sadoldgit

That is not what I am talking about as well you know. I am not talking about dealing with individuals, I am talking about ending this conflict. If you really think we will win it by taking out one here and one there then good luck with that. No one will win this conflict which is why, at some point, the talking will have to start. By the way, look at the numbers. We spend thousands on a drone and take out one or two people. They spend a few bob on a suicide vest and take out dozens. If you were playing the odds, unless we start using nukes, who do you think could keep it going longer for less? You have been involved in the military, I don't need to tell you how hard it is to fight a guerrilla war, which is exactly what we are up against.

Or the fact that we have killed goodness knows how many Muslims over the years because we thought that they were hiding non existence weapons of mass destruction? Makes it easier to recruit wouldn't you say? Not forgetting the Middle Ages where we sent thousands of God fearing Christians to the Middle East to butcher those nasty Muslims. Good to know we have the moral higher ground.

Ah yes, the two World Wars. What did Churchill call it? Splendid Isolation? You took your time joining in those didn't you. I think many of the "Limeys" on here who have contributed to the debate have spent time in America and have a good idea how the American culture works (that's another thing about us Limeys, we do like to travel). We understand (because we are well educated and well travelled) that it is not a good idea to let people loose with guns. We exercise our right to free speach to articulate our problem with the carnage that goes on in a part of the world we all share that happens to be called America that is caused by people with guns. We do this because we are concerned about the well being of our fellow man. We also don't want to be shot by some psychopath (or police officer) when we go on holiday there.

We have negotiated with all kinds of sociopaths before and are still doing so now. How many conflicts have ended with only the total annihilation of the other? Do you really think it is possible to wipe ISIS out? It isn't that simple. And they aren't rushing out to joining ISIS because of a Sun headline, they are rushing out and joining ISIS because of what lies behind the Sun headline.

That is a fair point although Keepers often have a longer career.

Perhaps every player should have his transfer value and wages agreed by an independent body? That would upset Levy! As you say, it makes for interesting reading.

We were at war with Germany. This conflict is a lot less black and white. We may be at war with terrorists but they don't wear convenient uniforms and they don't come from just one country. The rules of engagement are a lot more cloudy than they used to be.

Picking up on the point of annihilating ISIS. For every terrorist we kill, we create more. We will never annihilate them because they are everywhere. The good old days like Waterloo where armies faced each other on a battlefield and the outcome was decisive are long gone. I am sure the people who recruit future terrorists will have a field day with the front page of The Sun today as they will every time we launch a drone and cause "collateral damage."

Take someone like JRod. He wasn't the finished article when we bought him but we could all see how he improved. I don't think you could see that development with Walcott. and I accept that the numerous injuries probably have not helped him.

The thing is though that not everyone will think of them as a bit of a knobber and laugh at them. To a great many people they are seen as heroes and martyrs and we play into their hands when we don't take them seriously. We may think they are being humiliated but there are plenty of people who will be looking to avenge what we have done with yet more plots to kill innocent people. All we are doing is perpetuating the circle. At some point both sides are going to have to sit down and reach a compromise. All conflicts end with talks. It is just a question of how many more people have to die before we reach that stage.

I don't agree with censorship either but there is such a thing as common decency and most of the media have handled the news in a serious and respectful manner. You are right, The Sun will be talked about because it is doing what it does when it signs up people like Katie Hopkins. It is attention seeking. It is just a shame that the attention it gets doesn't see it go the way of the News of the World.

The situation with Brooks is just sticking the finger up by Murdoch. He has been talking the p*ss out of us for years and this is just another example of how he does it his way and doesn't give a sh*t about anything else. Sadly most of his customers don't get it until he comes out and trashes them directly, as he did with the population of Liverpool.

If something is illegal then it is only right and proper that whoever committed the illegal act is brought to book over it. We do not have capital punishment in this country and there is a basic rule - innocent until proven guilty. Were these "terrorists" given a fair trial and found guilty? Is now the PM the sole arbiter of who we can kill and who we cant? No one is taking the side of someone who commits a terrorist act. By my understanding neither of these characters had. Is it beyond our capability to bring these characters back and give them a proper, fair trial? We all know now that the whole weapons of mass destruction thing was b*ll*cks. Are you happy to believe Dave where he tells you these guys needed to die? Where is the evidence? I see you would shoot anyone spreading the message of ISIS - so much for freedom of speech too. Isnt it better that we enter dialogue and try to come to some kind of understanding with people who don't agree with the way that we live rather than continually killing each other?

How do you determine a players' worth? A player is only worth what someone is prepared to pay for him. Shane Long may not be "worth" £12m but he was to SFC who agreed to pay that price for him. Whether you are getting value for money is a different issue.

Sums it all up very nicely. This should be posted on their forum.

You really are a silly old Batman, aren't you.

I don't think they would do so just from reading one Sun headline, but it is the sort of thing that can add fuel to the fire. And I know that many people treat The Sun as a joke, but there are also who take this sh*t seriously, and that is the problem. They play to the lowest common denominator and they do get listened to, sadly.

They seem to hate their own chairman more than we do though!

It is more then just a tasteless headline though isn't it? It could stir up more hatred against us and help recruit more susceptible people to IS. The covert taking out of terrorists is one thing, taking the p*ss on the front of a national newspaper another.

Perhaps you are right. You approve of the front page then?

...

The Sun's headline following the death by drone strike of two British Jihadis. Not too dissimilar to the "Gotcha" headline when the Belgrano was sunk. I have no sympathy for terrorists and they get what they deserve but they are still human beings and to announce their deaths with comic book headlines is just another depth plumbing attempt by The Sun to ingratiate itself with White Van Man. If it isn't enough to have to live with the shame of what their kin had done or planned to do, to have to deal with this fatuous headline must be heartbreaking for the family and loved ones of these people.

Only been to WHL twice, both times with a Spuds supporting mate. The first time we were first in the ground and found a decent vantage point on the half way line. About 10 mins later this oik came up and told us to f**k off as that was his spot. Next time we went we were jumped on by a bunch of kids who nicked my mates Spuds scarf and swung a few punches at us. Another time he went with a Palace supporting mate and this guy ended up getting a smack in the mouth despite being with a Spuds supporter. Nasty supporters, nasty club who live on past glories.

Our rivals are everyone who plays in the Premiership. We compete with them for points and we compete with them for players.

Interesting conspiracy theory. It is a shame Pap isn't here for this one! Once Ramsey had decided on 4-3-3 and the use of Cohen and Wilson as overlapping full backs, the wingers were finished at that level, as was Terry Paine. The debate about the third goal will go on forever but I am not sure where you get random goals from? There was no problem with the rest of them. If it was fixed why did Germany press so hard and get that late equaliser? I think you are probably the only person who thinks that the WC of 1966 was fixed.