digg

Join DiggAbout

Call for questions
Submit and vote up questions you'd like to see answered by Kevin & Jay at the next Digg Townhall on 11/18.

See the original image at news.bbc.co.uk —

Prince Harry fighting Taleban, MoD says

news.bbc.co.uk — Despite earlier not being sent to Iraq - and getting a lot of flak for it, prince Harry has been reported to have been on the front line in Afganistan

show profanity settings
expand all
  • LokitheComplex, on 02/29/2008, -5/+85So this Drudge Report guy is he aware he's giving away military secrets?
    • jcm267, on 02/29/2008, -5/+56I don't think that Drudge cares. So what if Prince Harry is captured, brutally tortured, beheaded on video, and his head left in a ditch near a military base? Matt Drudge got the scoop!

      http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/2008/01/28/joh ...
      • LokitheComplex, on 02/29/2008, -0/+13Actually I've heard it had been reported in a couple other places first. But it was not widely reported until Drudge pushed it.
        • jcm267, on 02/29/2008, -1/+11According to the submission linked to below, Drudge got it from an Australian women's magazine. And that doesn't make it right.

          http://digg.com/world_news/matt_drudge_violates_me ...
          • Nitesmoke, on 02/29/2008, -12/+2The British military leaked it to show him off. I saw it on the tv news and he was posing for the camera guy.
          • sgtbutterscotch, on 02/29/2008, -0/+4hehe, "matt drudge violates me..."
          • Beveridge89, on 02/29/2008, -0/+1Nitesmoke, the media was already told he was out there. Naturally they wanted to get interviews just now so that when it did break, or he finished his tour, they would have material ready. No conspiracy, just good sense.
      • nospinhere, on 02/29/2008, -4/+1I find it funny that diggers now all of a sudden care when the press reports military secrets. Must be because it's not America's military secrets that is being let out here.
    • aliengoods, on 02/29/2008, -4/+28Drudge is a jackass. You know how you tell. At least once a week he's got Rush on his front page.
      • DRINKxREDxBULL, on 02/29/2008, -10/+5It should be more like digg and have only politcal "news" from liberal websites.
    • DRINKxREDxBULL, on 02/29/2008, -8/+13Kind of like the editors of the New York Times were ***** for publishing in January of 2006 the details of a top-secret program used for tracking the finances of terror organisation such as Al Qaida, effectively telling them how avoid having their assets frozen from INTERPOL / CIA.

      Ironicly, the NYT both suggested such a program in October 2001 and then chastised the Bush adminstration for not have a program in place already.

      At least the NYT got a good cover though.
      • jcm267, on 02/29/2008, -3/+12I agree. The New York Times is run by a bunch of assholes. Does that make Drudge any better?
        • DRINKxREDxBULL, on 02/29/2008, -2/+6No, it doesn't. Drudge also wrong, very wrong. He not only put the life Prince Henry in danger, but everyone on the same base and in the same unit as him. I know he wants to do what he thinks is right, but in a conflict like this he nothing more than bait for a high profile kidnapping.
          • weeFred, on 02/29/2008, -1/+3I'm just glad prince Henry is alright.
          • ssn697, on 02/29/2008, -6/+9And now, it turns out ***** on Drudge was premature. What did ABC air tonight? A big story on Harry in Afghanistan. They had been there for at LEAST several days interviewing him. He was already planning on leaving, knowing ABC was airing the bit tonight.

            Your concern for Prince Henry is really touching. Maybe next time you will know the name of the person, before complaining?
          • crunchyeyeball, on 02/29/2008, -0/+8> ...They had been there for at LEAST several days interviewing him...

            That was part of the deal with the media... They would get a limited period of access initially, on the understanding nothing would be made public until his tour was complete, and in return the media would keep the story under wraps so as not to endanger his unit.
          • adnams, on 02/29/2008, -0/+4ssn697: Actually his real name is Prince Henry, just for some reason everyone took to calling him Harry, not sure why but its true :)
      • PATSCRU, on 02/29/2008, -1/+2I happen to like to know when my government is sticking their noses in my business.
        • WarPirate, on 02/29/2008, -0/+4so you openly admit to being a member of a terrorist organization?
      • Sigma0, on 02/29/2008, -3/+0This has to be a joke right? Any semi-serious organised crime organisations will have numerous techniques for money laundering so to claim a terrorist organisation as large as Al Qaeida would rely on a single newspaper publication to manage its finances is ridiculous.

        The real issue here is that Prince Harry could stay in Afganistan only for as long as the media didn't publish his whereabouts.
    • linkin2, on 02/29/2008, -1/+2baaaah
    • ssn697, on 02/29/2008, -13/+6No military secrets being given out. ABC news did a big story on Harry tonight, finishing by saying now that everyone knows, he will be leaving. They had been there interviewing him several days ago, at least.

      Drudge just got the news a few hours before the clip aired. Much ado about nothing...
      • Angostura, on 02/29/2008, -0/+12Errr, no. Apparently Harry did a series of interviews with media outlets before he was deployed, but they were embargoed until he returned. When the story broke the embargo became null and the interviews were run. His deployment was due to continue for several month yet.
        • ssn697, on 02/29/2008, -1/+2Well *****! Looks like I was bamboozled by ABCNews online! They gave the impression it was a fresh interview. Thanks for pointing out my error.

          To the Australian paper, the German paper, and Matt Drudge, a big ***** YOU...
      • kazamx, on 02/29/2008, -1/+4No they weren't there. The BBC sent a reporter and cameraman. The reports and film made by that crew has been given away free to all news agencies
    • youmustbejoking, on 02/29/2008, -4/+17There was a camera crew their filming him, but they agreed they wouldn't air the footage until Harry was out of Iraq. So yes, they were trying to keep this secret until Drudge the parasite decided he wasn't getting enough attention.
      • MonarchWastxD, on 02/29/2008, -0/+1Filming him THERE.
        • youmustbejoking, on 02/29/2008, -0/+1Sorry, obvious mistake. I will try and be more diligent in the future :)
    • borez, on 02/29/2008, -12/+3Who gives a ***** about the illegitimate child of Diana and James Hewitt anyway

      Don't believe me, take a good look at this:

      http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/38672000/jpg ...
    • borez, on 02/29/2008, -9/+2That would be this:

      http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/38672000/jpg ...

      Thanks digg
    • borez, on 02/29/2008, -9/+1That would be this:

      http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/38672000/jpg ...

      Thanks digg
    • airiox, on 02/29/2008, -2/+8Whoever is responsible for this leak, (which isn't a journalist) should be tried for treason. Whomever it was, royal family, or the person in the British Army should be tried for treason. If I was Prime Minister of that country I would be ballistic right now in making sure where the leak originated and that they were brought to justice.
    • aaiden, on 02/29/2008, -5/+2If our greatest military secret is that Harry is out ther fighting then we're pretty screwed. I doubt any one they're fighting cares anyway. I'd rather have military secrets like "the supr sekret plans to win the war and kick all their asses" or "the really big secret missile that kills loads of the enemy"
      • oldhick, on 02/29/2008, -0/+5I'm not sure anyone's claiming its your greatest military secret, its simply A secret. If you can't understand why there's no reason for the public to know about his service there then you're just being dense.
    • Khannea, on 02/29/2008, -6/+9So, where are those two Bush slits? Shopping?
      • sphigel, on 02/29/2008, -3/+5Where are you right now? Oh, at your computer. Hypocrite much?
        • umstbkddng, on 02/29/2008, -0/+4I doubt that Khannea's dad started any wars.
        • Speed, on 02/29/2008, -0/+3But he's never claimed to have supported the war. Bush is the one selling this war. That's why his daughters should be there.
        • Khannea, on 03/02/2008, -0/+2I am not an american, smart guy. Dutch and we have evolved beyond war.
    • Dragonspawn, on 02/29/2008, -0/+7Now that he has had to be withdrawn, how about we have the SAS extract Drudge and put him on the front-line instead....preferably with a picture of Mohammed on his T-Shirt.
    • GhengisKhan, on 02/29/2008, -8/+1Suck on it Drudge haters. Ha ha.
    • jm4847, on 02/29/2008, -8/+1Harry and the British military are morons. What good can he do him being in harm's way?
  • chaosmantis, on 02/29/2008, -2/+34We should have realised the whole him not going story was a ruse. Seeing as there hasn't been a drunken scandal in the last couple of months!

    I respect him for wanting to go, but I dread what will happen if he gets hurt, killed or worse captured.
    • eridius, on 02/29/2008, -0/+8Except it wasn't a ruse - he didn't go to Iraq. He went to Afghanistan.
      • elister, on 02/29/2008, -1/+1"I dread what will happen if he gets hurt, killed or worse captured"

        .....worse would be to step on a land mine. ba-doom *tsk*
    • aaiden, on 02/29/2008, -2/+3Why do you dread what might happen to him. All the other soldiers have been there for years and will still be there once he's gone. Why haven't you been dreading what could have happenned to them and why aren't you dreading what's going ot happen to them now, while Harry's back in cosy little royal his palace?
      • jj101, on 02/29/2008, -0/+8probabaly because the political and military reaction to a member of the royal family being killed or captured would no doubt be completely disproportional. I see your point but I think you missed his.
      • 1of42, on 02/29/2008, -1/+4Don't think he's personally concerned for Harry, but rather concerned for the epic political, social and other consequences if he were killed. Like, for example, I would love to see GWB assassinated (the world would be better off without him), but I also fear and dread it because of what would result (probably another dumb war, Republicans winning the White House, you go on and imagine what else).
    • KataLieb, on 02/29/2008, -1/+2Its inaccurate...it should be "Harry now in Afghanistan, protecting the joint US-UK effort to return the heroin trade to record levels"
      Narco Aggression: Russia Accuses the U.S. Military of Involvement in Drug Trafficking Out of Afghanistan
      http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va& ...

      "When Russia backed the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan to crush the Taliban and Al Qaeda in the post-9/11 scenario, the last thing it expected to happen was that drug trafficking from Afghanistan would assume gargantuan proportions under the U.S. military. Since 2001, poppy fields, once banned by the Taliban, have mushroomed again. According to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Afghanistan produced 8,200 tonnes of opium last year, enough to make 93 per cent of the world’s heroin supply.

      The U.S.-led North Atlantic Treaty Organisation [NATO] forces in the country have not only failed to eliminate the terrorist threat from the Taliban, but also presided over a spectacular rise in opium production. Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Afghanistan was on the brink of becoming a “narco state”."

      "Narco business has emerged as virtually the only economy of Afghanistan and is valued at some $10 billion a year. Opium trade is estimated by the U.N. to be equivalent to 53 per cent of the country’s official economy and is helping to finance the Taliban." (Taliban? They banned the stuff! US it should say)

      But hey, you gotta finance the wars SOME way when taxes aint enough!
  • mariot75, on 02/29/2008, -14/+3Isn't he on his way back now, which is why the story has become public?
    • weeFred, on 02/29/2008, -3/+15Drudge were assholes and used the story instead of just letting him continue in anonymity.
    • manicleek, on 02/29/2008, -0/+4He is on his way back now, but its because this story was made public
    • mariot75, on 02/29/2008, -0/+5I was wrong...it is all Drudges fault - very irresponsible!!
      Well Harry is on his way back now - because the story has been reported
      http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/people,724,prince-ha ...
      Good of him to go - he's done more than the sons of a lot of our so-called leaders. Im looking at you Tony Blair!
    • smackafiyah, on 02/29/2008, -0/+3He was supposed to be deployed for 4-6 months and kept secret, but since the idiot told the world the Prince is serving in Afghanistan, he's sent back home after 10 weeks
  • weeFred, on 02/29/2008, -5/+47I've got to say well done and fair play. He's taken it this far so that hes able to do his duty. I've got a lot more respect for him than I used to.
    • prleet, on 02/29/2008, -8/+2Dude, 10 ***** weeks and this guy getting respect?....in front lines, my ass, probably sitting back at the CC with a damn radio, this guy needs to spend as long as any other bastard in the military, that is the whole deployment time...when a bullet passes by your ear, prince becomes a dirt hugging hermit frog just like any other solder out there, then give him respect.
      • weeFred, on 02/29/2008, -0/+5He was ordered back by the MOD because now that the news is out he's a security risk to his unit. He was on a 4-6 month tour and would have served it if this didn't happen. I also have respect for every other soldier serving over there, I have respect for him because he insisted that he had to go when the MOD originally said that he wasn't allowed to be on the front lines.
    • jm4847, on 02/29/2008, -8/+2Respect for what? He's just showing off. Chances are he had something to do with the story being leaked.
    • hobwitch, on 03/01/2008, -0/+0i LOVE pRINCE hARRY AND i THINK HE HAS BEEN HAPPIER IN aFGHANISTAN THANat any time in the past 10 and one half years. He is so his mother. I think he should be the next king
  • CenyddMorris, on 02/29/2008, -1/+20Prince Harry was not sent to Iraq after the publicity created when the idea was first mooted. The problems are explained here http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/?menuID=2&subID=1808 ...
    The propaganda to be gained by the enemy from the capture or killing of Harry would be enormous. I wonder if he will be whisked back to England now the story is out.
  • hauntedchippy, on 02/29/2008, -7/+84Brave man. He could've stayed at home and enjoy a life of luxury we can only dream about.
    • retzed, on 02/29/2008, -8/+9I'm guessing that he just wanted to get away from those Royals for a while.
      Afganistan > Camilla
      • MonarchWastxD, on 02/29/2008, -0/+1Wait! I accidentally dug you down! I hate Camilla too! *****. Anyone know how to reverse a digg?
    • blankoboy, on 02/29/2008, -6/+2If I was in his position I would have taken a stand against all this OR just sat back and enjoyed my riches.
  • LokitheComplex, on 02/29/2008, -14/+10If you're Royalty a lot of meaning in life must be limited. Your purpose is pre ordained. Harry being the spare means he must feel at a loose end therefore a chance to go and fight must be give a chance to really live.
    Though since I'm not into Royalty I worry it gives them more legitimacy. I'm very doubtful the war itself is serving much purpose.
    Still the can't say the troops will be overjoyed about working alongside the bullet magnet.
    • LokitheComplex, on 02/29/2008, -1/+2That was a mess but I do have a cold.
    • wideawakewesley, on 02/29/2008, -1/+5Actually having the Prince in your regiment boosts morale significantly. At least that's what all the troops on UK phone-ins are saying.
      • BabyWookie, on 03/01/2008, -0/+3Having a decadent, inbred royal prick in my regiment, wouldn't boost my morality.
  • CenyddMorris, on 02/29/2008, -3/+38Even if Harry is on his way back now the ***** storm that will be unleashed by the Taliban in Helmand province on the regular squaddies does not really bear thinking about. Well done Drudge.
    • LokitheComplex, on 02/29/2008, -1/+6Yes isn't this a bit like announcing visit by a US senator to Afghanistan that was making a secret visit for security reasons? Doesn't that count as treason?
      • ssn697, on 02/29/2008, -0/+11I'm not sure an American blogger, posting an Australian story, despite a U.K. media blackout agreement, will get a treason conviction.

        ***** moniker (like Drudge cares) yes, but treason?
        • LokitheComplex, on 02/29/2008, -0/+1I've heard it was reported elsewhere. So I guess he does have a get out there.
          My point was if someone else was publicising the security details of politicians it would possibly be a criminal act.
    • aaiden, on 02/29/2008, -8/+0Rubbish. You're thinking that the people they're fighting in Afghanistan are terrorists rather than what theu really are, guerrila type forces that have been fighiting for more than 3 centuries. The terrorists have left, or are only using Aghanistan to hide, not to fight regular army troops. Only terrorists care about trying to to take out one highly visible target in order to try and create public fear to get their opposition to leave. The people they're fighting now would only put that much effort into it if he was a strategic target, like the head of the army or some tactician that's kicking their asses. I doubt he's in any great danger as a result of a legitimate bit of reporting.
    • jm4847, on 02/29/2008, -4/+1Yeah blame the media for reporting a story.
  • Po0py, on 02/29/2008, -5/+92I hope this Drudge guy understands that he has just put hundreds of British soldiers at risk. Am I wrong in assuming that the Taleban will want to capitalize on this as much as they possibly can? I hope Drudge reports the deaths of British soldiers in the coming months as promptly as he reported this. What a complete ***** knuckleheaded thing to do. Journalistic integrity? Freedom of Information? At what cost?
    • jm4847, on 02/29/2008, -9/+2Why are you blaming Drudge? All he did was report the facts and unless he's living in Afghanistan, he's not the leak.
      • Beveridge89, on 02/29/2008, -1/+4Journalists have a responsiblity. One of them is not putting peoples lives in danger by what they report. Sure he's not the source, but that doesn't excuse him reporting it.
  • CenyddMorris, on 02/29/2008, -0/+19I think I jumped into this story too quickly. The real story, and it will run and run, is going to be http://Drudgereport.com breaking the embargoed news and the ethics of this. The balance of power in the media has shifted but the balance of responsibility has not. Sure this makes for great scoops by perceived media underdogs such as Drudge but his actions today could well have endangered the lives of others. We live in interesting times as the Chinese like to say.
  • sarahlea, on 02/29/2008, -21/+6"His conduct on operations in Afghanistan has been exemplary," Dannat added. "He has been fully involved in operations and has run the same risks as everyone else in his battle group." Source:
    http://www.egossip.com/celebrity/prince-harry-figh ...


    So I guess instead of getting drunk at home with army buddies he's drinking with them in Afghanistan? who honestly believes that the army lets him get into real danger? You know the guys he serves with have been told - risk yourself, save the prince
    • jm4847, on 02/29/2008, -3/+1You got buried by others for being realistic.
  • 3rdDay, on 02/29/2008, -9/+75Prince Harry has my respect. Matt Drudge is a an utter, utter ***** and always has been.
    • aaiden, on 02/29/2008, -16/+1He had a right to report the news. That's the way it works. The kids not in any danger as a result, just like he wasn't in any danger in teh first place.
      • eLbot, on 02/29/2008, -0/+9Are you thick? Are you not able to comprehend that the news that Harry was there is going to push up the intensity in the area regardless of whether or not it is now reported that he’s being pulled out? They’re going to think the claims he’s being pulled out are a lie, they’re not all going to read it firsthand on a computer screen; it’s going to filter down to them and they’re going to think its propaganda and that his head might still be worth the risk. Even if they don’t they’re going to take the risk and push more extremists into the area just on the off chance that he’s still there. Rogue elements will hear the news and push in without a second thought. Every soldier fighting in the vicinity is now at a much higher risk than they were, it’s almost a given that there will be extra deaths because of this leak so ask yourself this, is this stupid pricks extra website hits worth the death of a handful of soldiers, ‘is that the way it works’?
  • theculchie1, on 02/29/2008, -3/+42Drudge was so desperate for a scoop he was prepared to put and entire unit of men at risk to get it.

    All the major news outlets honoured the press embargo.

    I hope it was worth it Drudge.
    • anillop, on 02/29/2008, -1/+1Actually thats not true the story was released in Australia 3 days ago. Drudge is just reporting old news.
  • scotchegg78, on 02/29/2008, -24/+1Sure this Drudge guy leaked it, but All the UK press jumped on this and shouted it 1000x's louder , it could of very easily been discredited or ignored
    .
    BBC are as much to blame as him
    • scotchegg78, on 02/29/2008, -8/+1I have also just heard that an australian website leaked this in january and it was ignored?My guess is the BBC now have enough footage that they decided to run with this leak now and blow it all up.
    • LokitheComplex, on 02/29/2008, -0/+9Its clear the MOD knew that at some point the story would break. So the stories you are seeing in the MSM are those negotiated and produced with MOD's consent.
    • airiox, on 02/29/2008, -2/+3Drudge is the guy that leaked Monica Lewinsky, he is credible. No one would have tried to discredit him because it would have been futile in doing so.
  • streetsim, on 02/29/2008, -3/+14Now this guy can be a leader.
    • CressCrowbits, on 02/29/2008, -1/+1No he can't. He's the younger brother, remember? He'll never be king.
    • jm4847, on 02/29/2008, -4/+1lol @ people who think military experience has anything to do with politics.
  • diulei, on 02/29/2008, -2/+27This is what the US needs. When the White House and lawmakers declare war - the people sent first should be their children. That would put things into perspective, right?
    • jm4847, on 02/29/2008, -4/+3Their children? I got news for you, parents don't own their children and they can't force them to enlist. I get your point but it's a stupid one.
      • KataLieb, on 02/29/2008, -2/+1No, his point was a brilliant one, and yours was the stupid one. Why should others die for the leaders in the wars they start for their own profit? Why shouldnt they put their mouths where their money is, grab a gun themselves and go fight the goddamn wars with their own kids, not some poor black kids who were promised a free education when they come back - in a body bag.
        • jm4847, on 03/01/2008, -0/+1Because you cannot for your kids to enlist. They, the leaders, should go, but why their kids? I'm not responsible for what my parents do.
    • treyevans, on 03/01/2008, -0/+1well, lets do put it into perspective: all of McCain's son's are in the military, and he has supported the success of the Iraq war from the beginning.
    • SEN5241, on 03/01/2008, -0/+1It is retarded to say politicians should be forced to sacrifice their children in the military. We have a VOLUNTEER military. Anyone who enlists in the military does so willingly. If military service was compulsory, then you would have a point; but it's not, so pull your head out.
  • loganhid, on 02/29/2008, -21/+5I'd give him respect if he went against his commanders and said ''NO i will not take part in this illegal war''
  • mooseontheloose, on 02/29/2008, -12/+3And if Obama gets his way he'll probably send him to fight in Pakistan
    • CressCrowbits, on 02/29/2008, -0/+1How in any way does anything you just said make any sense?
  • dunderballer, on 02/29/2008, -1/+25I kinda feel bad for Prince Harry. He can't really participate in society without being gawked at, yet he will never get a chance at the throne, which is freaking pointless anyway.
    • billydisaster, on 02/29/2008, -0/+8Yeah, that kid's got it tough.
    • jm4847, on 02/29/2008, -1/+2Yeah poor guy. I feel so bad for him.
  • Arcesius, on 02/29/2008, -3/+10Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it tradition for the second-born son to go into the military?
    • mrhedges, on 02/29/2008, -0/+16Yes, but there's a difference between joining the military and actually fighting in a war.
    • kazamx, on 02/29/2008, -0/+22Yup, his Uncle Andrew fought in the Falklands war.

      There was a big fuss after the war was over and the truth about what happened came out. He was in the Navy and was a helicopter pilot. During an attack he was sent up and ordered to draw enemy fire on himself. He did this and had a high chance of being killed. He may very well have saved everyone on his ship.
    • aaiden, on 02/29/2008, -6/+1Maybe in your family. In mine I like to keep them all alive, not off shooting some irrelevant strangers for no real good reason
      • Arcesius, on 02/29/2008, -0/+4Ummm, I have no idea how you drew the conclusion that I was advocating your second-born son go to war, but that definitely wasn't what I was saying. Was just stating it, nothing more.
  • Mikhail101, on 02/29/2008, -2/+8I was at first going to make fun of him by saying its probably like mr burns fighting in WWII in that hellfish episode, but he has gained some of my respect, well done.
  • MrCharlie71, on 02/29/2008, -12/+2DIVERSION, THE PRIMARY STRATEGY
    Experience has proven that the simplest method of securing a silent weapon
    and gaining control of the public is to keep the public undisciplined and
    ignorant of basic systems and principles on the one hand, while keeping them
    confused, disorganized, and distracted with matters of no real importance on
    the other hand.

    This is achieved by: (1) disengaging their minds, sabotaging their mental
    activities, by providing a low quality program of public education in
    mathematics, logic, systems design, and economics, and by discouraging
    technical creativity. (2) engaging their emotions, increasing their
    self-indulgence and their indulgence in emotional and physical activities,
    by: (a) unrelenting emotional affrontations and attacks (mental and
    emotional rape) by way of a constant barrage of sex, violence, and wars in
    the media - especially the T.V. and the newspapers. (b) giving them what
    they desire - in excess -- `junk food for thought' -- and depriving them of
    what they really need. (3) rewriting history and law and subjecting the
    public to the deviant creation, thus being able to shift their thinking from
    personal needs to highly fabricated outside priorities.

    These preclude their interest in and discovery of the silent weapons of
    social automation technology. The general rule is that there is profit in
    confusion; the more confusion, the more profit. Therefore, the best approach
    is to create problems and then offer the solutions.
    • weeFred, on 02/29/2008, -1/+6The government really are trying to dumb us down, the post above is the evidence to prove it. This individual's reason and logical skills are so under developed that he is unable to successfully produce a comment that relates to the page he is posting on. He has become self indulgent to the point where he thinks other people care about his opinion on nonsensical matters. But what is most upsetting is that he does not realise that his mental activities have been sabotaged even though it is abundantly clear that his mind is totally disengaged.
  • borez, on 02/29/2008, -17/+4And so he should, what makes him so ***** special.
    • ThatGeek, on 02/29/2008, -1/+5He's a prince? He is third in line to the british throne? His mother was princess diana? There are a multitude of things that makes him "so ***** special"
  • siszam, on 02/29/2008, -3/+31This is special (though long overdue) because he's not at home playing polo or golf while citizens are asked to sacrifice their sons and daughter. The Bush twins should have been the first ones in Iraq. Every politician and citizen who supports the war should be forced to send their children to fight.
    • dildoolielly, on 02/29/2008, -4/+13NOT ONE REPUKE SENATOR HAS A SON IN IRAQ

      Not one of these warmongering sleazeballs has a child fighting in Iraq, yet they send other people's children to fight and die in the war of lies and special interests

      Does your child have a body bag with his name on it?!
      • nastronomical, on 02/29/2008, -7/+5McCain you ***** head.
        • cliffski, on 02/29/2008, -2/+3in Iraq? Fighting?
        • had3l, on 02/29/2008, -2/+3yes.
        • dildoolielly, on 03/01/2008, -0/+2---------McCain you ***** head.------------

          McCain's kid is not fighting in Iraq, you moron.

          Please, get past the Nazi "Talking Points" and remove your skull fvcked head from your ass, will ya'?!
    • sphigel, on 02/29/2008, -5/+3Yes, because parents should be able to force their 18 yr old sons and daughter to enlist. Do you understand how ***** stupid you sound? I think this issue is a little too emotional for you to think logically.
      • dildoolielly, on 03/01/2008, -0/+2Not ONE?! Not even ONE! These are the same assholes that send other people's children to die?!

        Do some research, for about twenty years then come back and post.

        We don’t want to hear any more of your ill informed garbage until then

        What is it like, having the brain of a two year old?
      • dildoolielly, on 03/01/2008, -0/+1BTW, the "heroic" Harry is already back, go figure
  • jlhoben, on 02/29/2008, -8/+4Nothing like war! Whoohoo! How is it that the West is always fighting the Vietcong, Sadaam Hussein, or the Taliban and never the People themselves? Isn't this what eventually happens - that these wars of "freedom" become wars against the populace which means that entire populations have to be wiped out or wars of attrition fought? Wake up.
    • KataLieb, on 02/29/2008, -0/+1Seems the majority here likes wars and manufactured hero figures. And they seem to like fairytales of Good fighting Evil as well.
      Just look at what kind of comments get dugg.
  • dildoolielly, on 02/29/2008, -0/+17Time to draft the two drunk skanks
  • dildoolielly, on 02/29/2008, -3/+14Prince Harry's last words...

    "Damn you, GEORGE AWOL ***** CHICKENHAWK COWARD BUSH!"
    • Erythroxylum, on 02/29/2008, -4/+9In your dreams - he's a soldier in the British Army, not a handwringing, bedwetting, morally relativistic, snivelling turd/Liberal.
      Anyway, they'd better pull him out now before the BBC give his position to the Taliban.
      • kazamx, on 02/29/2008, -8/+5Your a dick
      • dildoolielly, on 03/01/2008, -0/+2----------------"In your dreams - he's a soldier in the British Army, not a handwringing, bedwetting, morally relativistic, snivelling turd/Liberal".----------------------

        You know, its funny you say that. Deny it all you want but Harry IS fighting because of George W. Bush.

        But what would you know, you're still living in a fantasy world Corkey, where countless deaths in Iraq are the invention of a 'liberal' media, where the insurgency is comprised of al Qaeda operatives, who had long ago infiltrated Saddam's Iraq, and where MISSION ACCOMPLISHED was attained two years ago, and everything since then has been the advent of democracy. And they say libs are dreamers....

        Let's assume for a moment that every member of the American military voted for bush...that leaves roughly 60,000,000 republicans who AREN'T serving...now let's say half that number are too old or disabled to serve...that leaves 30,000,000 con's content to sit on their a$$es while our troops are extended, put on stop-loss or re-called to duty...30,000,000 who either DON"T support their president and his war for oil or are too COWADRLY to serve...that's pretty pathetic

        And if you war mongering assholes won't join up at least get training as florists to help us deal with all the flowers the iraqis are throwing us.

        and btw, ac1bd USN retired 77-99 and never missed a flight physical, so save all that "what have you done for your country" crap for somebody else
  • Xero10, on 02/29/2008, -18/+1Are you kidding me do you think they would really put him in the front lines? I bet he doesn't go on patrol or do basic soldiers task. I'm Sure hes staying close the the lt's and others. Feel free to prove me wrong.
    • Butros, on 02/29/2008, -0/+7Bet he's doing more than you!
    • groovechamp30, on 02/29/2008, -0/+5He was on foot patrol. Hes a prince for gods sake thats pretty impressive.
    • tk0680, on 02/29/2008, -0/+2Gotta decipher whatever the hell you said first ..
  • nastronomical, on 02/29/2008, -7/+4And the caffeined up beta males of Digg are in a tizzy. While gnashing your teeth and cursing war realize all of you put together wouldnt equal 1% of him. Beta males go back to drinking your latte.
    • LokitheComplex, on 02/29/2008, -0/+3Technically speaking a world full of "Alpha" males would not work.
    • electronicsrob, on 02/29/2008, -0/+1Less beta males more omega males, the ones everyone picks on!
    • KataLieb, on 02/29/2008, -0/+1The real alpha males see this war for what it is. And stay far away from anything the USA or Britain is doing.
      Narco business has emerged as virtually the only economy of Afghanistan and is valued at some $10 billion a year. Opium trade is estimated by the U.N. to be equivalent to 53 per cent of the country’s official economy and is helping to finance the Taliban."
      When Russia backed the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan to crush the Taliban and Al Qaeda in the post-9/11 scenario, the last thing it expected to happen was that drug trafficking from Afghanistan would assume gargantuan proportions under the U.S. military. Since 2001, poppy fields, once banned by the Taliban, have mushroomed again. According to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Afghanistan produced 8,200 tonnes of opium last year, enough to make 93 per cent of the world’s heroin supply.

      The U.S.-led North Atlantic Treaty Organisation [NATO] forces in the country have not only failed to eliminate the terrorist threat from the Taliban, but also presided over a spectacular rise in opium production. Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Afghanistan was on the brink of becoming a “narco state”.

      http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va& ...

      "
  • menuhin, on 02/29/2008, -8/+1"Taleban"?
    They are setting up some fake game for this kid
  • ButchersBoy, on 02/29/2008, -2/+8Good on the man. He's had his fun, now he's growing up and finding a role for himself in this world. Big-up Wils and H.
    • amnezia22, on 02/29/2008, -1/+7Please refrain from use the the phrase "Big-up". It damages brain cells.
  • nilcontact, on 02/29/2008, -8/+1Do you people also see those poor houses in video. No one lives there. I am sure there were many happy families inside those homes some day back. Stop all wars.
    • nastronomical, on 02/29/2008, -6/+1Liberal idiot!
      • aaiden, on 02/29/2008, -1/+1.... otherwise known as someone that can use their brain
        • schnikies79, on 02/29/2008, -0/+1It only works if both side are willing.
    • schnikies79, on 02/29/2008, -0/+1Yep, long before the Taliban took over Afghanistan.
  • error792, on 02/29/2008, -29/+2WHO ***** CARES

    Royal family is not news. Then again, neither is the BBC.
  • Lanefair, on 02/29/2008, -3/+2I wonder what else the press is keeping from us. You know, apart from the truth about the media. . .
  • MyDiggIsBig, on 02/29/2008, -5/+3The British call it Taleban?
  • ZenMojo, on 02/29/2008, -11/+3Harry's been evacuated. I'm almost curious if the story was leaked so the Royals could pull him out prematurely.
    • Angostura, on 02/29/2008, -0/+5And why would they do that? They could just pull him out if they wanted to without all the fuss.
    • LokitheComplex, on 02/29/2008, -1/+1If he was killed the appeal of Royalty would go up.
    • groovechamp30, on 02/29/2008, -0/+2Doubt it...that wouldnt really make sense.
    • aaiden, on 02/29/2008, -3/+0Yea absolutely. Grandma leaked it so she could get him back safe after he'd had his fun. Win win situation. He wins cos he got to go play soldier for a bit. She wins cos she didn't have to forbid him and he's safe. The royals win cos it's good publicity. The army wins cos it's good publicity. Beautiful
  • ansatsu29, on 02/29/2008, -1/+12at least Prince Harry gets what he wants to do...however, some STUPID sites disclosed his location...that sucks...
  • mnmleon, on 02/29/2008, -6/+1What's the big deal? Princes have been dying in combat longer than big media and the internet has been around. He is doing his bit for his country and now he is going to get shipped back because people know? hahaha. toughen up.
    • Technofrood, on 02/29/2008, -0/+6You seem to be forgetting about the other people in his regiment, who would also be at risk considering he would be a very high priority target for the Tailban.
      • mnmleon, on 02/29/2008, -3/+1how would they even know? do you think he is on the front line, in the line of fire? i would be surprised.
        *He is acting as a tactical air controller - calling up allied air cover in support of ground forces. / He also goes out on foot patrols. *
        That's all they had to say about it.
        • Christerray, on 02/29/2008, -0/+5Tactical Air Controllers are infantry capable of calling in close proximity to ground forces. An easy example that you might be familiar with would be the Air Force CCT in the movie Transformers who calls in the Air Strikes against the scorpion robot.

          Prince Harry is in the ***** on the front lines, and for a VIP like that do it, I have absolute respect for him. Anyone serving in the military isn't automatically a hero, but to toss aside an easy life to get in the mud with your fellow countryment regardless of your opinion of war, those are the real heroes.
          • mnmleon, on 03/01/2008, -0/+1I agree, but i just want to know with what happened to leading by example and having courage to stand up? and they're already shipping him off? where are we headed?

            and i didn't see transformers..
      • adnams, on 02/29/2008, -0/+4apparently his nickname among his regiment is "Bullet magnet", i wouldnt wanna be near him out there!
  • Lancey, on 02/29/2008, -17/+1I call B.S. on this whole thing. Not so long ago there were several stories in the UK press about the Ministry of Defence being worried that Afghanistan was a 'forgotten war' and the British public didn't know or care what was happening out there (and it's kind of true, sad to say, it doesn't get the same coverage as Iraq and I bet most people here probably don't even know our troops are still fighting a real war out there). By sending a high profile royal into combat, they must have known that in this day and age the so called press blackout would eventually have been broken, if not by a UK source then definitely a foreign media outlet.

    So now the TV news is suddenly full of these very polished segments showing this popular young royal out there 'bravely doing his duty' just like the other common grunts, and hey-presto - the whole country gets a nice high profile reminder of the Afghan war, and the MoD gets that much-needed boost of public support.

    That said, I'm not a fan of the royal family (seems like stupid and outdated concept to me) but I do now have more respect for Harry.
    • cliffski, on 02/29/2008, -0/+5not true, there is coverage every day on the British media of the Afghanistan war, before this story.
    • ButchersBoy, on 02/29/2008, -1/+5"I'm not a fan of the royal family", go f*** off then, they are part of our heritage.
      • Lancey, on 02/29/2008, -2/+2Try not to be such a complete spack BB - slavery, imperialism, mass murder and concentration camps (check out what we did to Dutch settlers in the Boer war*) are all part of "our heritage" and were carried out in the name of our royal family. You proud of that stuff? You think only sniveling subservient peasants who unquestioningly idolise the royal family have the right to call themselves British? This is just as much my country as anybody elses, and I say the sooner we shake off the retarded idea that royalty is born with a divine right to power, the better this place will be.

        *http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/empire/episode ...
        • Beveridge89, on 02/29/2008, -1/+1The current monarchy have nothing to do with any of those things. They're just a better alternative to having a President.
        • KataLieb, on 02/29/2008, -0/+1Insight like yours is uncalled for here. Dont you see most people here like wars? It makes them feel warm and fuzzy inside to know that people are being killed in their name. And in the name of their beloved monarchy, after all, an unelected king or queen is better than an unelected president any day.
  • ScaredCrab, on 02/29/2008, -10/+1Of course it's BS...who gives a crap about fighting the "Taleban"?
  • robbothan, on 02/29/2008, -0/+16Respect to Prince Harry, shame drudge report couldn't see the honour behind not reporting the news. Afterall so much of our media is corrupt and desperate for that headline - well drudge after exposing so many corrup celebs i think you've just exposed yourself as that which you pursue.
    I hope Harry continues to serve, its a reminder to both our ruling class and other countries that all should serve their country and "muck in" - hopefully its the SAS next Harry - then the news blackout will be legally enforced!
  • ePlus, on 02/29/2008, -4/+1*Taliban
    • groovechamp30, on 02/29/2008, -0/+8The spelling is arbitrary, its just a "closest sounding match" to the original Urdu word.
    • tk0680, on 02/29/2008, -0/+5*Nuc-U-Lar
  • foxtrot3, on 02/29/2008, -1/+20Drudge you suck! What in the name of all that's holy compelled you to break this story???
    The kid is out there doing his job, a job he WANTS to do. You haven't made anybody happy,
    all you've done is make life more dangerous for Harry and his mates. I hope you're proud of yourself.
  • ToscaDisco, on 02/29/2008, -19/+3I don't get what the big deal is
    a) Why do I care about Harry being in Afghanistan. Aren't we past the days where people are important because by an accident of birth they were born into a royal family that has no real rights to be of any importance in a democracy. They're irrelevant people, they're all a bit dim witted and they have vast fortunes that is made up partly from wealth and land that their ancestors initially STOLE through force from other people to become "royal", the rest being made up of TAXES that we were FORCED to pay for centuries
    b) I wish I could get to go "play war" in a nice safe bit of Afghanistan for 10 weeks. No years of gruelling training, a handy exit when 10 weeks are up so I can go back to the safety of my own country, all my peers and officers HAVE to keep me alive or their future careers and standing the army are *****, a nice bunch of Gurkhas to keep me safe and a nice safe bit of Afghanistan to play around in for a while
    c) Why shouldn't the media report on this? They apparently have a right to nose in and report on any aspect of any other person life but not some snotty privileged-by-birth royal. Why? That's *****.
    d) Why do I get to watch 20 minutes of Harry poncing about Afghanistan (safely strolling around more like) on primetime news but I don't get to find out how many real British soldiers died that week, or what their lives were about or anything about real soldiers doing real fighting (for their lives) rather than going on some grand ***** tour

    Bollocks to royals, bollocks to the simpering media for conspiring with them and the government to hide this irrelevant bit of news for so many months, bollocks to any of you that think he's in any danger or give a ***** about the kid
  • pigfister, on 02/29/2008, -11/+4who cares, its all just propaganda to enrol more 16 year old school leavers to join up in the forces to be pawns for the governments foreign policy of stealing oil, gas, ect and slaughtering thousands of innocent ppl.

    http://www.thedossier.ukonline.co.uk/
  • dturnbull, on 02/29/2008, -10/+4lets all praise the ***** who can point and shoot a gun far more advanced than their enemies weapons
    • eigenweasel, on 02/29/2008, -1/+1^Never fired an SA-80.

      On the other hand, most of the Afghan AK-47s come (via their friends in Pakistan's ISS) from China. So perhaps the Taleban will all die of lead paint poisoning whether we fight them or not.
  • alanr19, on 02/29/2008, -7/+6I think its irresponsible to leave him out there fighting the taliban single handedly while all the other lazy soldiers have gone home. After all i saw hours of footage last night and it was only Harry that was doing all the fighting.
    • Kyrceck, on 02/29/2008, -0/+0"Hey, I know exactly what's going on in the world, I watched it on CNN."
      You ***** tool, the soldiers around Harry are just as brave as he is, the camera crews don't really give a ***** about them though, unfortunately. Celebrity = camera time, *****.
  • shedtroll, on 02/29/2008, -4/+3The media was irresponsible in disclosing this to the world...

    THE MEDIA FAILS!
  • tacotortilla, on 02/29/2008, -8/+1Oh, who cares about Harry Pothead
  • sdigroup, on 02/29/2008, -2/+2its PR for his cushy future
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 78 of 78 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.