Well said Andrew Neil

[Deleted member 16999]

The understatement of the year when it comes to "wings"

To be honest and excuse my ignorance, genuinely never heard of "wings" before that post😃

 

[Deleted member 15344]

To be honest and excuse my ignorance, genuinely never heard of "wings" before that post😃

It's Doons bible - very much anti BBC and anti English

Some suggest that it was very much the go to website for the correct facts during the independence campaign - obviously there is a very small minority believing that

 

[User20205]

The irony is everyone wants decisive action but no one has the stomach for the reality & attempting to bomb them into oblivion whilst being covered by CNN is the greatest recruitment advert they have.

As western troops in the ground is neither a political or economic reality, the only way is a half baked compromise with troops from the locality & western airpower.

 

[HomerJSimpson]

The irony is everyone wants decisive action but no one has the stomach for the reality & attempting to bomb them into oblivion whilst being covered by CNN is the greatest recruitment advert they have.

As western troops in the ground is neither a political or economic reality, the only way is a half baked compromise with troops from the locality & western airpower.

It is a compromise but I agree, one that hardly seems destined to bring long terms success. How can you see that playing out?

 

[Deleted member 16999]

The irony is everyone wants decisive action but no one has the stomach for the reality & attempting to bomb them into oblivion whilst being covered by CNN is the greatest recruitment advert they have.

As western troops in the ground is neither a political or economic reality, the only way is a half baked compromise with troops from the locality & western airpower.

I agree with the second paragraph, but part of the problem with the first is, we can't bomb everywhere they are, they disappear into general population.

 

[HomerJSimpson]

I agree with the second paragraph, but part of the problem with the first is, we can't bomb everywhere they are, they disappear into general population.

That's the problem. They dissipate into normal life and do we really have the intelligence in these areas to weed them out. Do the local populations in whichever nation (they are worldwide) really think there is sufficient value, reward and justification in helping the West?

 

[Doon frae Troon]

To be honest and excuse my ignorance, genuinely never heard of "wings" before that post😃

It is the Scottish deterrent to The Telegraph and Daily Mail. :lol:

It makes life difficult for 'the establishment' with posts such as the one I just posted about the BBC's top political pundit getting something so 'unbelievably wrong'. [Despite having a wall of scriptwriters and editors behind him].

The BNP/EDL/SDL/UKIP/Rangers Supporter types really hate it.

 

[User20205]

It is a compromise but I agree, one that hardly seems destined to bring long terms success. How can you see that playing out?

I reckon we'll (the west) will broker an agreement with Russia that Assad can stay as part of a transition. They'll pump hardware & maybe troops in to Syria. IS will be squeezed out into the margins. Assads clan will be strengthened and continue in power. He'll go into a sort of retirement.

The big losers will be the 'average' Syrian. Peace will be kept by a 'strong' dictator, and all the fundo's will go back to afganistan, which will fall under taliban control again & we start the process again.

I strongly believe we will have to get used to living under the threat of terrorist attack both internal and external.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

It is the Scottish deterrent to The Telegraph and Daily Mail. :lol:

It makes life difficult for 'the establishment' with posts such as the one I just posted about the BBC's top political pundit getting something so 'unbelievably wrong'. [Despite having a wall of scriptwriters and editors behind him].

The BNP/EDL/SDL/UKIP/Rangers Supporter types really hate it.

I fall into none of the types you mention yet find it a pathetic site

It's pathetic that right now they are focused on the BBC whilst innocent lives are being lost - even more so that you reprint their tripe on here

 

[Tashyboy]

I remember a thread about immigration and I stated I would like to see every country in the EU get involved to try and solve the problem.
That seems a piece of cake when you consider that (for me) the only way to defeat IS is to get the US, Europe, Russia, China ( now they have had a citizen beheaded) and Middle East countries around a table.
Cannot see it happening in the near future.

 

[Tashyboy]

I fall into none of the types you mention yet find it a pathetic site

It's pathetic that right now they are focused on the BBC whilst innocent lives are being lost - even more so that you reprint their tripe on here

I never knew you followed Rangers phil😁

 

[User20205]

I remember a thread about immigration and I stated I would like to see every country in the EU get involved to try and solve the problem.
That seems a piece of cake when you consider that (for me) the only way to defeat IS is to get the US, Europe, Russia, China ( now they have had a citizen beheaded) and Middle East countries around a table.
Cannot see it happening in the near future.

The other side affect will be an end to the free movement of people across Europe. IMO.

It's impossible to combat terrorism with open borders.

 

[Doon frae Troon]

I fall into none of the types you mention yet find it a pathetic site

It's pathetic that right now they are focused on the BBC whilst innocent lives are being lost - even more so that you reprint their tripe on here

If you lock away the red mist and mind set for just a nano second I think you will find that the article was about John Humphreys giving out false information on the BBC about a government vote to bomb a country.
If you find that pathetic then more fool you.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

If you lock away the red mist and mind set for just a nano second I think you will find that the article was about John Humphreys giving out false information on the BBC about a government vote to bomb a country.
If you find that pathetic then more fool you.

I find it an error being made by a Journo - a simple error and not worth worrying about when people are losing their lives

But that wouldn't sit well with "wings" campaign against the BBC which has been waged since the independent vote was a no.

 

[Ethan]

Read an excellent book called ghost force by a guy called " lofty large" ex glorious glosters and SAS. He talks about all the conflicts he has served in, the governments stance and why the SAS went in.
The last conflict he served in was the Afghan war. He finished the afghan conflict by saying " only time will tell whether the Taliban government installed with help from the west is better than the government installed by the Russians".

I think the jury is now in.

The Americans have this paranoid fear of commies, and in Afghanistan and Latin America is has blinded them into allowing much worse to happen instead.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

I think the jury is now in.

The Americans have this paranoid fear of commies, and in Afghanistan and Latin America is has blinded them into allowing much worse to happen instead.

Have you been to Afghanistan to see all the good work that has been done ?

 

[ColchesterFC]

If you lock away the red mist and mind set for just a nano second I think you will find that the article was about John Humphreys giving out false information on the BBC about a government vote to bomb a country.
If you find that pathetic then more fool you.

What about an article on Wings giving false information about who the UK forces would be on the same side as? UK forces would have been supporting rebels fighting against Assad. It wasn't until later that the rebel factions split and one part began fighting under the banner of IS so UK forces would not have been fighting on the same side as IS and I think it's pathetic that you are constantly pushing such a blatantly anti BBC and anti UK agenda.

 

[Ethan]

Seems convenient not to have caught up on the thread and responded to answers you have been given and single out the one point you believe hasn't, maybe Saudi don't see IS as a threat so why should they get involved?
Why single out Saudi Arabia when there are other Middle East countries not involved?

I have answered plenty already. You have a lot of questions yourself.

On Saudi, it is the heartland of the Sunni branch of Islam, the same branch as IS, and has a lot of influence in the area. It is also heavily courted and supported by the US and Europe so could act as a regional proxy, and it is sufficiently wealthy and capable to take action regionally. In doing so, it could others along with them, for example it has decent relations with both Iran and Israel who are two other key dominos in the complicated local politics. Saudi is also pretty stable (if rather repressive) and not vulnerable to a coup or other major change anytime soon.

Any answers or insight from you?

 

[Ethan]

Have you been to Afghanistan to see all the good work that has been done ?

No, but I know people who have been involved in civilian reconstruction.

However the reconstruction might not have been needed had the US and Europe not covertly supported the Taliban against the pro-Soviet leader, who was a secular moderniser. Ironically, the US, UK and others supported people who could be called terrorists, and were guerrilla fighters almost exactly like IS. History does tend to have a sense of irony sometimes.

 

[HomerJSimpson]

If you lock away the red mist and mind set for just a nano second I think you will find that the article was about John Humphreys giving out false information on the BBC about a government vote to bomb a country.
If you find that pathetic then more fool you.

Cant' actually see why this is causing such a fuss. It simply picks up and highlights a rather large and crucial error.