[rusticgal]

Originally Posted by Cherie

[Swan]

Originally Posted by arista

The mainstream left is turning on them now in the US then. Wow, never thought i'd see it. Just shows only their hardcore irrational worshippers, like the 2 or 3 on here, are going to put up with their constant me me me, cry cry cry hypocrisy crap.

[Crimson Dynamo]

the stupid ginger fool is a worldwide laughing stock

lol

[thesheriff443]

Didn’t he do well
Would love to see the look on Meghan’s face .

[arista]

[Prince Harry is dubbed 'a stupid boy'
as growing number of ex-top brass criticise him
for revealing his Taliban kill count
after Iran used it to justify hanging Brit citizen
amid growing row over 'maniacal' regime's bid
to excuse the execution]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...a-machine.html

[user104658]

"Used it to justify" is right, the idea that they weren't going to hang this person anyway is ludicrous, and I cannot get my head around people spending more energy focussed on criticising someone for something they wrote in a book than on the regime that actually executes people.

[bots]

iran is executing people in the hundreds and harry wrote a book .... like for like really

it just show how bad the media have become

[Liam-]

Look what Harry has done, first he killed Lizzie now he’s forcing the Iranians to execute people, the silly little boy!

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Liam-

Look what Harry has done, first he killed Lizzie now he’s forcing the Iranians to execute people, the silly little boy!

You are missing the point...these are tweets from Iran not manufactured tabloid spin...speaking about your military life is one thing giving tyrannical regimes like Iran the exact number of kills is insane, of course they were going to seize on it for propaganda ....loose lips sink ships

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Cherie

You are missing the point...these are tweets from Iran not manufactured tabloid spin...speaking about your military life is one thing giving tyrannical regimes like Iran the exact number of kills is insane, of course they were going to seize on it for propaganda ....loose lips sink ships

Luckily there aren't any ex-soldiers who have written entire novels about their experiences of their time in the middle east or anything without any comment at all from the tabloids or "patriots", and it's just this one paragraph in Harry's book! Otherwise we might be in real trouble. Those terrorists would have us on the naughty step good 'n' proper . Sorry, terrorists and dictatorial regimes. I promise we won't do it again! Sorry, sorry...

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Soldier Boy

Luckily there aren't any ex-soldiers who have written entire novels about their experiences of their time in the middle east or anything without any comment at all from the tabloids or "patriots", and it's just this one paragraph in Harry's book! Otherwise we might be in real trouble. Those terrorists would have us on the naughty step good 'n' proper . Sorry, terrorists and dictatorial regimes. I promise we won't do it again! Sorry, sorry...

With respect even if the tabloids dod not report it he has done innumerable interviews where it has been discussed

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Cherie

With respect even if the tabloids dod not report it he has done innumerable interviews where it has been discussed

It's been brought up by the interviewers because of the press attention it's gathered. And if you substitute "press attention" with "media attention" it amounts to the same; if any of these media outlets were as concerned as they pretend to be about the potential consequences of Harry's words, they wouldn't have them on our screens or front pages.

[jet]

Originally Posted by Cherie

With respect even if the tabloids dod not report it he has done innumerable interviews where it has been discussed

"Harry’s comments are also reminiscent of a separate controversy during a 2013 interview where he compared his control of the weapons system as a “joy,” likening it to “playing PlayStation and Xbox,” according to the Guardian".

[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.

[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...

[thesheriff443]

Harry is a scoobi doo character

I would of gotten away with it if it wasn’t for you press

[jet]

Originally Posted by thesheriff443

Harry is a scoobi doo character

I would of gotten away with it if it wasn’t for you press

Harry is never to blame for anything, it's always the presses fault, or failing that, anybodys fault but his. He and Saint Meghan are never in the wrong.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by jet

Harry is never to blame for anything, it's always the presses fault, or failing that, anybodys fault but his. He and Saint Meghan are never in the wrong.

I've said 3 or 4 times that I don't think it was the best choice - I just also don't think it was anything that hasn't been done before in other books (entire books) by ex-military personnel - and I accept that writing about it is his choice and shouldn't be deterred by terror threats. No one should be stifled by terror threats. We don't give in to threats of terror - this is fundamental stuff.

I'd also counter that saying anything "is all one person's fault" is just as daft as saying anyone is "never in the wrong". Fault can lie in multiple places and be for multiple reasons that work in combination. I know that those who like to feast on outrage prefer to have a target in sight and point the finger squarely at that target, but it's not a reasonable or rational stance. Take the whole issue of the Royals, for example.

What's the problem with the royal family?

Rational thinking: "Oh well it's lots of things... the inherently flawed concept of hereditary rule, centuries and generations of privilege that affect all of them, clear interpersonal issues in the family going back generations, being constantly under a microscope and the pressure that must bring, being completely removed from anything resembling a normal life... the list goes on!"

Irrational thinking: "HARRY!!! And that awful Markle woman what controls all of his thinking!"

[thesheriff443]

Originally Posted by Soldier Boy

I've said 3 or 4 times that I don't think it was the best choice - I just also don't think it was anything that hasn't been done before in other books (entire books) by ex-military personnel - and I accept that writing about it is his choice and shouldn't be deterred by terror threats. No one should be stifled by terror threats. We don't give in to threats of terror - this is fundamental stuff.

I'd also counter that saying anything "is all one person's fault" is just as daft as saying anyone is "never in the wrong". Fault can lie in multiple places and be for multiple reasons that work in combination. I know that those who like to feast on outrage prefer to have a target in sight and point the finger squarely at that target, but it's not a reasonable or rational stance. Take the whole issue of the Royals, for example.

What's the problem with the royal family?

Rational thinking: "Oh well it's lots of things... the inherently flawed concept of hereditary rule, centuries and generations of privilege that affect all of them, clear interpersonal issues in the family going back generations, being constantly under a microscope and the pressure that must bring, being completely removed from anything resembling a normal life... the list goes on!"

Irrational thinking: "HARRY!!! And that awful Markle woman what controls all of his thinking!"

We are still waiting for the evidence of irrational hatred towards Meghan and harry on here from you?? You

[user104658]

Originally Posted by thesheriff443

We are still waiting for the evidence of irrational hatred towards Meghan and harry on here from you?? You

There's a thread right here with hundreds of posts and there was another deleted thread with more, and I'm sure a few dozen old threads if you scroll down the last couple of years. This is a "can't see the woods because of the trees" situation. They are literally everywhere.

The problem is, you're waiting for me to link to specific posts so that you can say "That aint an example of hatred lol" and really who has time to waste on that?

[jet]

Originally Posted by Soldier Boy

I'd also counter that saying anything "is all one person's fault" is just as daft as saying anyone is "never in the wrong". Fault can lie in multiple places and be for multiple reasons that work in combination. I know that those who like to feast on outrage prefer to have a target in sight and point the finger squarely at that target, but it's not a reasonable or rational stance. Take the whole issue of the Royals, for example.

What's the problem with the royal family?

Rational thinking: "Oh well it's lots of things... the inherently flawed concept of hereditary rule, centuries and generations of privilege that affect all of them, clear interpersonal issues in the family going back generations, being constantly under a microscope and the pressure that must bring, being completely removed from anything resembling a normal life... the list goes on!"

It’s reasonable to point the finger at a target who has made himself a great big sitting duck target, along with his wife. Since they left the Royal family, this pair, who initially said they left to avoid media scrutiny, have bombarded the world with zoom calls, podcasts, magazine interviews, radio interviews, TV interviews, now a book. In everything they have done, the Royal family or the Press are THEIR target. Wouldn't you agree that it is H&M who are feasting on outrage and are being irrational?
Meanwhile the Royals, whatever their problems, carry on with their duties with dignity and patience, not shooting their mouths off about each other in public. Mabye that's what you would like, as you have never criticised Harry and Meghan for doing so, but it’s not going to happen, they keep their family issues private, or try to, like most families do.

BTW, as you say its daft to say anyone is ‘never in the wrong’ , in their war with the Royals and the media, could you quote the instances in his book where Harry has told of how he and/or Meghan were wrong? (I haven’t read it, so those admissions could be there - I’ve just heard they are not.)