British media supporting the War

Yeah. Like anyone actually believes that headline, right?

The British Ministry of Defense just announced that, in light of specific and credible intelligence, they're not allowing Prince Harry to go to Iraq as planned. Some of the "insurgents" there had already stated that they would know when he arrived, and would make his capture or death a priority.

If you read the article, it's clear how the Idiot from the newspaper feels. He's pissed off that not only is Harry not going, but the media played a role in stopping it, since they've apparently been announcing to anyone that cares when and where he would be going, and even what type of vehicle his unit is equipped with, as is suggested by this excerpt:

However, any insurgent group intent on targeting the prince would have plenty of other ways of knowing (including via the MoD's website) that his regiment was the Blues and Royals of the Household Cavalry and that its specific task was to carry out reconnaissance in ageing Scimitar armoured vehicles.

As I read it, the media has been announcing all of this, likely for months, and the jackass writing the article wanted to mention it again, just to be clear.

Further, if you notice, it's only those people who lost sons in Iraq and are opposed to the decision by the MoD that get mentioned in the article. I suspect that there are some folks out there that feel that not risking a member of the Royal Family is a Good Thing, and who also lost family there. But they never get quoted, of course.

One part of my brain says that this is just editing- you ask a bunch of people that lost family members in the War, and pick out only those who feel Harry should be sent. But in reality, I don't think that's the case. More likely, the people at the newspaper know certain people who meet the criteria here- lost a relative in Iraq, think Harry should go, and oppose the War- and thus make sure not to take any chances by interviewing people randomly.

As an aside, I recall reading an example of this technique a year or so ago. Somebody was reading an article in "the newspaper of record" and thought the name of a person quoted as a "man on the street" seemed familiar. He did some digging and found that this person
had been a Man on the Street several times before. Always saying the right things for the articles. Interesting, huh? Never gets mentioned by the newspaper, though.

At any rate, the "journalist" here makes a final dig. He admits that there's a propaganda side to this:

The MoD was also acutely aware that a decision not to let him go could be seen as a propaganda victory for those who promised to track down the prince.

But the brave media, who after all are the primary defenders of Individual Rights and Democracy (and if you don't believe it, ask them) are more than willing to give the terrorists the propaganda victory. In fact, it seems that the media is just too arrogant to believe that they're being played here. As usual. The terrorists know how the whole media game works. They've been using the western media all along. And here's yet another example.

I'm guessing this story doesn't die down for a little while.

Regardless of whether one thinks that a Royal prince should be exposed to the same dangers as others- and honestly, I lean towards thinking he should- the MoD makes an excellent point here. By the very fact of Harry's presence, he would increase the risks to his soldiers and comrades. Remember, we aren't dealing with normal people here, like those Argentinians that opposed the Brits- and young Harry's Uncle Andrew. These "insurgents" are perfectly willing to kill women and children in order to lure American and British soldiers into an ambush. Is there any reason to consider whether they would take any chance to destroy a British vehicle, in order to get this one person? The article has a quote from one of the terrorist leaders (amazing how the press can find them, but our soldiers can't), which suggests to me that they would launch suicide attacks on the bases where he would have been stationed.

So if Harry had gone, there would have been increased attacks on the British forces. These attacks would have caused increased casualties, regardless of whether they got him. Which the media would no doubt have used as an argument for withdrawal: After all, they would point out, the number of British casualties has increased in the last (whatever period of time). So it't time to pull out.

And nowhere would they have mentioned why this increase took place, unless it was in the context of "the evil military sent Harry over there, thus putting the lives of innocent soldiers at increased risk".

Ugh. These journalists make me ill. There's a reason why I almost never read newspapers anymore.

Later.