[user104658]

I actually, at least somewhat, agree that he shouldn't have been quite so explicit in his detailing of his war kills (or at least, he should have provided more context about the thinking, and why soldiers often have to think that way to preserve their own mental health). That's on a personal level. I wouldn't have said the exact number and I would have given a lot more mental health context for the dehumanisation ("chess pieces") and why so many in the armed forces have to do it.

But seriously ... the messaging behind the tabloid spin on this is really quite sinister. It's basically saying "there are scary, violent people out there in the world who don't want you to say certain things, so we shouldn't say those things, as we might provoke them... we should keep our mouths shut, because who KNOWS what they might do, and it'll be all YOUR fault."

This is literally the goal of terrorism; to stifle speech and action with threats of violence and retribution. We're not supposed to cave to it. We're supposed to continue to live free, speak our minds, write whatever we want in our books. Not doing so out of fear of "what those bad people will do" is terrorism working, and it is WELL KNOWN that the #1 thing that encourages more terrorism, is an indication that terrorism is effective.

Harry is a free man who wrote about his own, personal, subjective experience of being a soldier in his own book. If violent groups and individuals do violent things because of that, that is on THEM, and all other soldiers should continue to write about their personal experiences of war undeterred. This is what "not giving in to terrorism" means.