Media leaks presence of Prince Harry in Afghanistan

reply to post by Agit8dChop

---

Aussies a "tool" of the Brits?

I really don't think so.

Just heard on my local news that the Brits are trying to evacuate the Prince from Afghanistan.

I will look for a source, has anyone else heard this?

I thought it was ironic to blast his location all day then as night falls, they want him out quick.

Maybe TOOL isnt the right word,
but surely you see what I mean.

We are part of the commonwealth,

Im sure the english still have roots here to use when they please, IE Media.

If the British wanted to leak some information into the world, without APPEARING to be doing so, wouldnt a commonwealth member be perfect?

They wouldnt be able to push...... Germany.. or Poland to release information... but Australia?...

Here's an article on the evacuation:




Publicity stunt?

It was an Australian magazine, New Idea, that spilled the beans so to speak. New Idea magazine is usually meant for soccer mums (moms) at the grocery line - hardly cutting edge journalism. Who leaked it from Britain I wonder?

But how weak and limp wristed is the British media. Why should anyone bow down and take orders from the Royal Family? Screw what they want. If little Harry wants to go and fight some towel heads (no derogatory feelings meant) that the USA funded in the 80s, why should it be a damn big secret?

He should be just as compromised as any other soldier, not over there to play cowboys and Indians/cops n' robbers under a veil of secrecy.

reply to post by JacKatMtn

---

I haven't seen any reports that indicate Harry is being pulled from the front line . If that does happen Agit8dChop idea will have bitten the dust. CNN
states that senior commanders will review the situation


Update



Source

Even if New Idea magazine was unaware of the embargo they still acted irresponsible . Security surrounding Harry deployment should always come before magazine sales.

Would have they done the same if there sons or daughters were serving in Afghanistan ?

[edit on 28-2-2008 by xpert11]

I disagree with the rest of your post but that is a very good and valid question that deserves to be looked at .

It is worth considering that Harry presence was leaked for publicity purposes.

But wouldn't they have gotten more publicity had he served the extra four weeks and granted interviews to the differnt media outlets who kept a lid on all of this ?

Naw, I don't think so.

But then I could be wrong....stranger things are happening.

I just want to see all of the soldiers safe and out of harms way. I think any parent ( or cousin or sibling, yada, yada) can relate to that.

I saw the piece that FNC did this afternoon, and I thought,that's great, this guy at least understands and doesn't want to use the privilege which he has being royalty.

Now this news that the other royals want him out, believe me, if the royals want him out he will be out.

It still makes me wonder about the whole story though, but that is speculation on my part.

It just all seems contrived now.

It doesn't pass the smell test.



ed:bbcode

[edit on 2/28/2008 by JacKatMtn]

Good grief whatever happened to using common sense? Whether the magazine was aware of the embargo or not the editor should have realized that by publishing this story not only was Prince Harry put at risk so were all the troops around him. I'm all for freedom of the press but not at the cost of risking lives just to break a story.

As far as paternity goes what does it matter? Prince Harry is unlikely to take the throne and frankly I do see a family resemblance.

reply to post by gallopinghordes

---

That's what confuses me, if this was just something leaked, why in the world would FNC be allowed to do a video piece of the Prince patrolling the villages in Afghanistan?

JacKatMtn by FNC are you referring to Fox News ?

Cheers xpert11.

from finnish morning newspaper local to helsinki

www.hs.fi...

spinn spinn , if harry can do it so can you

on the other hand

now you have royalty securing the heroin trade of the world ,

www.poppyformedicine.net...

reply to post by xpert11

---

Yes sorry, I always use FNC for fox news channel

This Prince in Afghanistan wasn't just a leak it was a collapsed dam, if the command and control there didn't want FNC to cover the Prince, they wouldn't allow it.

The news crews can't go film whatever they want over there.



ed:sp

[edit on 2/28/2008 by JacKatMtn]

reply to post by JacKatMtn

---

No worries thanks for clearing that up . I would say the Fox segment would have been done under the condition it wasn't broadcast until Harry had returned from Afghanistan. Harry conducted pre deployment interviews under the same condition . I'm going watch developments with interest.

Firstly I would like to congratulate His Royal Highness on achieving his ambition of leading the men of the British Army in the field. For anyone who thinks it is a publicity stunt, I can quite categorically say that it isn't he is (was?) there and doing a bloody good job. Harry's service to his country and the support of his family is in stark contrast to the actions of the children of the politicians who sent us there in the first place (Ewen Bliar in particular) who seem to be happy to live off their father's fame and fortune.

Harry did not have to join the British Army, he was not forced to go to AFG, he did not have to choose a job which put him within 100m of the enemy, he did not have to go out on patrols, he did not have to serve a full tour of duty. That he chose to do all of these things is a testament to his commitment to a career in the British Armed Forces. Were it not for the moral decrepitude of the British media, there would be no increased threat to BRITFOR in the deployment of Cornet Wales to an operational theatre. If the Ministry of Defence has decided that the threat to him and his troops has increased as a result of this then he would have been removed from post within hours of this breaking.

Harry's paternity is not an issue, he is not illegitimate and in any case illegitimacy has been a feature of Royal Families since the year dot. Any Diana conspiracists are welcome to set up their own thread, although Mohammed Fayed's performance in court last week should have proved beyond reasonable doubt that the Diana conspiracy was merely the deranged ramblings of a grieving father.

I've mentioned my opinion - I won't rehash it again

I really don't have anything against Harry. But, watching the footage on the evening news, I can't but help wonder - if this was supposed to be so top secret, why the reams and reams of footage of Harry? Doesn't seem like a media blackout. It looks is if they had it all ready to go:

* Harry shooting a big gun at Taliban (again, a regime propped up by the yanks themselves)

* Harry riding around on a tank

* Harry filling a water container

* Harry talking about not having a shower in 4 days (shock horror)

* Harry walking around with a big gun

Why, I could swear it almost looked like a promo video for joining the army.

If the revelation that he was serving only just came out in the past 48 hours, where did all the footage come from? If it were a truly noble cause he was doing, why invite your own personal camera crew to film your moves. Just strikes me as a tad odd, and a tad rich to blame a women's magazine of all things.

So, there's the argument that revealing he was serving in Afghanistan jeopardizes his safety. He's in Afghanistan; how more compromised can you get exactly?

I feel it's nothing but propaganda, pure and simple. Why? Firstly, the media blackout. For God sakes, how many hardcore Taliban extremists are going to read New Idea magazine? I haven't seen them dropping their kids off to soccer practice lately. Second, there's nothing like rousing deep heart felt feelings for the motherland by sending a notorious figurehead (albeit one that once wore a swastika, and is a general boozehound) to a war that is increasingly unpopular.

Well, it's just my opinion anyway. As an Australian, I apologise profusely for our meagre, colonial women's magazine giving away the state secrets of her majesty.

[edit on 29-2-2008 by mattguy404]

reply to post by mattguy404

---

The media were given full access to Harry during the deployment in return for their silence on the matter; the footage was all shot for use upon his return to the UK. Once the story had leaked the MoD gave permission for the media to use what footage they had.

I agree some of the footage was posed (what else would you expect?), but there is no doubt that he was out there doing a proper job in harm's way.

I can only agree with NabootheEnigma's post.

Something occured to me...

Surely, under the terms of the various Anti Terrorism Acts around the world (and no, I can't quote them verbatim), publishing the presence of a prominet figure in any operational field of battle would count as aiding, albeit obscurely, extremists?

I'm pretty darn sure that if an American President paid a surprise visit to Iraq that turned out to be not so secret, giving terrorsts time to mount an atack, the author who sprang the article would be in Abughraib (sic) before he knew what hit him.

What else would this kind of article do but increase the determination of the Taliban in trying to gain a huge psychological victory over the West by killing Prince Harry, and more than likely in public via the internet if he had been captured? The second world war phrase: "Loose lips sinks ships", springs to mind, meaning keeping quite saves lives.

Didn't this Aussie magazine realize that they would be endangering not only Harry, but his entire battalion?

The control on the media is so strong that most UFO and 9/11 information gets surpressed.

This news about the prince would not have come out if the controlers didnt want it to.

So i think it is a controled leak for a certain purpose.
Not a mistake.

For all i care he will get shot, thats what happens when you invade and occupy foreign countries.