[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Soldier Boy

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.

Apples and Oranges ..Harry is not some random soldier who documents his story...how likely is that going to come to the attention of terrorist regimes

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Cherie

[/B]
[/B]

Apples and Oranges ..Harry is not some random soldier who documents his story...how likely is that going to come to the attention of terrorist regimes

So you agree that the problem wasn't the paragraph in his book - the problem was the great honking spotlight that the media chose to shine on that paragraph. Quite right.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Soldier Boy

So you agree that the problem wasn't the paragraph in his book - the problem was the great honking spotlight that the media chose to shine on that paragraph. Quite right.

No I dont agree with confirming the number of kills as you well know and that would go for any author

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Cherie

No I dont agree with confirming the number of kills as you well know and that would go for any author

But you loosely agree that part of the issue here is that a spotlight was put on those words and it was drawn to the attention of these groups because of the world media attention, and that would not be the case if (when) someone else writes the same sort of words.

[rusticgal]

Originally Posted by Soldier Boy

So you agree that the problem wasn't the paragraph in his book - the problem was the great honking spotlight that the media chose to shine on that paragraph. Quite right.

He can write about his experiences...just don't specify your 'kills' and compare them to chess pieces. Its called being tactful and diplomatic...

Unfortunately for Harry his careless comments have hit a nerve and they are using this as a reason to get back at him...