O/t Nato

[shrimpnsave]

what use are they when we need a collective army(s)to defeat Isis?
Even the Russians want this........

[George Dawes]

conventional Army's cant and wont beat them, look at Iraq and Afghanistan for proof, the enemy is camouflaged amongst civilians, this is modern warfare, something new to us.

might have to follow Israel, and how they respond by more covert operations by using special forces(hitmen) with false passports to go into hotel rooms and execute the top boys, then just deny it, but even then I don't think that works...

I just don't know what the answer is, I can only see things getting worse.

[SolentShrimp]

I'd love to assist, but fear my comments, no matter how eloquently presented, would come up against the SV firing squad.

I doubt that a Collective Army, especially these days, could come up with either a collective agreement or collective strategy, without a collective series of collective meetings resulting in collective disagreements. Result = Collective Failure!

[shrimpnsave]

conventional Army's cant and wont beat them, look at Iraq and Afghanistan for proof, the enemy is camouflaged amongst civilians, this is modern warfare, something new to us.

might have to follow Israel, and how they respond by more covert operations by using special forces(hitmen) with false passports to go into hotel rooms and execute the top boys, then just deny it, but even then I don't think that works...

I just don't know what the answer is, I can only see things getting worse.

Of course (boots on the ground) will help/air strikes aint working are they?

[shrimpnsave]

I'd love to assist, but fear my comments, no matter how eloquently presented, would come up against the SV firing squad.

I doubt that a Collective Army, especially these days, could come up with either a collective agreement or collective strategy, without a collective series of collective meetings resulting in collective disagreements. Result = Collective Failure!

Without upsetting anyone what would yr solution be

[shrimpnsave]

Isis as it stands want total domination of the world/no negotiation. you die

[shrimpnsave]

Not nice to watch is it?
http://news.sky.com/story/1587614/runni ... rt-carnage

[George Dawes]

a lot of questions are starting to be asked now.

been watching this mainly on Sky News and a lot of the news panels are now echoing a lot of what SolentShrimp has been saying.

reminding and showing news footage and reports of earlier on this year when ISIS threatened to put jihadist amongst north African refugees coming over to Italy then into Europe on boats, and back then people laughed it off saying it's too far fetched, just scare mongery, and mocked people for thinking otherwise.

over to you Keith.

[mrpotatohead]

well we can start by saying, the first identified terrorist is french, and we can also say that most of the fighting is between muslims, we could also say, if france never bombed syria ,paris might not have been bombed, there are 6 million muslims in france, if only o.ooo5 per cent of them were terrorists ,then border controls would be useless, We never banned catholic churches when the IRA were terrorising us ,so why persecute muslims by banning mosques, we never banned nuns either, and they wear similar garb to muslim women, Alcohol will kill 120,000 brits next year FOR CERTAIN, so lets ban pubs and booze, and hatred kills people all over the uk, so lets ban Xenophobic, homophobic ,shit stirring ,nasty tossers!

[SolentShrimp]

Without upsetting anyone what would yr solution be

The way your question is worded makes it impossible for me to answer it.

mrpotatohead's last posting is interesting, but it's really just a rambling rant. I'd love to read what his solution to all this Islamic Terrorism is?

[mrpotatohead]

Unlike yourself I dont profess to have one, and if I did, it would not be full of bigotry and hatred, like you, do you like anyone?

[George Dawes]

these discussion should be in the same spirit as on news panels.

nobody is talking about persecuting anybody, apart from on social media with people sharing far right links and knee jerk reactions.

how can free movement of people across Europe help combat the movement and transportation of arms and weapons, aswell as checking for wanted known criminals and terrorists.

it appears the French PM and majority of the public and ordinary people are in favour of stopping free movement, for the time being.

[mrpotatohead]

according to news sources, the first identified terrorist is a french citizen with a criminal record, that they knew had been radicalised since 2010 , armed with this information they failed to do anything

[mrpotatohead]

......and just like the last time, (Charlie Hebno) ...a terrorist took his passport with him and it was the only thing to remain intact?......who are they kidding!

[Keith]

To be clear, before the persecution complex takes a hold, Peter has many years of winding people up and dropping hints or links. He rarely says 'I believe [this] because [of this]'. Stand up and say what you believe and why, and a discussion can be had.

Posts like this one annoy me:

Wtf's going on? Any bets on who's responsible?

You knew what was going on, you clearly had an opinion as to who was responsible but rather than say so, you poke others then sit back, dropping a link to the Daily Mail to keep the xenophobia going if it looks like drying up.

Unlike most, Peter has been banned & let back on more than one occasion. Tread carefully because another ban will not be lifted. If he has an opinion to add in a reasoned manner, fine. If I feel he's being a troll, he'll be banished back under his bridge and not let back out.

[SolentShrimp]

To be clear, before the persecution complex takes a hold, Peter has many years of winding people up and dropping hints or links. He rarely says 'I believe [this] because [of this]'. Stand up and say what you believe and why, and a discussion can be had.

That's completely unfair. Out of anybody on this forum I think I'm usually very clear in what I say and why I'm saying it.

Posts like this one annoy me:

Wtf's going on? Any bets on who's responsible?

Lots of people on SV cast a line when they start a thread don't they? If it annoys you or anyone else, does that make what I posted wrong? I think my subsequent postings on that thread made up for the one-line introduction

You knew what was going on, you clearly had an opinion as to who was responsible but rather than say so, you poke others then sit back, dropping a link to the Daily Mail to keep the xenophobia going if it looks like drying up.

Have a look at that thread. I think I clearly made an opinion who I thought was responsible and why. What's wrong with posting a link or two? We all do it. Some will agree with the content of the link(s). and some won't agree. So what?

I hate Terrorists - what's wrong with that? I don't think that Open Borders is a good thing - what's wrong with that? Neither of those make me xenophobic. Aren't people who disagree with you allowed their say? Unlike some people on SV I don't swear [out of context], or call people awful names.

Unlike most, Peter has been banned & let back on more than one occasion. Tread carefully because another ban will not be lifted. If he has an opinion to add in a reasoned manner, fine. If I feel he's being a troll, he'll be banished back under his bridge and not let back out.

I expect you think your last sentence is funny! Anyway, I hope you accept my reasoned response, which I hope I was entitled to make without being 'punished' for making it.

[shrimpnsave]

To be clear, before the persecution complex takes a hold, Peter has many years of winding people up and dropping hints or links. He rarely says 'I believe [this] because [of this]'. Stand up and say what you believe and why, and a discussion can be had.

That's completely unfair. Out of anybody on this forum I think I'm usually very clear in what I say and why I'm saying it.

Posts like this one annoy me:

Wtf's going on? Any bets on who's responsible?

Lots of people on SV cast a line when they start a thread don't they? If it annoys you or anyone else, does that make what I posted wrong? I think my subsequent postings on that thread made up for the one-line introduction

You knew what was going on, you clearly had an opinion as to who was responsible but rather than say so, you poke others then sit back, dropping a link to the Daily Mail to keep the xenophobia going if it looks like drying up.

Have a look at that thread. I think I clearly made an opinion who I thought was responsible and why. What's wrong with posting a link or two? We all do it. Some will agree with the content of the link(s). and some won't agree. So what?

I hate Terrorists - what's wrong with that? I don't think that Open Borders is a good thing - what's wrong with that? Neither of those make me xenophobic. Aren't people who disagree with you allowed their say? Unlike some people on SV I don't swear [out of context], or call people awful names.

Unlike most, Peter has been banned & let back on more than one occasion. Tread carefully because another ban will not be lifted. If he has an opinion to add in a reasoned manner, fine. If I feel he's being a troll, he'll be banished back under his bridge and not let back out.

I expect you think your last sentence is funny! Anyway, I hope you accept my reasoned response, which I hope I was entitled to make without being 'punished' for making it.

Q. for Peter,did you ever get expelled from school Lol

[SolentShrimp]

Q. for Peter,did you ever get expelled from school Lol

You're a difficult one to work out.

Always economical with words, always topical, usually opening a new thread, casting the bait, yet rarely getting involved with the thread after you'd sowed the seeds.

See earlier in this thread, and your opening postings to a new thread are precisely the ones that annoy Keith! So why am I the one that's always picked on?

I doubt that you ever got excluded from school, much rather enjoying sitting at the back of the class, having a laugh at other folk's expense, and stirring it when you felt like it.

[SolentShrimp]

Posts like this one annoy me:

Wtf's going on? Any bets on who's responsible?

Yet the opening posting to this thread was alright?

[shrimpnsave]

Thought I would share this
For anyone who may be confused by what's going on in Syria and the wider Middle East......
President Assad (who is bad) is a nasty guy who got so nasty his people rebelled and the Rebels (who are good) started winning (Hurrah!). But then some of the rebels turned a bit nasty and are now called Islamic State ( who are definitely bad!) and some continued to support democracy (who are still good.)
So the Americans (who are good) started bombing Islamic State (who are bad) and giving arms to the Syrian Rebels (who are good) so they could fight Assad (who is still bad) which was good.
By the way, there is a breakaway state in the north run by the Kurds who want to fight IS ( which is a good thing ) but the Turkish authorities think they are bad, so we have to say they are bad whilst secretly thinking they're good and giving them guns to fight IS (which is good) but that is another matter.
Getting back to Syria.
So President Putin ( who is bad, cos he invaded Crimea and the Ukraine and killed lots of folks including that nice Russian man in London with polonium poisoned sushi ) has decided to back Assad (who is still bad) by attacking IS (who are also bad) which is sort of a good thing?
But Putin ( still bad ) thinks the Syrian Rebels (who are good) are also bad, and so he bombs them too, much to the annoyance of the Americans (who are good) who are busy backing and arming the rebels (who are also good).
Now Iran (who used to be bad, but now they have agreed not to build any nuclear weapons and bomb Israel are now good) are going to provide ground troops to support Assad (still bad) as are the Russians (bad) who now have ground troops and aircraft in Syria.
So a Coalition of Assad (still bad) Putin (extra bad) and the Iranians (good, but in a bad sort of way) are going to attack IS (who are bad) which is a good thing, but also the Syrian Rebels (who are good) which is bad.
Now the British (obviously good, except some freak called Corbyn who, incidentally wears a corduroy jacket, which is dead give away as that's never good) and the Americans (also good) cannot attack Assad (still bad) for fear of upsetting Putin (bad) and Iran (good / bad) and now they have to accept that Assad might not be that bad after all compared to IS (who are super bad).
So Assad (bad) is now probably good, being better than IS (but let’s face it, drinking your own wee is better than IS so no real choice there) and since Putin and Iran are also fighting IS that may now make them Good. America (still Good) will find it hard to arm a group of rebels being attacked by the Russians for fear of upsetting Mr Putin (now good) and that nice mad Ayatollah in Iran (also Good) and so they may be forced to say that the Rebels are now Bad, or at the very least abandon them to their fate. This will lead most of them to flee to Turkey and on to Europe or join IS (still the only constantly bad group).
To Sunni Muslims, an attack by Shia Muslims (Assad and Iran) backed by Russians will be seen as something of a Holy War, and the ranks of IS will now be seen by the Sunnis as the only Jihadis fighting in the Holy War and hence many Muslims will now see IS as Good (Doh!)
Sunni Muslims will also see the lack of action by Britain and America in support of their Sunni rebel brothers as something of a betrayal (mmmm... might have a point) and hence we will be seen as Bad.
So now we have America (now bad) and Britain (also bad) providing limited support to Sunni Rebels (bad) many of whom are looking to IS (Good / bad) for support against Assad (now good) who, along with Iran (also Good) and Putin (also, now, unbelievably, Good) are attempting to retake the country Assad used to run before all this started?
I hope this makes things a little clearer.

[SolentShrimp]

Thanks. Glad I got a good night's kip before reading it

Just thought I'd make it a bit easier to read.

Thought I would share this. For anyone who may be confused by what's going on in Syria and the wider Middle East......

President Assad (who is bad) is a nasty guy who got so nasty his people rebelled and the Rebels (who are good) started winning (Hurrah!).

But then some of the rebels turned a bit nasty and are now called Islamic State ( who are definitely bad!) and some continued to support democracy (who are still good).

So the Americans (who are good) started bombing Islamic State (who are bad) and giving arms to the Syrian Rebels (who are good) so they could fight Assad (who is still bad) which was good.

By the way, there is a breakaway state in the north run by the Kurds who want to fight IS ( which is a good thing ) but the Turkish authorities think they are bad, so we have to say they are bad whilst secretly thinking they're good and giving them guns to fight IS (which is good) but that is another matter.

Getting back to Syria. So President Putinwho is bad, cos he invaded Crimea and the Ukraine and killed lots of folks including that nice Russian man in London with polonium poisoned sushi) has decided to back Assad (who is still bad) by attacking IS (who are also bad) which is sort of a good thing?

But Putin (still bad) thinks the Syrian Rebels (who are good) are also bad, and so he bombs them too, much to the annoyance of the Americans (who are good) who are busy backing and arming the rebels (who are also good).

Now Iran (who used to be bad, but now they have agreed not to build any nuclear weapons and bomb Israel are now good) are going to provide ground troops to support Assad (still bad) as are the Russians (bad) who now have ground troops and aircraft in Syria.

So a Coalition of Assad (still bad) Putin (extra bad) and the Iranians (good, but in a bad sort of way) are going to attack IS (who are bad) which is a good thing, but also the Syrian Rebels (who are good) which is bad.

Now the British (obviously good, except some freak called Corbyn who, incidentally wears a corduroy jacket, which is dead give away as that's never good) and the Americans (also good) cannot attack Assad (still bad) for fear of upsetting Putin (bad) and Iran (good/bad) and now they have to accept that Assad might not be that bad after all compared to IS (who are super bad).

So Assad (bad) is now probably good, being better than IS (but let’s face it, drinking your own wee is better than IS so no real choice there) and since Putin and Iran are also fighting IS that may now make them Good.

America (still Good) will find it hard to arm a group of rebels being attacked by the Russians for fear of upsetting Mr Putin (now good) and that nice mad Ayatollah in Iran (also Good), and so they may be forced to say that the Rebels are now Bad, or at the very least abandon them to their fate. This will lead most of them to flee to Turkey and on to Europe or join IS (still the only constantly bad group).

To Sunni Muslims, an attack by Shia Muslims (Assad and Iran) backed by Russians will be seen as something of a Holy War, and the ranks of IS will now be seen by the Sunnis as the only Jihadis fighting in the Holy War and hence many Muslims will now see IS as Good (Doh!).

Sunni Muslims will also see the lack of action by Britain and America in support of their Sunni rebel brothers as something of a betrayal (mmmm... might have a point) and hence we will be seen as Bad.

So now we have America (now bad) and Britain (also bad) providing limited support to Sunni Rebels (bad) many of whom are looking to IS (Good/bad) for support against Assad (now good) who, along with Iran (also Good) and Putin (also, now, unbelievably, Good) are attempting to retake the country Assad used to run before all this started?

I hope this makes things a little clearer.

[mrpotatohead]

So in brief , we wanted assad out, backed the rebels who were aligned with ISIS AGAINST HIM, then , when the job was nearly done, changed sides and are now united with russia and iran, with the intention of reinforcing assads government and destroying ISIS, THUS ALIENATING HALF OF SYRIA, who are now having to flee their country as assad will want revenge,so despite our right wing shitheads telling us that the fleeing syrians are either ISIS, or job thieves, or benefit spongers, THEY ARE MOST CERTAINLY REFUGEES.

[Freez]

Would all these countries be as keen to take sides if Syria was just desert instead of desert and trillions of tons of oil and natural gas I wonder??

[mrpotatohead]

The middle east will never have peace until their oil runs out.

[mrpotatohead]

Imagine if russia or china sent ''peacekeepers'' ,to scotland, to help the native ''gingers'' regain control of their lands, in return for a piece of the action in the north sea.