Thursday, July 19, 2007

USS Neverdock - A Trip Through The Archives

After re-discovering the delights of USS Neverdock, I couldn't help but have a quick look at some of the class moments from Mark's superb site. I didn't have to look too far back to witness the hilarity within. Take this example from today:

In case you think these deceptions are limited to recent events or the UK, the BBC's own people admit the BBC lies in its reporting from Iraq.

Yes, apparently they do. Just ask the Officer serving in Iraq who wrote and complained about the BBC's coverage of the war:

I am a serving British Army officer with operational experience in a number of theatres. I am concerned regarding the effect of your recent reports from Baghdad. I have been forwarded the correspondence between yourself and David Edwards of medialens.org, and would like to highlight that it is not merely medialens users, who are concerned about embedded coverage with the US Army. The intentions and continuing effects of the US-led invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq have been questioned by too few people in the mainstream media and political parties, primarily only the Guardian and Independent, and the Liberal Democrats, respectively.

There is a widespread, and well-sourced, belief based on both experience and evidence, in both the British military and academia, that the US is not "just in Iraq to keep the peace, regardless of what the troops on the ground believe. It is in Iraq to establish a client state amenable to the requirements of US realpolitik in a key, oil-rich region. To doubt this is to be ignorant of the motives that have guided US foreign policy in the post-war period* and a mountain of evidence since 2003." (quote from medialens)

That the invasion was 'illegal, immoral and unwinnable', and the 'greatest foreign policy blunder since Suez' - to paraphrase the Liberal Democrats - is the overwhelming feeling of many of my peers, and they speak of loathsome six-month tours, during which they led patrols with dread and fear, reluctantly providing target practice for insurgents, senselessly haemorrhaging casualties, and squandering soldiers' lives, as part of Bush's vain attempt to delay the inevitable Anglo-US rout until after the next US election. Given a free choice most of us would never have invaded Iraq, and certainly would have withdrawn long ago. Hopefully, Tony Blairs's handover to Gordon Brown will herald a change of policy, and rapid withdrawal, but skewed pro-US coverage inhibits proper public debate, and is deeply unhealthy; lethally-so to many of us deployed to Iraq.


Somehow I don't think this is what Mark was getting at. Interestingly, I posted a comment with a link to this exchange which so far has failed to appear (what a surprise). However, as the above communication shows, he is quite right that the BBC's coverage is rather distorted. Hilariously, Mark adds:

The BBC is the worst propaganda machine since the Nazis and we are forced to pay for it.

Now, maybe my history is a bit rusty (I only have a BA Hons in the subject) but I seem to remember that the Nazis propaganda machine was pretty good. If it was the 'worst', one has to ask why they managed to get so many people onboard. Mind you, like the Nazi propaganda machine, the BBC is covering for a government that has indulged in the bloodshed of thousands............hey, maybe Mark is right, maybe this is a coded message to reveal his true anti-war leanings.

The most amusing passage is this one from the archives (via a link suggesting 'evidence' *smirk* of kleft-wing bias at the BBC), about The Power of Nightmares:

Peter Bergen reviews the Power of Nightmares in The Nation.


The kernel of Curtis's argument is that Western politicians claim "the greatest danger of all is international terrorism, a powerful and sinister network, with sleeper cells in countries across the world, a threat that needs to be fought by a war on terror. But much of this threat is a fantasy, which has been exaggerated and distorted by politicians. It's a dark illusion that has spread unquestioned through governments around the world, the security services and the international media."


Here are a few questions for Curtis, the BBC and anyone else who believes this dangerous propaganda:

Do you believe the sight of two commercial airliners, packed with innocent people, slamming into the Twin Towers was a "dark illusion"?

Are the now missing Twin Towers a "dark illusion" with the towers still standing?

Was the commercial airliner packed with innocent people that slammed into the Pentagon killing nearly 200 innocent people on the ground and all aboard, a "dark illusion"?

Is Richard Reid, the confessed shoebomber, who tried to blow up a packed commercial airliner over the Atlantic, a "dark illusion"?


[this continues in this manner, listing various terrorist atrocities with some obscure point about a "dark illusion"]

I could go on all day. [Fortunately he doesn't, perhaps to save any further embarrassment]

The only "dark illusion" here is the BBC masquerading as a "news organization" while it spreads Muslim propaganda.

Now, you are all intelligent people, I don't need to tell you what a load of horseshit this is. I don't need to tell you spectacularly Mark has failed to miss the point of that programme, so I'll let the loony's words speak for themselves.