| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| davidson |
Posted - 28/02/2008 : 20:41:48
http://www.fivetvonline.tv/your-news-story.php?news=169
Due to another country leaking this news
it is now confirmed Prince Harry is part of the Army Fighting,
and the Queen was the first to tell him.
So the Royals in the UK may be now bigger targets
by Terrorists that do not want this.
|
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| NewMember |
Posted - 08/03/2008 : 16:40:34
Anubis, you have a lot to say - and you make a lot of sense! Would you mind me suggesting tho that when you have several paragraphs, you break them up into separate posts? This way I would find it a lot easier to reply to your individualised points?
If anyone disagrees with me on this point, please shout me down - just a personal preference. |
| moon23 |
Posted - 05/03/2008 : 15:09:33
quote:
Originally posted by Anubis
quote:
Originally posted by moon23
quote:
Originally posted by Miriam Binder
Sun Tzu if I am not mistaken ... he also said "All warfare is based on deception"
Mim the world has changed since 9/11, this is something Sun Tzu just couldn't ever have understood. Everyone knows was is about a battle between the free and democratic world and terrorism.
Wouldn't it be lovely if the world was just a battle between the goodies and the baddies. As a kid, like all kids, I believed that once upon a time .... there were the 'merry men' of Sherwood Forest, loyal to their king and the wicked Prince John and Sir Guy of G., collecting the ransom from the ground-down peasants and keeping it for themselves. Then it was Hopalong Cassidy ... or Randolph Scott ... and the same 'goodies' of my childhood Saturday matinees, were transformed into war heroes, Errol Flynn captured Burma from the baddie Japs, Leslie Howard and Raymond Massey showed the Nazi submariners on the 49th parallel how 'democracy' always withstood (and eventually conquered) the black uniformed Gestapo.
BUT even in the films, the 'heroes' were labelled 'bandits' and 'terrorists' by the evil Nazis and Japanese butchers ... because throughout human history, whenever one powerful section invades/conquers another section, that very action evokes a response. The bandits/terrorists/parisans/resistance movements throughout the Nazi world were shown no mercy and expected none. The conquerers always described in these same derogatory terms ... as did Julius Caesar in his "Gallic Wars" .... they were ALWAYS, as they are today, represented as "unlawful combatants".
In today's IRAQ, THE ONLY "illegal/ unlawful combatants" are the military invaders. Many Iraqi men and women are prepared to (and do) sacrifice their lives against the foreign invader. I am sure if this country were occupied by a foreign invader, the British people would produce hundreds and thousands who would likewise expect to be slandered by the invader as "terrorists' (and many of those, in Iraq, who have done this for their homeland have written full accounts as to what has happened to them and their loved ones thus leading logically for them to intervene in the only way they believe possible for fighting a foreign imposed tyranny).
Of course, in many respect, my description of what is happening is ALSO a very simplified, goodie/baddy, version. Miriam knows, I am sure, there are many more than just two ideologies at war with each other. Islam is split and at war with itself, Kurds and other national minorities, other factions ... and behind it all the world forces of capital, determined to control the region and the oil resources. Add to that cauldron the often violent divisions between the exploiters themselves ... all these additional elements are enlarged and confounded by Western policies of aggression. Even with the very very sanitized newsreel footage we receive from these localities, for the majority of Westerners who have never had their homes bombed to pieces and their relatives and friends killed by the "unlawful combatants" from UK and USA, ought to be able to perceive a world with a little less superficiality than to describe it as "a battle for hearts and minds/ between two ideologies".
That sounds complex, most people will prefer Bush and Blair’s simplified version. |
| moon23 |
Posted - 05/03/2008 : 15:06:49
quote:
Originally posted by camelot
The royals are an easy target in my USA opinion...but a little slack should be given for the celebrity status they have been anointed with…After all, they have not asked for the role of the super star like a Madonna, the Spice Girls, or any of the other mega celebs…but rather have been born into it without choice. Not very fair if you ask me...
In the US you have great inequality, but you don't have to put up with royalty. Still I guess at least our Royalty and upper classes are cultured and civilied (mmm.. thinking about that most of our royals are uneducated philistines.) |
| Anubis |
Posted - 05/03/2008 : 08:49:38
quote:
Originally posted by camelot
The royals are an easy target in my USA opinion...but a little slack should be given for the celebrity status they have been anointed with…After all, they have not asked for the role of the super star like a Madonna, the Spice Girls, or any of the other mega celebs…but rather have been born into it without choice. Not very fair if you ask me...
So we have no need to guess, if it came to the crunch, on which side you'd have stood in 1776, Camelot. No doubt you'd have stood firm behind John Adams, defence attorney for the British soldiers of occupation, when he described supporters of the American 'free republic' as "a mottly rabble of saucy boys, negroes and mulattoes, Irish teagues and outlandish jack tarrs".
I've spent only a little time in the USA -- but enough to know those world-inspiring 'bells of freedom' are not dead in America, in spite of the creatures currently in power .... |
| camelot |
Posted - 05/03/2008 : 05:07:19
The royals are an easy target in my USA opinion...but a little slack should be given for the celebrity status they have been anointed with…After all, they have not asked for the role of the super star like a Madonna, the Spice Girls, or any of the other mega celebs…but rather have been born into it without choice. Not very fair if you ask me... |
| Daveb |
Posted - 04/03/2008 : 21:28:03
The UK has been under attack from "illegal/ unlawful combatants" for man years. It used to be the IRA before 9/11 stopped America funding these murderers. Now the focus is on Islamic groups.
I say bring troops home and deport anyone who supports known murdering (terrorist) groups.
It is strange how Prince Andrew did not get the same flack during the Falklands conflict. BTW that was an illegal invasion by Argentina.
The Royals are damned whatever the do, so perhaps the should just do their minimum civic duty and then do as they like and take the huge advantage of the system. Just like politicians, civil servants, benefit cheats and terrorist (religious) preachers. |
| Fluffy Sheep |
Posted - 04/03/2008 : 20:28:16
You know, I always thought the phrase `the battle for hearts and minds` was rather tongue-in-cheek. I always took it as a euphemism for propaganda. |
| Miriam Binder |
Posted - 04/03/2008 : 19:30:46
There are many more conflict zones then Iraq Anubis. |
| Anubis |
Posted - 04/03/2008 : 18:07:57
quote:
Originally posted by moon23
quote:
Originally posted by Miriam Binder
Sun Tzu if I am not mistaken ... he also said "All warfare is based on deception"
Mim the world has changed since 9/11, this is something Sun Tzu just couldn't ever have understood. Everyone knows was is about a battle between the free and democratic world and terrorism.
Wouldn't it be lovely if the world was just a battle between the goodies and the baddies. As a kid, like all kids, I believed that once upon a time .... there were the 'merry men' of Sherwood Forest, loyal to their king and the wicked Prince John and Sir Guy of G., collecting the ransom from the ground-down peasants and keeping it for themselves. Then it was Hopalong Cassidy ... or Randolph Scott ... and the same 'goodies' of my childhood Saturday matinees, were transformed into war heroes, Errol Flynn captured Burma from the baddie Japs, Leslie Howard and Raymond Massey showed the Nazi submariners on the 49th parallel how 'democracy' always withstood (and eventually conquered) the black uniformed Gestapo.
BUT even in the films, the 'heroes' were labelled 'bandits' and 'terrorists' by the evil Nazis and Japanese butchers ... because throughout human history, whenever one powerful section invades/conquers another section, that very action evokes a response. The bandits/terrorists/parisans/resistance movements throughout the Nazi world were shown no mercy and expected none. The conquerers always described in these same derogatory terms ... as did Julius Caesar in his "Gallic Wars" .... they were ALWAYS, as they are today, represented as "unlawful combatants".
In today's IRAQ, THE ONLY "illegal/ unlawful combatants" are the military invaders. Many Iraqi men and women are prepared to (and do) sacrifice their lives against the foreign invader. I am sure if this country were occupied by a foreign invader, the British people would produce hundreds and thousands who would likewise expect to be slandered by the invader as "terrorists' (and many of those, in Iraq, who have done this for their homeland have written full accounts as to what has happened to them and their loved ones thus leading logically for them to intervene in the only way they believe possible for fighting a foreign imposed tyranny).
Of course, in many respect, my description of what is happening is ALSO a very simplified, goodie/baddy, version. Miriam knows, I am sure, there are many more than just two ideologies at war with each other. Islam is split and at war with itself, Kurds and other national minorities, other factions ... and behind it all the world forces of capital, determined to control the region and the oil resources. Add to that cauldron the often violent divisions between the exploiters themselves ... all these additional elements are enlarged and confounded by Western policies of aggression. Even with the very very sanitized newsreel footage we receive from these localities, for the majority of Westerners who have never had their homes bombed to pieces and their relatives and friends killed by the "unlawful combatants" from UK and USA, ought to be able to perceive a world with a little less superficiality than to describe it as "a battle for hearts and minds/ between two ideologies". |
| moon23 |
Posted - 04/03/2008 : 16:58:26
quote:
Originally posted by Miriam Binder
Maybe Moon ... then again it could be said that it is a battle between two ideologies. Deception plays a part in both camps as well as terrorism.
There is no deception only the battle for hearts and minds. |
| Miriam Binder |
Posted - 04/03/2008 : 13:03:24
Maybe Moon ... then again it could be said that it is a battle between two ideologies. Deception plays a part in both camps as well as terrorism. |
| moon23 |
Posted - 04/03/2008 : 11:26:35
quote:
Originally posted by Miriam Binder
Sun Tzu if I am not mistaken ... he also said "All warfare is based on deception"
Mim the world has changed since 9/11, this is something Sun Tzu just couldn't ever have understood. Everyone knows was is about a battle between the free and democratic world and terrorism. |
| Fluffy Sheep |
Posted - 03/03/2008 : 21:26:58
Quite |
| Miriam Binder |
Posted - 03/03/2008 : 21:04:17
 Not really Fluffy, just an avid reader |
| Fluffy Sheep |
Posted - 03/03/2008 : 20:43:09
Ha. I`ve neither read nor studied this, but there`s a couple of folks fairly close who have. I tend to regard them as knowledgeable and learned. That figures, as I tend to regard Moon, and Mim this way too. |
| Miriam Binder |
Posted - 03/03/2008 : 19:38:17
Sun Tzu if I am not mistaken ... he also said "All warfare is based on deception" |
| Fluffy Sheep |
Posted - 03/03/2008 : 19:11:07
Moon, I do like that quote `The art of war is to use these things to your advantage`. Sounds like an ancient Chinese proverb....? |
| Anubis |
Posted - 03/03/2008 : 16:26:33
quote:
Originally posted by moon23
quote:
Originally posted by Tombstone Blues
quote:
Originally posted by moon23
They could have made pretend guys of Harry by attaching a Ginger wig to a scarecrow and putting it in a tank. This could thus lure the Taliban out as bait and into our ambushes.
The art of war is to use these things to your advantage.
What a wonderful image!
Yep, imagine how fun it would be controlling a dummy Prince Harry tank by remote control. You could press a little button to let out random 'Toff' sound effects; here is my suggested list for maximum authenticity:
"Anyone for a game of ruggers",
"Here I am just hanging out with the guys".
"Will said my mother would have been proud"
"Lets have a fancy dress party"
Brilliant suggestions from Moon 23 -- which, in the light of today's news, namely Harry's suggestion that Terry Tali will now be "out to get Chelsey" as well, there could be two dummy figures in (or on) the tank ... and our minds must boggle when we think what these two dummys might be 'getting up to' (in or on) the tank!?
|
| moon23 |
Posted - 03/03/2008 : 15:09:35
quote:
Originally posted by Tombstone Blues
quote:
Originally posted by moon23
They could have made pretend guys of Harry by attaching a Ginger wig to a scarecrow and putting it in a tank. This could thus lure the Taliban out as bait and into our ambushes.
The art of war is to use these things to your advantage.
What a wonderful image!
Yep, imagine how fun it would be controlling a dummy Prince Harry tank by remote control. You could press a little button to let out random 'Toff' sound effects; here is my suggested list for maximum authenticity:
"Anyone for a game of ruggers",
"Here I am just hanging out with the guys".
"Will said my mother would have been proud"
"Lets have a fancy dress party"
|
| Tombstone Blues |
Posted - 03/03/2008 : 12:47:42
quote:
Originally posted by moon23
They could have made pretend guys of Harry by attaching a Ginger wig to a scarecrow and putting it in a tank. This could thus lure the Taliban out as bait and into our ambushes.
The art of war is to use these things to your advantage.
What a wonderful image!
|
| moon23 |
Posted - 03/03/2008 : 12:12:59
quote:
Originally posted by camelot
The decision to send him was flawed from the outset. This outcome was inevitable in my opinion. Just like the Iraq war it was unnecessary, inflammatory, and probably based on the same macho thinking...
If he wanted to go then it was right to allow him. He should have just the same rights to do what he wants as everyone else.
The MOD reackon that it's too dangerous now for his fellow soilders, but they could have used it for their advantage.
They could have made pretend guys of Harry by attaching a Ginger wig to a scarecrow and putting it in a tank. This could thus lure the Taliban out as bait and into our ambushes.
The art of war is to use these things to your advantage. |
| NewMember |
Posted - 02/03/2008 : 19:08:05
Indeed - and the little people knew their place! |
| Miriam Binder |
Posted - 02/03/2008 : 18:51:23
quote:
Originally posted by NewMember
Sorry Anubis, but until I got to your message, all the others were, like me, expressing opinions about whether or not he should have been there, not a publicity exercise. I hear what you say about his existence as a 'royal prince in the 21st Century' - this implies to me that you are not a Royalist! Fair enough, but for me it is not a disgrace to have a royal prince these days, the disgrace is that they no longer have any power, if they ever did, to stand-up for the people of this Country. We are all ruled by Politicians, who prove to us time and time again that we cannot really believe anything they say. With all of the subsequent coverage and lucky photographs of the Prince, I just wonder what other news there is that this is covering up!
The alternative rule is what we had in the days preceding the Magna Carta and subsequent documents when Kings ruled by 'divine right'. |
| NewMember |
Posted - 02/03/2008 : 18:39:15
Sorry Anubis, but until I got to your message, all the others were, like me, expressing opinions about whether or not he should have been there, not a publicity exercise. I hear what you say about his existence as a 'royal prince in the 21st Century' - this implies to me that you are not a Royalist! Fair enough, but for me it is not a disgrace to have a royal prince these days, the disgrace is that they no longer have any power, if they ever did, to stand-up for the people of this Country. We are all ruled by Politicians, who prove to us time and time again that we cannot really believe anything they say. With all of the subsequent coverage and lucky photographs of the Prince, I just wonder what other news there is that this is covering up! |
| Daveb |
Posted - 02/03/2008 : 17:20:56
I agree Anubis, it is much better to let Afganistan, Iraq, Serbia, Ireland, Pakistan, Kenya and several other countries massacre their own people. They do not need us in there, all we do is draw their fire. |
| Anubis |
Posted - 02/03/2008 : 15:59:33
quote:
Originally posted by NewMember
I think it was completely irresponsible to have sent him in the first place. Okay he is a Royal and yes he wanted to go. But isn't it right to treat any young man, or woman, regardless of status, the important lesson in life that you don't always get what you want?
Methinks you miss the point, New Member. We are talking about a publicity exercise. The situation had reached an all-time low in the years preceding the death of Harry's mother -- Diana was the standing joke of the nation, widely ridiculed throughout the media. Were you not alive at the time? There was barely a day, when one of her latest comments wasn't an easy joke for "Private Eye' or whatever. Then she got herself killed in Paris; at the last minute (literally) The Times pulled the latest "joke" at her expense, about to be featured on the front page, as the nation went into "mourning". The death was a manna from heaven so far as the status quo was concerned, the "Princess of Hearts" suddenly was transformed from a 'figure of fun' into a celebrity image.
When you have an idiot family, it's difficult to keep "the Firm" in place, what with Edward's ludicrous antics and, like his Dad, scraping into university with a questionable "E' grade A level. Harry, likewise, needing 'special assistance' to scrape his academic passes, and his drunken cavorting, it was felt, needed to be got away from the royal estates (to save the protected birds from being shot?), needed a publicity exercise to turn himself into a 'national hero' rather than the lregular pantomine extra ... so a few weeks of "protected" front-line duty in the perimeters of the centuries old British empire. If the intention was really to keep his adventure under cover, the press would not have been told in the first place! Nor would members of his unit be writing home to say he was there (one mother was interviewed by the BBC, day before yesterday!). Hundreds of thousands of innocent people have been massacred in these latest ventures by the American and British imperialists .... it might all be a "bit of a laugh" for Harry and his privileged types, but his presence there, indeed his very existence as a "royal prince" in the 21st Century, is a disgrace to civilized humanity. |
| Fluffy Sheep |
Posted - 02/03/2008 : 15:51:22
That`s a good summing up of the whole argument, NM! |
| NewMember |
Posted - 02/03/2008 : 14:14:41
I think it was completely irresponsible to have sent him in the first place. Okay he is a Royal and yes he wanted to go. But isn't it right to treat any young man, or woman, regardless of status, the important lesson in life that you don't always get what you want? |
| Anubis |
Posted - 02/03/2008 : 10:54:59
quote:
Originally posted by camelot
The decision to send him was flawed from the outset. This outcome was inevitable in my opinion. Just like the Iraq war it was unnecessary, inflammatory, and probably based on the same macho thinking...
The nonsense continues in today's (Sunday's) papers -- incredibly the Independent on Sunday makes its front-page story an (obviously ghosted) article by a Sandhurst graduate who can understand Prince Harry's excitement as he 'fires his sub-machine gun at a suspected Taliban stronghold' (replay the scene for yourself and you'll see Harry under instruction on a practice run). I wouldn't have expected such drivel from the Independent.
Regarding your point, Camelot, one of the better letters, from yesterday's Guardian, makes an intelligent proposal:
 |
| camelot |
Posted - 01/03/2008 : 23:50:32
The decision to send him was flawed from the outset. This outcome was inevitable in my opinion. Just like the Iraq war it was unnecessary, inflammatory, and probably based on the same macho thinking... |
|
|
