"It will provoke little minds."

While updating the site, we came across this, one of our favourite quotes about War on Terror ever. It prompted us to make a whole new page on the site ...

Our Favourite Quotes. Over the past few years, there have been some pretty funny things said about War on Terror, so it's high time we shared our favourite with you. There's even a form for you to submit your own, so go ahead, quote us happy.

On a roll, we made another new page: Our Favourite Things. The eagle-eyed amongst you will have noticed that this page has been live for months, but we only just got around to putting something up there today. (It takes time to work out what you like to the extent that you want to publicise it. I mean, I like to dress in a leotard and club seals to death and then wash my face in the blood of that seal before tossing off a Frenchman with a pine cone, but I'm not going to shout about it). This page now has links to other satirical and interesting games, alternative news and political sites and generally All The Good Stuff.

And finally, we've got some New Gallery Photos and even a stunning EVIL Challenge Winner. Enjoy!

World First! War on Terror Played Live on Radio

Recently, we were contacted by Resonance FM to take part in a series of programmes they were running about 'Art and War', covering things like the purpose of war memorials, the function of war and combat in art theory and one show was even set to discuss propaganda with our new friend, the curator of the Imperial War Museum. The series itself sounded pretty interesting, but what really got our attention was the presenter's intention to play a game of War on Terror live on air.

- "We've tried it on TV and ... it's quite slow", we cautioned.
- "Let us worry about that", they replied.
- "A full game will take about 3 hours to play".
- "That would be really interesting", they insisted, "but we only have 30 minutes".

Resonance FM were fearless - they were determined to play the game live on air and who were we to disrupt such ambitious plans? We decided to start playing an hour before we went on air, so that the game could be in mid-flow by the time the programme started. It was surprisingly difficult, playing War on Terror, answering questions about the game and the larger war on terror and also evaluating what cards you've just picked up or working out how much oil revenue you're due.

In the end, we only played one full round while the programme was on the air. It was a surreal mix of serious discussion and in-game comments ("There's a common belief that terrorism just happens and has no rational cause - Ah! West Canada's just gone ..." etc). Not sure we'd do it again live, but it was fun to try something different.

Listen to the full programme here:
- Streaming part 1
- Streaming part 2

Or download the MP3 files here:
- Download part 1
- Download part 2

This was the first we'd heard of Resonance FM and it turns out to be a very cool radio station - lots of arts, culture, politics, weird music etc. You should Give them some love and listen in.

Of random interest, we've noticed War on Terror cropping up in a few, slightly contradictory lists recently:

1. World's most controversial boardgames
   (Deputy Dog - no.7)
2. World's most inappropriate games
   (Shortlist Magazine - no.1)
3. Boardgames to change the world
   (A Just Life - no. 2)

Inappropriate, controversial and world-changing... That'd make a great epitaph.

War on Terror in the V&A, London

We've done it again! Another prestigious Museum has accepted our board game into their collection. Last month, the Imperial War Museum welcomed WoT into their esteemed array of historical objects and now we're very happy and humbled to report that the Victoria & Albert Museum has also recognised the cultural value of War on Terror.

The V&A is considered (by themselves) the greatest museum of art and design. It holds over 3000 years worth of artifacts from many cultures. The scope of the entire collection is simply jaw-dropping and also bang up to date, so if you haven't been before we certainly recommend it. Once more we are pleasantly surprised that world experts deem our board game worthy of recognition, while the commercial sector continue to ban us in the name of public wellbeing.

What is more surprising on this occasion is that our game has been accepted into the Museum of Childhood branch of the V&A. This was their decision, not ours. We are absolutely stoked. Maybe this game isn't as mind-warpingly dangerous as we are lead to believe?

In light of these recent educational endorsements it seems apt to take this opportunity to thank some other educational types who have been in touch with us. The following men of good standing have understood our less-than-evil intentions and spoken up in our defense. We doff our EVIL balaclavas to you, gentlemen:

'A cleverly crafted satire that can be used by educators to provoke students to think critically about one of the most important issues of our time'
- Dr. Nick Megoran, lecturer in Geopolitics and Human Geography, University of Newcastle

'Genius is said not to stray far from madness but I'm sure you guys are on the side of the former'
- Dr. Duncan Salkeld, senior lecturer in English, University of Chichester

'War on Terror presents students with geographies they know they know. It also presents unknown geographies that they know about; that is to say they know there are some geographies they do not know. But War on Terror also presents geographical unknown unknowns - the ones that they don't know about yet but will begin to question before the end of the game. War on Terror makes a terrible starter for a lesson but an outstanding starter for an education.'
-Daniel Raven-Ellison, Head of Geography, Langtree School, Reading

The Obligatory 'Iraq, Five Years On' Post

I love the fact that the closest we get to serious analysis comes not from the severity of the situation demanding such analysis, but because we happen to operate within a decimal number system and 'five' is a nice, round number within that.

Of course, the documentaries, the news 'specials' and the comment pieces should be a regular fixture as long as there is news to report (and there obviously is - how many people have covered the refugee crisis in depth?). But we're confined to just a couple of weeks on this anniversary where there is increased focus on the war in Iraq and, to a lesser extent, the war on terror in general.

And despite the fact that it's only two weeks of extra scrutiny, it should still be the most terrifying two weeks for those in power and anyone who supported the war. They've got to be walking on eggshells, surely? Now everyone knows the facts, the common lies, the memos and internal documents at complete odds with public pronouncements ... surely this is the time when the entire media turn against the government and point the finger of unequivocal blame and call this war by its proper name: not a sham, or a mistake, but a crime?

It's like having an axe murderer in the dock and focussing on whether a sharp knife might not have been the better weapon to use. Sadly, no such luck. Aside from the odd notable exception (like Robert Fisk's excellent article about our consistent failure to learn from history), we've had little real, objective, honest scrutiny. There's been criticism, hand-wringing, soul-searching, analysis of a kind, but not much that hasn't already been said. Aside from anything, the question of motivation, of oil or of permanent US military presence has barely arisen (as I write this, Channel 4 news is finally half-debating the oil question). How can you have a five year retrospective of Iraq and fail to mention oil? Regardless of the conclusions you draw, it's absurd not even to state as a footnote that Iraq sits on the world's 3rd largest oil reserves. It's at least worth the question, if Iraq's major export were asparagus, would we have still be at war?

One of the recent documentaries here in the UK was a film by Peter Oborne, Iraq: The Reckoning, which felt like it should be on the right tracks. It was indeed critical, but always within the established framework of argument permitted by the mainstream media. So the harshest words that were summoned up in judgement of the Iraq war were "the greatest foreign policy disaster since Munich". Oborne also described the war as a "blunder" and a "catastrophe". Again, it might seem perfectly valid on the surface, but it's only when you apply these same criticisms to other events in history - events carried out by our enemies - that you realise that their effect is conversely to re-enforce the party line. Picture Nazi Germany's invasion of Poland being described as a 'foreign policy blunder', or a 'misadventure'. Such language would not only be grossly inappropriate but deceptive by omission of crucial facts - namely the failure to mention a deliberate and illegal war of aggression. The sad thing is that by calling the war a 'blunder' you actually excuse the government of a more serious crime. The picture that's painted is one of a clumsy, but friendly giant, trying to do good, but thwarted by his awkward and ill-thought out plans. And all the while, people accept this as the far left boundary of the debate and proof of a democratic system successfully regulating itself (see this Times article for the meaningless praise given to Oborne's supposed no-holds-barred stance).

What's happening here is we're being told that the worst our government is guilty of is a simple mistake, a foreign policy fumble. It's like having an axe murderer in the dock and the trial focussing on whether a good sharp knife might not have been the better weapon to use.

Not wanting to lay it on too thick, but the basic facts of Iraq are desperately simple, well documented and accepted. The war was illegal; the fall-out that we now see was very much expected; and Iraq fits into a pattern of 'foreign policy blunders' that is far from unique. It's within this framework that questions should be asked, not dithering over the hows and whys of particular military tactics.

Also note that the most common criticisms - 'disaster' and 'catastrophe' - are both words that have strong links to naturally occurring, unavoidable phenomena. A tidal wave, an earthquake, a train crash - these are all catastrophes and disasters. An illegal war of aggression - that which was labelled the "supreme international crime" by the Nuremberg Tribunal - is none of these words. Instead it is "criminal", "devastating" and "horrific". Why do we not hear these words used in the media? That's the real question that needs asking.

To finish our own little retrospective, here are two films that sadly didn't get prime time TV coverage this week. The first short film is the sort of clip that I wouldn't normally highlight - it's emotive, deals with events without context and offers no objective analysis or insight .... but it did turn my stomach. It's a small snapshot of the dehumanising horrors of war and the public don't get to see enough of that.

The second is an excellent documentary (by Alex Gibney who did the Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room film) about US torture practices, called 'Taxi to the Dark Side' and is well worth an hour of anyone's time. The best thing about this film is the absurdity of high-ranking officials asking with mock concern, 'How could this happen?' and the film neatly replying: 'Well, look, it's part of your policy'.

'War on Terrror - The boardgame' now in the Imperial War Museum London

We are chuffed to announce that our board game has been accepted into the collection at the Imperial War Museum, London.

The IWM’s unparalleled collection of resources examine the causes, course and consequences of British conflicts since WWI. Their purpose of broadening people’s understanding and appreciation of history, national identity and civic participation is second to none. Can you think of a better home for our board game?

Difficult to believe that this is the very same game lambasted in the mainstream media, banned from International Toy Fairs, critised by MP’s and excluded from the high street, who claim it to be unsuitable and upsetting for the public. We are often told our game ‘doesn’t fit in‘, but we are not too sure what it doesn't fit in with. We are on our third print run in just over a year; the game has had a very welcome reception with the public all over the world; it's been warmly received in game shops, bookshops, museums and galleries and has even been put to educational use in universities in this country. It would seem our game has 'fitted in' more than most.

It's clear that "fitting in" is everything to do with commercial and power-based self-interests (hardly ever mentioned) and little to do with public interest (almost always cited as 'concern no.1'). Looking around the Imperial War Museum, this behaviour is most evident during times of war, when the insidious power of propaganda to distort truth is at its strongest. Although we often think of the mendacious work of Goebels in WWII, the same tricks are alive and well today, with mass media, businesses and politicians all willingly taking part, carefully ostracising voices of dissent and criticism.

The importance of institutions like the IWM lies in the ability to keep the memory of past conflicts alive, in the hope that we might learn from mistakes. Looking at the past does wonders for clarifying the present. We think that perhaps now, more than ever, a trip to the IWM might be in order, anyone agree?

Remember, the Imperial War Museum is FREE to enter.