of kalashnikov and drugs culture. The state and the CIA encouraged the "mujahideen" to fight the proxy war against the Soviet Union, most of these groups were never disarmed after the war and were later encouraged by the Taliban to achieve the state's agenda in Kashmir and Afghanistan. The same groups are now taking on the state itself.

Between 2007 and 2009, more than 5,500 people were killed in terrorist attacks on civilians. These are attributed to a number of sources: sectarian violence - mainly between Sunni and Shia Muslims, the easy availability of guns and explosives of a "kalishnikov culture" and influx of ideologically driven "Afghan Arabs" based in or near Pakistan, Islamist insurgent groups and forces such as the Taliban and Lashkar-e-Taiba, and secessionists movements blamed on regionalism problematic in a country with Pakistan's diverse cultures, languages, traditions and customs.

So Pakistan has a double problem. It needs to be seen to support the US in its war in Afghanistan, and at the same time is being terrorised at home by sectarian and separatist terrorists. But on the other hand, it has been manouevred by the Taliban to support actions in disputed areas such as Kashmir. So at the same time it is trying to both fight and support the Taliban.

This would seem to make David Cameron's remarks about them trying to look both ways highly pertinent...

Common sense and justice

I have nothing but admiration for the Gurkhas who fight in our armed forces, which is why I am so outraged at the latest bout of bureaucratic stupidity.

In Afghanistan, a Gurkha soldier, under heavy machine gun fire, beheaded a DEAD taliban so that he could take the head back to base for identification against the most wanted list.

For this act of selflessness under fire, he has been suspended from duty, sent back to the UK and awaits court martial. Apparently, if found guilty, he could be imprisoned.

Here's the question I want answered : Since when has it been illegal in this country for a foreign national to behead a dead person overseas?

Apparently, the problem is that the Afghans consider it bad form to dismember a dead body. They like all the bits to be buried together. Perhaps we should remind the Taliban of this custom after their IED bombs have scattered bits of our soldiers all over the landscape or when they decide to behead our soldiers.

There's a simple answer to this problem. Stick the head back on the rotting body, slap the man's wrist and say don't do it again...

...and then give him a medal for bravery under fire!

Common sense and justice

I have nothing but admiration for the Gurkhas who fight in our armed forces, which is why I am so outraged at the latest bout of bureaucratic stupidity.

In Afghanistan, a Gurkha soldier, under heavy machine gun fire, beheaded a DEAD taliban so that he could take the head back to base for identification against the most wanted list.

For this act of selflessness under fire, he has been suspended from duty, sent back to the UK and awaits court martial. Apparently, if found guilty, he could be imprisoned.

Here's the question I want answered : Since when has it been illegal in this country for a foreign national to behead a dead person overseas?

Apparently, the problem is that the Afghans consider it bad form to dismember a dead body. They like all the bits to be buried together. Perhaps we should remind the Taliban of this custom after their IED bombs have scattered bits of our soldiers all over the landscape or when they decide to behead our soldiers.

There's a simple answer to this problem. Stick the head back on the rotting body, slap the man's wrist and say don't do it again...

...and then give him a medal for bravery under fire!

Happy birthday America!

As today is the official birthday of the mighty USofA, I thought it would be appropriate to reflect on the origins of this great nation...

"America," as a wise man once put it, "is a nation of mongrels swept from the gutters of Europe." So how did it become the nation it is today?

Well, after we had cleared out the gutters and sent them all off to fight indians, we still had some ne'er do wells left. So now we needed to ship the rest over and then get rid of the place. After all, it was a long way away, cost us a fortune to maintain and we had never received a penny in taxes. They wanted to break away and this suited us just fine.

But how to do this? We couldn't just give it away. So we hatched a master plan. We would draft all the rest of the cannon fodder into the army and send them off to America to fight the yanks. Then we drew a line across the map, kept the good bit, and called it "Canada".

And if you think this is all guff, ask yourself why the American War of Independence is the only war Britain has ever lost...

Happy birthday America!

As today is the official birthday of the mighty USofA, I thought it would be appropriate to reflect on the origins of this great nation...

"America," as a wise man once put it, "is a nation of mongrels swept from the gutters of Europe." So how did it become the nation it is today?

Well, after we had cleared out the gutters and sent them all off to fight indians, we still had some ne'er do wells left. So now we needed to ship the rest over and then get rid of the place. After all, it was a long way away, cost us a fortune to maintain and we had never received a penny in taxes. They wanted to break away and this suited us just fine.

But how to do this? We couldn't just give it away. So we hatched a master plan. We would draft all the rest of the cannon fodder into the army and send them off to America to fight the yanks. Then we drew a line across the map, kept the good bit, and called it "Canada".

And if you think this is all guff, ask yourself why the American War of Independence is the only war Britain has ever lost...

Oh shit! It's the World Cup

Dear God! How I hate football.

I'm already fed up to the back teeth with the build up. But for the next few weeks every TV channel will be clogged up to the hilt with weeks of boring pre-match bullshit, tedious posts mortem from so-called experts and, on top of that, the sedentary spectacle of 22 prats kicking a ball about on a bit of grass.....

What the hell is all the fuss about?

Well actually, I've done a bit of research and it transpires that all this this is to stop us killing each other. No. Really. It's true. I'll explain :

When we all lived in caves or mud huts in the jungle, tribes used to attack each other in order to stop the other tribe hunting on their ground, stealing their stuff or shagging their women.

As we got more 'sophisticated' and developed into countries, we invented war so that we could stop other countries grabbing our colonies, taking our resources or shagging our women.

Now we are even more sophisticated and have football. So now we get to watch our representatives (formally aka warriors or armies) kicking the shit out of each other on a football pitch. So now we have wars where we just sit and watch and don't get hurt ourselves.

Now that's civilisation for you.

Personally, I'll be glad when it's all over and we can have some regular (oops! nearly said decent) telly back.

And soon, I get to write another piece about the next boring load of old bollocks - the Olympics! Oh, deep joy...

Oh shit! It's the World Cup

Dear God! How I hate football.

I'm already fed up to the back teeth with the build up. But for the next few weeks every TV channel will be clogged up to the hilt with weeks of boring pre-match bullshit, tedious posts mortem from so-called experts and, on top of that, the sedentary spectacle of 22 prats kicking a ball about on a bit of grass.....

What the hell is all the fuss about?

Well actually, I've done a bit of research and it transpires that all this this is to stop us killing each other. No. Really. It's true. I'll explain :

When we all lived in caves or mud huts in the jungle, tribes used to attack each other in order to stop the other tribe hunting on their ground, stealing their stuff or shagging their women.

As we got more 'sophisticated' and developed into countries, we invented war so that we could stop other countries grabbing our colonies, taking our resources or shagging our women.

Now we are even more sophisticated and have football. So now we get to watch our representatives (formally aka warriors or armies) kicking the shit out of each other on a football pitch. So now we have wars where we just sit and watch and don't get hurt ourselves.

Now that's civilisation for you.

Personally, I'll be glad when it's all over and we can have some regular (oops! nearly said decent) telly back.

And soon, I get to write another piece about the next boring load of old bollocks - the Olympics! Oh, deep joy...