LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksDid you guys see the cap he was wearing in the footage - the back said "we do bad things to bad people" and the front had the US flag on it!
Did you guys see the cap he was wearing in the footage - the back said "we do bad things to bad people" and the front had the US flag on it!
But the argument is that it not only makes him a target, but it makes life extra dangerous for those around him because of who he is, and he's a high-profile target because of the PR value attached to killing or wounding him.Originally Posted by Betty_Swallocks
Is it fair to the troops around him to be put at extra risk because they serve with a celeb soldier?
Do we want to risk handing the Taliban a PR coup on a plate?
In my opinion, the answer to both of those is "no".
Which brings into question whether royals should be allowed in the forces in the future. If they can't serve as any other soldier (or sailor, airman, marine, etc) does, then they are just playing at it. And if they aren't allowed to serve as others do, despite apparently very badly wanting to, then what is the point in joining?
It's painfully obvious that regardless of what Harry wants (and good on him for wanting to be just one of the troops) the command structure and government have other ideas and priorities.
Well, TBH, no he couldn't? Of course I think Matt Drudge is an arsehole- I could hardly think otherwise, given his record and his politics- but his website's entire modus operandi is to be the site that breaks the stories that the mainstream media won't touch for whatever reason. If he were to make the same cosy deal as everybody else, that would effectively be the death of his reputation. If he's in bed with the establishment, why bother with him when you can get much higher quality news from The BBC/CNN/AP/Reuters/Al Jazeera/ any number of other mainstream news outlets?
I don't know whether Harry could have stayed in Afghanistan, and I don't much care either way. He did ten weeks, which is ten more weeks than I've done, and I respect him for it. However, I find the question of the media blackout, and its eventual failure, fascinating. On the one hand, is it right that the press should be bought off with the cheap bribe of a few pictures and interviews with 'the spare'? On the other, does the press have a right to know what _any_ member of the armed forces is up to at any given time? We don't expect them to tell us what the SAS will be up to, so why expect them to tell us about someone serving with the Gurkhas? How exactly should news be reported in a war zone full stop? I remember that some of the stories about 'embedded reporters' in Iraq- and some of the stories about independent reporters being arrested- appalled me at the time, but then again we're fighting a genuinely dangerous war here against an enemy that I do agree we should be fighting.
The more I think about it the more it becomes like one of those maths problems in more than four dimensions that boggle the mind.
I think its so nice of the worlds media to basically say to the enemy " just to let you know one of our princes is over there shooting at you. He is located in ... bla bla bla.." they might as well tell the world where every soldier is and what defences they have/dont have. We are meant to over there kicking the arses of these ba*tards and helping the country move forward, but instead, some high up idiot decides to give them a helping hand. By Doing what the world press have done they have not only put Harry's life in danger but they have also endangered the lives of everyone with him.
All this fuss about some stupid royal in Afghanistan. Who cares?
Yeah, TBH, better just shut the Question Time forum altogether. Who cares?
They should send the whole royal family to Afghanistan. Even the old queen!!
Or how about we just send you there instead?
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")
Done my bit.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote