Afal Posted February 29, 2008 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 60 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 2,249 Content Per Day: 0.36 Reputation: 3 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/12/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted February 29, 2008 Harry pulls out of Afghanistan as Taliban threatens to take revenge for 'Royal aggression' Harry pulls out of Afghanistan as Taliban threatens to take revenge for 'Royal aggression' Prince Harry was tonight preparing to pull out of Afghanistan as the Taliban threatened more attacks in the face of what it has described as 'aggression against Muslims'. The warning came amid fears the Prince could become a terror target back home... 3 questions I have to ask about this story: 1. Why were the British public lied to? We were told at the end of last year that Prince Harry would not be going to Afghanistan. As it turns out, he has been there for the past 10 weeks!!!!! 2. Why was he allowed to put his military colleagues at risk by being in Afghanistan? He is the prized target that the Taliban would have so loved to have captured and paraded for propaganda purposes. 3. Did anyone think of the repercussions of his time in Afghanistan? The media are now suggesting that he will be banned from his favourite nightclubs in England because he will be such a terror target. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustinM Posted February 29, 2008 Group: Royal Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 144 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 4,512 Content Per Day: 0.68 Reputation: 625 Days Won: 10 Joined: 04/11/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 10/07/1979 Share Posted February 29, 2008 He wanted to serve his country, why can't he? He can't be blamed for his lineage. Actually, I wish more people in our and the English Government had actual combat experience as a prerequisite to the office. He has to leave Afghanistan because some opportunist reported on him and compromized his status. Prince Harry should be treated as a hero, as well as any soldier that has served his country in combat. Him serving in Afghanistan didn't make him a terror target, being 3rd in line to the throne is enough reason for that threat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Afal Posted February 29, 2008 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 60 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 2,249 Content Per Day: 0.36 Reputation: 3 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/12/2007 Status: Offline Author Share Posted February 29, 2008 Prince Harry should be treated as a hero, as well as any soldier that has served his country in combat. I agree - but my point is that I do not believe that he should have been there in the first place. However, as he was there, yes, I agree, he should be treated like any other soldier that has seen active service. I actually believe that being 3rd in line to the throne prevents you from doing certain jobs - eg - fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Physicsfreak Posted March 1, 2008 Group: Members Followers: 0 Topic Count: 7 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 56 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 2 Days Won: 0 Joined: 11/18/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted March 1, 2008 Harry pulls out of Afghanistan as Taliban threatens to take revenge for 'Royal aggression' Harry pulls out of Afghanistan as Taliban threatens to take revenge for 'Royal aggression' Prince Harry was tonight preparing to pull out of Afghanistan as the Taliban threatened more attacks in the face of what it has described as 'aggression against Muslims'. The warning came amid fears the Prince could become a terror target back home... 3 questions I have to ask about this story: 1. Why were the British public lied to? We were told at the end of last year that Prince Harry would not be going to Afghanistan. As it turns out, he has been there for the past 10 weeks!!!!! 2. Why was he allowed to put his military colleagues at risk by being in Afghanistan? He is the prized target that the Taliban would have so loved to have captured and paraded for propaganda purposes. 3. Did anyone think of the repercussions of his time in Afghanistan? The media are now suggesting that he will be banned from his favourite nightclubs in England because he will be such a terror target. MOST LIKELY ANSWER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF (NON)INFORMATION Dear conserned citizen, We are pleased to help you with some answers to your questions; in order you've sended us: 1. Well that my fellow man, would be a misintepretation; we've always said that we wouldn't send the prince to remotely dangerous countries. Since our former PM (Blair) best friend (Bush) is still in charge over there, we don't feel the need to call it remotely dangerous. The only thing that would have could happen, is a minor diseas named "flu" and many times caused by our house catering-services. So there is nothing to worry about. 2. We love to refer to the answer on question 1; the most dangerous person is the one that is actualy preparing the meals of our troups over there. 3. Repercussions? Against Jamy Olivers best student? It's better then the 80-year old lad we had last time, when we had to restore order in former Yugoslavia Oh, by the way, we still are searching for some public informants; would you like to join our UK-frighting-program? Watch the BBC-news every night and get to know about what is realy going on, instead of all kind of tabloid non-sense. Best regards, Not the Sir of Wellington to Duke and Westminister, Harold --- I'm from the Netherlands, we just "celebrated" the 1st complete year of our "choosen"? christian-social-goverment. During election time, every single one of the coalition party's said: - no new or changed EU-constitution (if forged to: a referendum) - no new troops to Iraq or Afghanistan - no tax-increase After one year: - 17% (overall) tax-increase - just tonight we've learned that we've sended 20,000 extra people to the middle east (including both Iraq and Afghanistan) to help "befriended troops" - in November, we (read: our goverment) declared a okay with a new European constituon as acceptable and signed the documents WITHOUT a referendum And oh yeah, 90% of the native dutch people that got sacked last year, can't find any work, because all the polish guys are doing it... SO... don't be bothered by a prince that simply ignores the wishes of the general crowd... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebula Posted March 1, 2008 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.75 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.94 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Share Posted March 1, 2008 1. Why were the British public lied to? We were told at the end of last year that Prince Harry would not be going to Afghanistan. As it turns out, he has been there for the past 10 weeks!!!!! What better way to keep his presence there hidden! I know - I am sorry you feel lied to, but they couldn't actually make it public knowledge that he was over there, now could they . . . for the reason they now have to bring him home? 2. Why was he allowed to put his military colleagues at risk by being in Afghanistan? He is the prized target that the Taliban would have so loved to have captured and paraded for propaganda purposes. Which is why they lied about him being there. If the Taliban didn't know he was there . . . why would they target him? Personally, I believe it was good for a royal to spend time in the trenches, so to speak. I know times have changed, but royals used to be involved with such things . . . rather than being nothing more than tabloid fixtures . . . if you catch my meaning. 3. Did anyone think of the repercussions of his time in Afghanistan? The media are now suggesting that he will be banned from his favourite nightclubs in England because he will be such a terror target. Don't you think that this was Harry's choice? If the royals are going to cry about unfair media treatment, then they are poor leaders. Let Harry handle himself, OK? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 1, 2008 Share Posted March 1, 2008 Him serving in Afghanistan didn't make him a terror target, being 3rd in line to the throne is enough reason for that threat. Being Alive Is Enough Reason For That Threat To Apply To All Who Walk Planet Earth. He did his job just like any other soldier until someone sold him out for a few pounds. It maybe past time to let the press and their paymasters serve in a uniform before they continue on betraying the fighting man to their enemies over and over again....... "The LORD is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer; my God, my strength, in whom I will trust; my buckler, and the horn of my salvation, and my high tower." Psalms 18:2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ddavid from NC Posted March 1, 2008 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 196 Topics Per Day: 0.03 Content Count: 1,343 Content Per Day: 0.23 Reputation: 12 Days Won: 1 Joined: 01/15/2008 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/03/1964 Share Posted March 1, 2008 I'm not British and certainly don't understand the need for a Royal Family, not knocking it, just don't understand it. I in fact believe it is good leadership for someone of his stature to serve. I believe it would be a morale booster and real statement that the government is fully behind their involvement in Afghanistan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Physicsfreak Posted March 1, 2008 Group: Members Followers: 0 Topic Count: 7 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 56 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 2 Days Won: 0 Joined: 11/18/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted March 1, 2008 I'm not British and certainly don't understand the need for a Royal Family, not knocking it, just don't understand it. I in fact believe it is good leadership for someone of his stature to serve. I believe it would be a morale booster and real statement that the government is fully behind their involvement in Afghanistan. It's a simple choice; the european royal families are all togehter less expensive then just the president of France; not to mention that guy that is in the white house. Every new president: - a new "corporate identity" adapted by the presidents befriended marketing staff - complete new set of inventory (including dishes, eggspoons and so on...) - redecorating the personal quarters - ... So that is why many european countries have a royal family; it's a sort of traditional -not that expansive compared to a president - role, and it has just a influence in politics when politicians can't figure out which way we should go ahead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Afal Posted March 1, 2008 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 60 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 2,249 Content Per Day: 0.36 Reputation: 3 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/12/2007 Status: Offline Author Share Posted March 1, 2008 Harry the No 1 terror target as Al Qaeda threatens to take revenge for 'royal aggression against Muslims' This is the head-line in the Daily Mail today! This is one of the reasons why I believe that he shouldn't have gone to Afghanistan. No other soldier coming back from Afghanistan will become the no. 1 terror target. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marnie Posted March 1, 2008 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 811 Topics Per Day: 0.12 Content Count: 7,338 Content Per Day: 1.08 Reputation: 76 Days Won: 2 Joined: 10/06/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted March 1, 2008 Harry the No 1 terror target as Al Qaeda threatens to take revenge for 'royal aggression against Muslims' This is the head-line in the Daily Mail today! This is one of the reasons why I believe that he shouldn't have gone to Afghanistan. No other soldier coming back from Afghanistan will become the no. 1 terror target. Good point! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts