Obviously many of you have emotional ties to this issue and cannot realize the implications of your words. You are to emotionally charged. This really isn’t about our young prince but I’ll indulge the Harry bit, though it is off base. Censorship should be the main concern here.
HARRY VOLUNTEERED PEOPLE! There are risks to being a military man. His family and nation supported his decision. Let him fight alongside commoners if that is his dream. Would you suggest we rescue Brittany Spears or Polly Shore in an identical situation? Wouldn’t they be responsible for their own decisions?
It gives you relief that he is home safe because of the guilt one feels with letting him go to begin with.
Tommy Allison said:
Imagine what were to happen had a news outlet spill the beans, and Prince Harry gets wacked?
Think on that for a moment. Then think about all the guys who'd also be targets in the same vicinity as Prince Harry. Do you think it would be a good thing for the media to start telling the enemy where they are?
This whole topic about Harry is horseshit because if everyone is so friggin concerned for his safety you should have prevented him from joining in the first place. Only when someone is on the front line do you care? It was his choice!
Imagine he was killed anyway and the media had kept the secret. You would not be sitting on my side of the fence saying, “If we would have known we could have done something!”
It makes no difference whether we know where he is because he volunteered to do a job as a public figure. The job he chose has serious ramifications. If he wants to fight in a war as a public figure then he must live (or not) with the consequences. You see, it is not for the news or you to decide this matter. That time has already come and gone. Because he is famous is no reason to withdrawal him. If he is serious about his duties as a soldier he would stay regardless.
The argument that the Taliban will in someway target him is speculation and conjecture. You are basing an argument on speculation and conjecture. Pretty precarious don’t you think?
Tommy Allison said:
Free Speech stops at the end of another person's nose. In this case, at the beginning of endangering someone's life. Shouting Fire in a movie theater is illegal for a reason, and so is giving away troop positions, no matter who they are.
Make no mistake it would not have been free-speech that would have “killed Harry” it would have been the consequence of joining the armed forces and fighting a war as a public person.
Tommy Allison said:
When people complain about media black outs, and all that other nonsense, they don't think about the reasons. If Harry had been killed in Afghanistan because of some careless journalist spilling the beans, what do you think the backlash from the royal family would be?
IMO, any backlash would be unjustified because they promoted his enlistment along with the rest of the country.
Tommy Allison said:
I agree we are told what we need to know for the most part, but when you're talking about someone's life you don't have carte blanche to scream to the high heavens where they're at. Especially when they're at war with an enemy who would love nothing better than to take out a high profile target.
Again, why allow him into harm’s way to begin with? Why allow such a high-profile person to engage is such acts knowing the serious potentials. The potential existed from the beginning that he could be killed or captured. Consequences for actions account for something.
Protection of his fellow solders, indeed. Removing his princedom from danger has only been an option for him, what about the other fellas fighting next to him that aren’t at home sleeping in a canopy bed? You couldn't give a shit about them, now that Harry is safe.
