Comments:Prince Harry ordered to return home

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Back to article

Wikinews commentary.svg

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. You should sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message. Please remain on topic. Though there are very few rules governing what can be said here, civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Quick hints for new commentators:

  • Use colons to indent a response to someone else's remarks
  • Always sign your comments by putting --~~~~ at the end
  • You can edit a section by using the edit link to the right of the section heading

== Granted, I am an American and don't follow the daily life of the British royal family, but I would venture to guess that the Prince's attractiveness as a target has been grossly overestimated. - 19:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree --Anonymous101 Talk 21:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

(- 19:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)) : That is a very poor judgement call there. For the Taleban it could well have been a very tempting target to seize a Royal, not only for the major shock it would cause throughout the world, but the damage it could do to the UK and US war effort in Afghanistan. (remember when Ken Bigley was kidnapped by islamic forces in Iraq, the militants wanted the allied forces out along with other demands, which the British government denied. Imagine how the public would react if the british government caved in to demands to get a member of the Royal family back from militants, when they ignored the plight of innocent people). So your judgement obviously wasn't given too much thought. Philbuck222 - (talk) 18:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

only the media[edit]

will do something that stupid for a story not caring for the after effect (which they want so they can get an other story) but at least the English media kept it a secret -- 20:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

website endangered a life to get a news story[edit]

The website that leaked the news endangered the life of Prince Harry, just to get an exclusive. How can any publication be so deeply unethical. --Anonymous101 Talk 21:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Have you not heard of Faux News? They make a living at doing this kind of stuff. Fephisto - (talk) 23:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it is incredibly admirable that a Royal is serving in front-line position and am quite frankly amazed that he was able to go ten weeks without the media leaking it (leave it to Drudge to play spoiler). Personally, though, I think that the reason he should be taken out isn't that HE would be in danger (he already was), but the threat to his comrades. He would put a huge bulls eye on his unit, potentially making them instant threats if the Taliban tried to seize him. And imagine the potential for more British troops to be killed in the event he was seized and the Brits tried to rescue him. One person isn't worth that risk in a situation like that.

It is deeply shocking for me, a British person that media from America, our biggest ally in Afghanistan had decided to put not only the Prince and his unit's lives at further risk, but the entire contingent of Allied forces in Afghanistan also in further risk of a large scale Taleban attack. All for five seconds of glory and no interview with the prince. All I can say is that I a glad that Prince Harry has returned safely and now his unit perhaps has less of a perceived threat from Taleban forces. Philbuck222 - (talk) 18:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

And now Harry wants to go back in anyhow![edit]

Is he trying to be a hero or is he trying to be "an hero"? 17:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

No more of a hero than any other soldier. I quite admire him playing down the role and giving the credit to the soldier who are dying out there (which they OFC deserve). Just a shame that as always some yank ruined it for everybody.-- 14:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)