Where's Colin we need his take on all this: They did a real good job keeping him out of harms way..
So sorry that I have taken so long to become involved in this thread. There was something going on
in Europe on Sunday that was much more important than any discussion about a member of the British
royal family; the European Football Championship (the 'beautiful game', not that stuff played in the
USA).
I don't think anyone really needs my take on the articles in question; I think you are all smart
enough to realise that they are over sensational. Prince Harry, manning a machine-gun in defence of
his post, going out on patrol at great risk to his person (armed with a rifle), were obviously
stage-managed for the benefit of the gutter-press. The Taliban wasn't after him because they didn't
even know that he was there. Although he was, indeed, in danger (nowhere is truly safe in a war
zone, even Prince David was nearly killed in France and he was first in line to the throne, not
third), we know that the army kept him (Prince Harry), as far as possible; out of the really
dangerous situations; he was surrounded by Gurkhas (in my opinion the best and bravest infantrymen
in the world) and had a personal body guard of the famous SAS troopers. Keeping him that protected
is in keeping with British army tradition and would be in line with British Government requirements.
No doubt Prince Harry should be admired for insisting that he wanted war zone service and the fact
that he actually went there. Of course, he would have liked to be more involved but the authorities
would never allow it. If anyone would like to know about the type of engagement he didn't
experience, I would suggest reading '3 Para by Patrick Bishop". So admire him if you wish, he
deserves it, but don't let anyone tell you he is something that he himself disputes.
Dilber MC Theme by HarzeM