WHL rocks Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 The Coward Prince. When enemy attacked the base he was at the Coward flew away to a safe location. But he finds joy in killing ppl from far away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WHL rocks Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 Consider the source of the comments against Harry....... that pretty much says it all. You can take any comment out of context and turn it to suit your own personal agenda. And the Taliban have their own agenda to be sure. Filing it under BS, along with everything that comes from the Taliban. They have some gall bringing up 'cowardice'......this from a group so petrified of women becoming stronger and smarter that they throw acid in the faces of preteen girls.......uh huh, ok......as I said, consider the source. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOMapleLaughs Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 Honestly, we haven't seen a full-out 'non-coward' war since WW2. It was also the bloodiest war to date. Now we have wars which insurgents hide in their bunkers waiting for troops to come by and trip over their roadside bombs, but those troops are instead hiding in their bunkers waiting for insurgents to pop out of their bunkers so they can fall victim to video game-guided hellfire missile attack. Both sides are indeed fighting in a cowardly fashion. Both sides are also smart. The alternative, going out and facing your enemy head-on, usually means a quick death. Could you imagine, though, how big of a massacre an all-out WW3 would be? Even without nukes, the death count in a next world war would be astounding. The are just so many ways to kill people these days. But on that note, i don't think WW3 is going to happen, at least not an 'all-out' one, on account of all the cowardace shown by all military sides, not to mention the internet serving as a global village unification device. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thepedestrian Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 He's a prince. Did anyone expect him to have a good grasp on reality? He lives in a fantasy world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drdeath Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 It only counts if he was yelling with every shot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newsflash Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 Because of course we never had wars and violence before violent video games, movies, and death metal. Ah for the good ol' days when you compared mowing down enemy planes to shooting turkeys. This whole soldiers being desensitized to killing is hardly a new phenom. Check out the attitudes of some of the WW2 media at the time. They would make Harry's comparisons seem benign. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 Honestly, we haven't seen a full-out 'non-coward' war since WW2. It was also the bloodiest war to date. Now we have wars which insurgents hide in their bunkers waiting for troops to come by and trip over their roadside bombs, but those troops are instead hiding in their bunkers waiting for insurgents to pop out of their bunkers so they can fall victim to video game-guided hellfire missile attack. Both sides are indeed fighting in a cowardly fashion. Both sides are also smart. The alternative, going out and facing your enemy head-on, usually means a quick death. Could you imagine, though, how big of a massacre an all-out WW3 would be? Even without nukes, the death count in a next world war would be astounding. The are just so many ways to kill people these days. But on that note, i don't think WW3 is going to happen, at least not an 'all-out' one, on account of all the cowardace shown by all military sides, not to mention the internet serving as a global village unification device. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 He was making fun of Call of Duty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 I am making fun of people that actually blame Call of Duty for violent behavior. I actually heard on analyst say the reason Bliz-Activision stock stays low is people are worried someone is going to either sue the company or try to ban the game because of the school shootings. Needless to say there's enough people out there that actually believe it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bertuzzi Babe Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 The source was the British military. The article is from the Guardian, a British New Paper. The Coward ran away to a safe location when his base came under attack. It's easy to sit in a helicopter and push buttons to kill ppl, not so brave when the enemy was knocking at his door. A man be damned if he ever runs like that to leave his brethren fight and die. What else do you expect form a bastard I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WHL rocks Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit, is it? I said: Did you miss this part? Geez......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electro Rock Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 Honestly, we haven't seen a full-out 'non-coward' war since WW2. It was also the bloodiest war to date. Now we have wars which insurgents hide in their bunkers waiting for troops to come by and trip over their roadside bombs, but those troops are instead hiding in their bunkers waiting for insurgents to pop out of their bunkers so they can fall victim to video game-guided hellfire missile attack. Both sides are indeed fighting in a cowardly fashion. Both sides are also smart. The alternative, going out and facing your enemy head-on, usually means a quick death. Could you imagine, though, how big of a massacre an all-out WW3 would be? Even without nukes, the death count in a next world war would be astounding. The are just so many ways to kill people these days. But on that note, i don't think WW3 is going to happen, at least not an 'all-out' one, on account of all the cowardace shown by all military sides, not to mention the internet serving as a global village unification device. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bertuzzi Babe Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 I said the source was the British military. Did you miss this part??? It seems its you who has a reading comprehension problem. Geez......... Britain's Prince Harry, who compared shooting insurgents in Afghanistan to playing video games, has probably developed a mental problem, the Taliban said Tuesday. "There are 49 countries with their powerful military failing in the fight against the mujahideen, and now this prince comes and compares this war with his games, PlayStation or whatever he calls it," Taliban spokesman Zabiullah Mujahid told AFP. Harry, third in line to the throne, said he had killed Taliban insurgents during a 20-week posting flying scores of missions over the restive southern province of Helmand in an Apache attack helicopter. As co-pilot, Harry was in charge of the weapons systems in a two-man cockpit, firing Hellfire air-to-surface missiles, rockets and a 30-millimetre gun. He described the weapons systems as a joy. "It's a joy for me because I'm one of those people who loves playing PlayStation and Xbox, so with my thumbs I like to think I'm probably quite useful," he said in interviews released Monday after the end of his posting. "This is a serious war, a historic war, resistance for us, for our people," Mujahid told AFP by telephone from an undisclosed location. "But we don't take his comments very seriously, as we have all seen and heard that many foreign soldiers, occupiers who come to Afghanistan, develop some kind of mental problems on their way out." Asked by Britain's Press Association if he had killed from the cockpit, Harry said: "Yeah, so lots of people have. "Take a life to save a life," he shrugged. "If there's people trying to do bad stuff to our guys, then we'll take them out of the game." The last time the Taliban suggested a foreign fighter had mental problems was when an American soldier was arrested on suspicion of killing 16 villagers in their homes during a lone night rampage in March 2012. Staff Sergeant Robert Bales is on trial in the US, facing 16 murder charges. Seventeen of the 22 people killed or wounded were women or children and almost all were shot in the head. The Taliban have been waging an insurgency in Afghanistan for 11 years since being ousted from power for harbouring al-Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden after the 9/11 attacks on the United States. During the war, they have faced more than 140,000 troops from over 50 countries but remain a serious threat to the Western-backed government with NATO troops due to withdraw in 2014. "We have always wanted to capture or kill this prince, but he was mostly kept inside, safe, and in guarded places underground," said the Taliban spokesman, Mujahid. "At one point when our mujahideen attacked the airport, we were aware of his presence there but he was hastily flown away." This was a reference to a major Taliban attack on Camp Bastion in Helmand last September when Britain's defence minister admitted that Harry had been moved to a secure location. Taliban commandos, armed with suicide vests, guns and rockets, and wearing US uniforms, breached the outer wall of Camp Bastion and destroyed six US fighter jets in unprecedented damage in the war. The prince flies a £45-million ($71-million, 54-million-euro) aircraft, part of NATO's uncontested air power in Afghanistan where the Taliban are armed mainly with assault rifles, machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades. The Islamists also use suicide attacks and homemade bombs which cause most of the casualties among both foreign troops and civilians in the Afghan war. Read more: http://www.businessi...1#ixzz2IjTOMP1o Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WHL rocks Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 You really need to re-read what I wrote........it has quite obviously escaped your reading comprehension. Do I really need to point out yet again whose comments I specifically wrote my response about? I quote from your own post: Good Lord....... I wasn't even talking about this heavily bolded comment you've chosen to emphasize...... Extreme failure of backpedaling, tap dancing and smoke screening...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bertuzzi Babe Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 What?? The rest of the article doesn't count? Only the part you chose to quote? The source is bad because you can't read. You say the source is no good and give examples of quotes from the article. I gave you quote from exact same article which qualifies what you said was a bad source. LOL, you are hilarious. It must suck to be a person who has difficulty owning up to an oversight. You are making a fool of your self. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WHL rocks Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 Speaking of making a fool of yourself and blatant, deliberate obtuseness....... My original post was talking about the comments from the Taliban spokesman only..........nothing more. I'm terribly sorry you are incapable of understanding that......... but if it suits you to keep trying to back pedal and smoke screen your way out of admitting you completely misunderstood my original post that you chose to comment on by bringing in something completely irrelevant, carry on your merry way. It's plainly obvious to anyone reading this what is going on with your posts. Have a lovely afternoon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tearloch7 Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 The source was the British military. The article is from the Guardian, a British New Paper. The Coward ran away to a safe location when his base came under attack. It's easy to sit in a helicopter and push buttons to kill ppl, not so brave when the enemy was knocking at his door. A man be damned if he ever runs like that to leave his brethren fight and die. What else do you expect form a bastard I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WHL rocks Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 So if you "quote" something for reference, does it thus follow that that is what you believe? .. a newspaper may quote someones "spokesman" in an article, but that does not necessarily give credence to the validity of either the statement or the spokesman .. English can be such an imprecise language thus giving room for misunderstandings, whether intended or for a purpose .. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bertuzzi Babe Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 So are you telling me you don't believe the British Defense Minister when he is qouted as saying Prince Coward was moved to safety, or are you saying the Guardian News made up the quote? What happened was she skimmed over the article, she made a post saying the source was bad (Taliban spokesman). I brought to her attention the source was not just the Taliban spokesman but also the British military.. She went on to tell me how my reading comprehension is not up to par. She jumped the gun. In fact it was she who missed the part in the article where The British Defense Minister qualified the Taliban Statement of Prince Coward being moved to safety when the British base came under mujahideen attack. Now she is just acting like an idiot and not admitting to overlooking the part where The British Defense Minister confirmed the Taliban claim. She jumped the gun accusing me of not being able to read, Facts in this thread show she is the one with this problem. Now she feels like a tool. Instead of admitting her mistake she continues to dig deeper. What ever, I don't have time for ppl like her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tearloch7 Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 So are you telling me you don't believe the British Defense Minister when he is qouted as saying Prince Coward was moved to safety, or are you saying the Guardian News made up the quote? What happened was she skimmed over the article, she made a post saying the source was bad (Taliban spokesman). I brought to her attention the source was not just the Taliban spokesman but also the British military.. She went on to tell me how my reading comprehension is not up to par. She jumped the gun. In fact it was she who missed the part in the article where The British Defense Minister qualified the Taliban Statement of Prince Coward being moved to safety when the British base came under mujahideen attack. Now she is just acting like an idiot and not admitting to overlooking the part where The British Defense Minister confirmed the Taliban claim. She jumped the gun accusing me of not being able to read, Facts in this thread show she is the one with this problem. Now she feels like a tool. Instead of admitting her mistake she continues to dig deeper. What ever, I don't have time for ppl like her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.