I know this is about Afghanistan and if it needs to be moved then please move it. But why aren't you folks pissed off as well. Personally, I could care less about the Royal Family but Prince Harry appears to be serving admirably and faithfully and doing some serious fighting against the Taliban.

Didn't Matt Drudge (Sludge if you ask me) reveal military secrets and put Prince Harry and all of his comrades in Harm's Way? Did they not compromise a major initiative against the Taliban?
Where's the outrage. I hope your government initiates some kind of action. This is disgusting? if a left wing publication like commondreams or moveon.org or Billy himself disclosed this kind of information, there would be calls for blood!! Get angry folks!

The New York Times
Printer Friendly Format Sponsored By

February 29, 2008
Harry Withdrawn From Afghanistan
By SARAH LYALL

LONDON — The defense ministry announced on Friday that Prince Harry, the third in line to the British throne, would have to come home from Afghanistan because it was too risky for him to stay there.

Harry, 23, has been in Helmand Province with the British Army since December with the knowledge of most of the Britsh new media, who agreed to keep the news secret for security reasons. Details of his deployment only became widely known when they were reported by The Drudge Report on Thursday and the British media decided that the agreement was off.

The defense ministry said in a statement that although Harry had been expected to remain in Afghanistan for a few more weeks with his unit from the Household Cavalry Regiment Battlegroup, “the situation has now clearly changed.” As a result, the chief of the defense staff, Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup, had decided “to withdraw Prince Harry from Afghanistan immediately,” the ministry said.

“This decision has been taken primarily on the basis that the worldwide media coverage of Prince Harry in Afghanistan could impact on the security of those who are deployed there, as well as the risks to him as an individual soldier,” the statement added.

The ministry also asked that the news media refrain from reporting or speculating on where Prince Harry is right now, what time he would come home and what route he would take.

The awkwardly timed dissemination of the prince’s whereabouts had several immediate repercussions. Politicians including Prime Minister Gordon Brown and the Conservative leader, David Cameron, leapt all over one another in lavishing praise on Prince Harry, 23. British reporters whipped out their notebooks and unleashed into the public domain all the interviews and video scenes of him discussing his deployment, wearing fatigues and firing his machine gun that they had been saving for later.

And Gen. Sir Richard Dannatt, chief of the general staff of the army, said he was “very disappointed” that “foreign Web sites” had thoughtlessly posted the story without asking for permission.

“This is in stark contrast to the highly responsible attitude that the whole of the U.K. print and broadcast media, along with a small number of overseas, who have entered into an understanding with us over the coverage of Prince Harry on operations,” General Dannatt said in a statement.

The prince, who graduated from the Sandhurst military academy and was denied the chance to go to Iraq when the army said it was too risky, has been working as a battlefield air controller in Afghanistan since December, the army said.

Mr. Brown said that “the whole of Britain will be proud of the outstanding service he is giving.” General Dannatt said Prince Harry’s conduct had been “exemplary.” In a series of interviews with the news media given during his deployment but not released until now, Prince Harry revealed that he had not washed in four days and that he was enjoying a life of seminormalcy among regular soldiers.

Describing how he felt when he learned he was to be sent to Afghanistan, he said, “A bit of excitement, a bit of ‘phew,’ finally, get the chance to actually do the soldiering that I wanted to do ever since I joined, really.”

Well I'm not pissed. I watched the news last night and I got the impression that Harry was on a jolly.
He's a young man, and I understand where he was coming from, but seeing him talking to camera with a pistol straped to the middle of his chest armour, firing a heavy machine gun for the cameras, chucking smoke grenades to mark landing positions for helecopters, wearing his little coloured wrist band and trying to look generally macho , left me feeling that he wasn't probably bringing that much to his unit.
It was more about him, and his desire to be ''blooded'' - so when hes back partying in London, he can feel he's been and done the business.
As I say, I don't hold it against him. I used to be a ''weekend warrior'' when I was his age, and I used to fancy my self as a tough Para. (But I wasn't a real Para, and wasn't really that tough).

Anyway, I don't know what to think of what the British army are doing in Afghanistan. The Americans just love to bomb from the air, and must be killing a lot of civilians. But even killing Taliban leaves me decidedly unhappy. I suppose I need to read some informed comment on Afghanistan, so if anyone knows of some good recent analysis I'd be glad to have it pointed out to me.

And Jon Snow of Channel 4 is usually somone I have a lot of time for, but I thought he was a bit of a prat last night for saying he was shocked to hear the British press had agreed to keep Harry's deployment secret. Where was the democracy and free speech in that he asked.
But Harry shouldn't be in the army. At least not posted overseas to combat situations.

So, Harry then, what do you think of all the tour of duty nonsense?

Cheers, Andy.

Because he's a cunt.

Probably not.

Because he's still a cunt.

Heh, get me, posting in the *ahem* serious bit.

Actally Mos, that was exactly the answer I was looking for, but was afraid to ask.

Cheers, Andy.

You're wrong actually. He's a Villa cunt.

Come on there guys , a cunt is a useful thing.

I'm just wondering if I've missed sumat in the last few days cus I could have sworn the chappy doing his bit in Afghanistan was Harry.

I think matt drudge is a wanker.

(going to regret this)

Why?

I think because if the bad guys (you know, the really really bad ones)find out where he is then he becomes a target - more of a target than he is already by just being there in camo pants. And I guess that means his mates become potential collateral damage. And I guess his grandma is worried about losing him?

Why no debate - couldn't give a shit really.

Matt Drudge is a cunt.

nuff said.

I only know the name Drudge from other chats in other places, he seems like a nice-enough Miami based millionaire who spends a lot of time recycling other peoples words and making money out them.

I seem to recall that New Idea (Oz mag) and a German paper wrote about Harry serving, Grudge was third on list of people reporting, but clearly has a higher circulation than the previous 2 publications.

Anyway, wasn't his dad a major in the Household Cavalry?

He certainly looks like him

Ditto, and ditto.

The only thing worth caring about is Drudge endangered the lives of everybody in his unit. For a cheap ass story. My brothers and sisters, Drudge is the cunt.

And I don't give a flying fuck which royal they send out on a tour of duty - bring all of them home!

i think he is a good man, fighting for his country, its a shame he had to come home, he was making his family and himself proud.

bollocks.

except the royal

Yeah Martyn, state of me, that's what I meant. Sorry about that. Have edited accordingly.

Whilst it's easy for us, as anti royalists/anti war, to dismiss this issue in one sentence, I'm of the opinion that it opens up some areas of debate.

For example, while I was/am vehemently opposed to the war in Afghanistan/Iraq/on terror, I find it incredible that they (the MOD etc) would want to do anything (more than what they are doing) to endanger the lives of soldiers already out there, which I think this stunt did. Furthermore, it's a sad state of affairs when they go to great expense to massage the ego of one twat, so he can go around telling everyone "I was there", when some of our soldiers have been killed due to underfunding/lack of equipment. It's a marvelous of the insignificance of the royal family when the situation would have been better off had they not existed.

I agree with Jon. Bring em back, leave the royal there.

Cheers, Andy

I say the the **** out of Iraq NOW ... but aren't so sure about Afghanistan. Or do you want people to be killed because they hummed a tune or women to be denied any schooling or most rights.

I'd say it's a double edged sword in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

Clearly the presence of the NATO/US/UK troops in both countries are in part responsible for the continuing conflicts. But equally - neither country is capable of providing security themselves - Iraq would be overrun by the Mehdi Army and Afghanistan by the Taliban.

I'd say Iraq should have an Arab League peacekeeping force (paid for by the US).

Afghanistan is trickier - winning the hearts and minds of the Taliban is the key - many of whom are not really Taliban. But to be honest Afghanistan is less the problem than Pakistan - which is totally fucked.

It's kind of a superfluous question Red Star (or can I call you Red?). I doubt for one moment that you'd actually believe anyone, let alone me, would want anyone killed for anything like that. Crickey, I'm opposed to the death penalty full stop (with the exception of Man U supporters), wherever in the world you are. Having said that there are an incredible amount of countries (China for example) that kill people for doing things we don't think they should be killed for, however, far from bomb the hell out of them, we actually trade and promote good relations with them (of course, by we I refer to our government). What no one does, in those circumstances, is advocate war with them. We don't go to war with China, because we'd get hammered, but we can with developing world countries cause we wouldn't.

Cheers, Andy.

The professed concern for women's rights in Afghanistan is a load of lies designed to get the gullible supporting the war there.

If we cared about women's rights in Afghanistan we wouldn't have armed the mujahadeen (from which the Taliban evolved) in the first place.

Drudge is a waste of space. Even more than the royals. And that's saying something.

"Furthermore, it's a sad state of affairs when they go to great expense to massage the ego of one twat, so he can go around telling everyone "I was there", when some of our soldiers have been killed due to underfunding/lack of equipment."

Amen. The time, effort and money spent on giving certain members of the royal family the illusion of a career is nauseating enough, but putting all those other soldiers into grave danger in order to indulge one person's vanity is quite shocking.

My favourite thing was when Harry was saying that he doesn't really like England. Excellent. Take yourself off the civil list and fuck off to wherever you like.

It's a pretty safe bet the pictures were leaked purposely to get him home.
No doubt the poor boy was missing home comforts and cried out at the first opportunity, days later, he's home.
Sad thing is, for the rest of his life people will refer to him as having served in the army, yeah whatever.

I agree it used cynically by the warmongers.

However - women's rights in both Iraq and Afghanistan are, I think, a major concern (which I know you share). God forbid the Taliban ever get control again. And in Iraq women now have far fewer freedoms than they did under Saddam.

I think the question is how we can work to stem Islamism in order to secure women their rights. I don't think warfare is the answer - it's not exactly worked so far, has it?



I think that's bollocks.

Martyn's post remains a mystery (to me).

With every respect and with no particular desire to be pedantic Rob, it's not Islamism that needs to be stemmed, it's the misinterpretation of Islam that does. Most religions are not all that kind to women, but Islam is one of the more liberating, some people might be suprised to learn.

Cheers, Andy.

Are you saying that Islamists are just poor misrepresented souls?

You've said this before Andy and my only response then, as now is...

If you say so.

Women's lib in Islam - but of course!

No I'm not Rob. I'm saying that there are those who misinterpret Islam which results in some of the horrific things we see SOME Islamists do.

And I've said that before too.

Cheers, Andy.

And I couldn't disagree more.

SOME Islamists? I don't understand. Please note that I use the word Islamist deliberately - the adherents of political Islam - I have no wish to tar all muslims with the fundamentalist brush.

Islamists should be held responsible for their own actions. They hate everything that the west stands for. They hate liberation and enlightenment. They have a medieval world view and they should be opposed totally. And I mean ALL Islamists.

Political Islam is akin to Fascism as far as I am concerned - in fact its early writers even borrowed from the Nazis.

And I don't know who exactly you think is misrepresenting Islam and quite how that will lead to terrorist attacks.

The point is Sarah, that while the things that liberate women in Islam don't necessarilly fit in with our western concept of liberation/rights/equality for women, in the context of religion Islam has significant rules to protect the rights of women. Therefore, considering that many religions treat women very unfairly, I don't think we go to war with Islam, over womens rights, we go to war with those who misinterpret Islam in that regard. If that were not so we would be at war with pretty much all religious groups.

Cheers, Andy.

I find it unbelievable that anyone on the 'left' would even begin to defend Sharia law.

It's obvious you won't understand if you fail to define "Islamist" correctly. According to the dictionaries I just looked at it means, "noun: a believer or follower of Islam" (ie, a Muslim).



But that's exactly what you are doing. If you had said "political Islamist" in the first place then I would have better understood who you were talking about.



I really do think we're not fully understanding each others language here Rob. I just can't see where I was defending Sharia law. As far as I'm aware I'm only defending Islam. Is this a case of not being able to seperate the two things?

Cheers, Andy.

I suggest you get a more up to date dictionary. Islamist is common parlance for a follower of Political Islam or Islamism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamist



No it isn't and you know it. How about answering some of the substantive questions I asked instead of trying to accuse me of doing things I haven't done.





If you aren't talking about Sharia law then I have no idea of what you mean by 'rules to protect the rights of women'.

Which rules are these?

Yes because stoning a woman to death because she was raped is such a significant rule to protect women, isn't it?
Defending a religion, any religion, on its pathetic attempts to "protect" women is utter utter bullshit because no religion is doing that.

If we're not talking about "western concepts of liberation/rights/equality for women" then we aren't talking about those things at all.

Head scarfs - so very liberating...

[quote name='barmyrob' date='Mar 7 2008, 01:34 PM' post='242412']
I suggest you get a more up to date dictionary. Islamist is common parlance for a follower of Political Islam or Islamism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamist [/quote]

Wikipedia hmmm.

[quote name='barmyrob' date='Mar 7 2008, 01:34 PM' post='242412']How about answering some of the substantive questions I asked instead of trying to accuse me of doing things I haven't done.[/quote]

OK, you asked this question.

[quote name='barmyrob' date='Mar 7 2008, 01:34 PM' post='242412']Are you saying that Islamists are just poor misrepresented souls?[/quote]

I answered that one.

And this one, although without the correct punctuation I wasn't sure whether you were being rhetorical or not.

[quote name='barmyrob' date='Mar 7 2008, 01:34 PM' post='242412']And I don't know who exactly you think is misrepresenting Islam and quite how that will lead to terrorist attacks.[/quote]

Err Al-Quaida, the Taliban, maybe Hamas I can't be sure.

I can't seem to find any more "substantive questions" in your posts so far.

[quote name='barmyrob' date='Mar 7 2008, 01:34 PM' post='242412']If you aren't talking about Sharia law then I have no idea of what you mean by 'rules to protect the rights of women'.[/quote]

Which rules are these?
[/quote]

OK, so "rules" was perhaps the wrong word to use, but there is much in the Quoran that sets out significant elements of what rights women are entitled to.

Sharia law, specifically in regard to womens rights, according to my understanding, does not truly reflect what the quoran says about such issues.

Your language, if you don't mind me saying so, Rob, is more akin to that used by those who advocate war with the Arab world than I would expect from someone on the "left".

Cheers, Andy.

See, herein lies the rub - why are women, specifically, only entitled to some rights?
Why not all rights? Why, infact, does this need to be split out for men and women?

Andy, if you don't mind me saying so, sound like an apologist for the oppression of women, much more so than I would expect of someone on the left.

Sarah,

I'm not saying that Islam is liberating for women per se, surely you know that of me at least. I was just pointing out that the Quoran does make concessions to womens rights, perhaps more than some might think. I certailnly wouldn't advocate living by those rules or anything close to it.

What I would seek to do though is to try and seperate what it says in the Quoran from what it is interpreted as in some quarters of the Muslim world.

Cheers, Andy.

Indeed:



I could go on....



Which concessions Andy?

Why try and defend the undefendable?

As Sarah rightly says - why should men and women's rights be any different?



But they don't misrepresent Islam.

Their beliefs and justifications ALL come directly from the Quran and the Hadith.

That isn't misrepresentation - it is literalism for sure - but that is not the same thing.

Then why keep defending it? Religion is utter utter bullshit, some of them have only just about come out of the dark ages, but others are still firmly there (Catholicism and Islam for starters) so saying "but Islam is alright really, its occasionally quite nice to women, even gives them a few rights here on there" is just absurd.

As Barmy said, why keep defending the indefensible?

But Rob, I'm not saying they should be.



It is the same thing when you consider that the vast majority of 21st century Muslims know where and when to separate the meanings within the Quran from the archaic language it was originally written in. That's why so many people can get away with so much in Christianity. To use it literally is, therefore, a misrepresentation of the Islamic world.

Oh and Sarah, regarding your headscarves comment, this might interest you, or not as the case may be.

Liberation by the Veil

Cheers, Andy.

Who are you to say it is a misrepresentation? Who are you to say what the intent of the original writers were? Who are you (or indeed who is anyone) to say what the correct interpretation is?

How is anyone supposed to interpret the following other than literally?



A Hamas suicide bomber's interpretation is as valid as anyone elses interpretation. There are no right and wrong interpretations - each takes what they want from it.

Indeed I'd probably agree with Sam Harris that actually it's the fundamentalists that are closer to believing what the early adherents believed than modernists and reformers.




Do you really buy this misogynist drivel?

What is the fucking obsession the Abrahamic religions have with female sexuality.

And can I just say how offensive I find it as a man that we are viewed in this bizarre worldview as sex made depraved animals, incapable of anything but lusting after women.



Patronising, sexist wank.

What Barmy said.

Which brings me back to my original point. You defined (not in so many words) Islamists as those who subjugate women. I took issue with that on the basis that the vast majority of Islamists don't take the literal view, as adopted by certain groups of Islamists. I felt it was important that you were directing your vitriol at the right people as opposed to the whole world of Islam which includes some who are personal friends.



No I don't (whether you can bring yourself to believe that or not), however, many Muslim women do, including the women who wrote the books much of this article is quoted from. Surely they have a right to, don't they?

As far as the "fucking obsession" with female sexuality goes. I guess it's the same obsession the secular western world media has with it.

Cheers, Andy.

Again. To reiterate. An Islamist is someone who follows Islamism. Islamists do believe in the subjugation of women.

I'd be very surprised if they'd hang around with you (unless you are in Respect of course - in which case you'd be one of their useful idiots).

And to reiterate - political Islam is akin to Fascism.



They have every right to be stupid. But they are just reiterating a misogynist worldview however they try and wrap it up.

Well I guess we'll have to agree to disagree then because your definition of Islamist doesn't correspond with mine or those Islamists who have just told me so, therefore, this debate will just continue to go round in circles.

Anyway, that Harry, what a twat.

Cheers, Andy.