Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo

Prince Harry compares killing Afghani's to video games


  • Please log in to reply
44 replies to this topic

#31 WHL rocks

WHL rocks

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,615 posts
  • Joined: 09-May 10

Posted 22 January 2013 - 04:04 PM

Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit, is it?

I said:

Did you miss this part?
Geez......... :picard:

I said the source was the British military.

Did you miss this part???

It seems its you who has a reading comprehension problem.

Geez......... :picard:

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

Edited by WHL rocks, 22 January 2013 - 04:04 PM.

  • 0

#32 Electro Rock

Electro Rock

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,633 posts
  • Joined: 17-March 04

Posted 22 January 2013 - 04:07 PM

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.


War, in most times and places, was more a matter of pragmatically fighting as unfairly as you could get away with, than some kind of macho gladiator duel.

The thing that most people don't realize is, since at least WW2, clandestine warfare has taken ever more of a front seat over open military force.

Forget smart bombs, or even WMD, the real instruments of power in this era are increasingly the world's clandestine services.


  • 1
"The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened."

Norman Thomas

#33 Bertuzzi Babe

Bertuzzi Babe

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,239 posts
  • Joined: 03-May 03

Posted 22 January 2013 - 04:10 PM

I said the source was the British military.

Spoiler


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:

Taliban spokesman Zabiullah Mujahid


Good Lord....... :picard:


I wasn't even talking about this heavily bolded comment you've chosen to emphasize......


"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.


Extreme failure of backpedaling, tap dancing and smoke screening......

Edited by Bertuzzi Babe, 22 January 2013 - 04:19 PM.

  • 0

"Sursumredditio" non usquam in hac mea loquantur!



Ense petit placidam sub libertate quietem.....



#34 WHL rocks

WHL rocks

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,615 posts
  • Joined: 09-May 10

Posted 22 January 2013 - 04:27 PM

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....... :picard:


I wasn't even talking about this heavily bolded comment you've chosen to emphasize......


[color=#282828][font=arial][background=rgb(247, 247, 247)][color=#000000][background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]

[size=4]Extreme failure of backpedaling, tap dancing and smoke screening......


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.

You jumped the gun and tried to make fun of my reading comprehension. Look in the mirror.

Edited by WHL rocks, 22 January 2013 - 04:32 PM.

  • 3

#35 Bertuzzi Babe

Bertuzzi Babe

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,239 posts
  • Joined: 03-May 03

Posted 22 January 2013 - 04:31 PM

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.


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.


Once and for all, for those reading this thread - the source of the comments my original post was about were those made by Taliban spokesman Zabiullah Mujahid. I apologize that my post was not dumbed down enough for the lowest common denominator of IQ to understand.

Moving on......

Edited by Bertuzzi Babe, 22 January 2013 - 04:38 PM.

  • 3

"Sursumredditio" non usquam in hac mea loquantur!



Ense petit placidam sub libertate quietem.....



#36 WHL rocks

WHL rocks

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,615 posts
  • Joined: 09-May 10

Posted 22 January 2013 - 04:35 PM

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.


yah yah yah. move on. go find a tree to climb or something.
  • 1

#37 Tearloch7

Tearloch7

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,703 posts
  • Joined: 15-July 10

Posted 22 January 2013 - 04:42 PM

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.


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 .. :rolleyes:
  • 1

"To Thine Own Self Be True"

 

"Always tell the Truth. That way, you don’t have to remember what you said"  ~ Mark Twain ~
 


#38 WHL rocks

WHL rocks

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,615 posts
  • Joined: 09-May 10

Posted 22 January 2013 - 05:14 PM

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 .. :rolleyes:


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.
  • 0

#39 Bertuzzi Babe

Bertuzzi Babe

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,239 posts
  • Joined: 03-May 03

Posted 22 January 2013 - 05:19 PM

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.


SO WHAT if he was moved to safety...that had nothing whatsoever to do with my original post. Honestly, you need to learn how to read and comprehend. I did not jump any gun........I made no mistake.........that honour is all yours, I'm afraid. Facts......you are the one to bring something totally irrelevant into something I said.

You have no time for 'people like me'? Then don't respond to my posts and end up looking foolish when you get pinned down on your mistake. Put me on ignore if my posts bother you so much you jump into something without taking the time to comprehend what was actually written instead of what your brain conjured up as what I 'supposedly' wrote. My original post has been read by many people, not just the ones on here and they don't seem to have any problem comprehending what I wrote. What I commented on came straight from a Taliban spokesperson and was quoted in the article as such. It's like talking to a bloody wall........

It is not my fault that you are incapable of comprehending my original post......

Edited by Bertuzzi Babe, 22 January 2013 - 05:28 PM.

  • 1

"Sursumredditio" non usquam in hac mea loquantur!



Ense petit placidam sub libertate quietem.....



#40 Tearloch7

Tearloch7

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,703 posts
  • Joined: 15-July 10

Posted 22 January 2013 - 05:22 PM

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.


Perspective is everything .. you don't have to take any of this personally .. peoples interpretations often differ .. people who look for reasons to attack another over these "interpretations", when supported by the faction who like to gang up on others, leave themselves open to accusations as well .. I am sure Harry does not give a rats rectum either way .. :)
  • 1

"To Thine Own Self Be True"

 

"Always tell the Truth. That way, you don’t have to remember what you said"  ~ Mark Twain ~
 


#41 cadillaccts

cadillaccts

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,567 posts
  • Joined: 10-October 07

Posted 22 January 2013 - 06:39 PM

Is nobody else curious why prince Harry seems to be playing Xbox with Joe Sakic?





  • 0

#42 Navyblue

Navyblue

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,199 posts
  • Joined: 31-December 10

Posted 22 January 2013 - 07:04 PM

The Taliban should stick to fighting little girls.


Pretty much.
  • 0
Posted Image

#43 Navyblue

Navyblue

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,199 posts
  • Joined: 31-December 10

Posted 22 January 2013 - 07:12 PM

So...if Prince Harry decided to disobey his orders to leave, you would not be sitting there chucking crap at him for that instead?

You can't call him a coward for following orders. That's a fairly dim outlook. Obviously they would keep him out of harms way. Could you imagine how Mickey mouse it would look if they put him on the front lines and he was shot down? Yet you blame him and call him that?

Get a grip.


WHL Rocks you may find a more welcome home in Canucks Chat where ridiculous statements are the norm and taken as something to actually take seriously.
  • 2
Posted Image

#44 TOMapleLaughs

TOMapleLaughs

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,002 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 05

Posted 22 January 2013 - 08:27 PM

Is nobody else curious why prince Harry seems to be playing Xbox with Joe Sakic?

No. Likely because the guy he's playing Xbox with looks absolutely nothing like Joe Sakic.


I'm not a weapons expert, but i imagine firing a hellfire missile at some enemy combatants being exactly like playing a video game. Esp. the part where you're completely detached from the actual violence.

This type of warfare isn't exactly news though, so i'm not sure why Taliban man is so mad. His roadside bombs or using children as human shields not effective anymore?
  • 0
Posted Image

#45 Dittohead

Dittohead

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,190 posts
  • Joined: 13-August 04

Posted 22 January 2013 - 11:25 PM

Well Done Harry. light em up!
  • 1




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.