DeeTillEhDeh

The narrow formation is doing neither fullback any favours whatsover.

3 on target 3 goals - we did what mattered.

Gadzhalov should be wide left - in the stand and nowhere near the squad.

If can't get one I'd be tempted to play Cammy Kerr as the holding midfielder - he can't be any worse than Ross is.

By one point please. Their salty tear-stained posts would be a joy to read.

Absolutely dire. Should have been put out of its misery years ago.

Not quite sure what point you are making. The previous poster implied that we'd not have a problem if we hadn't gotten involved in previous wars in the Middle East - he was clearly obvious that the ideology has been around since the 18th century - and I don't think the Yanks were bombing them at that time . . . The issue is a lot more complex than bomb them don't bomb them. But then the simpletons on both sides of that argument are too dumb to understand that. My own view is that whilst bombing might stifle ISIS itself in the short run it will do nothing to prevent the indoctrination/radicalisation of (predominantly) middle class Muslims by certain madrasas in Europe and (to a lesser extent) the US.

You clearly have little or no understanding of the roots and history of Wahhabism.

Could be far left groups or the PYD - the Syrian offshoot of the Turkish PKK. Neither the Americans or the Turks want a Communist Kurdistan to rise up from the ashes of ISIL.

It's an often misused tag - they are anti-democratic psychos but fascists - no.

Some were even Labour politicians. One was even General Secretary of the Labour Party in Scotland.

That analysis is somewhat flawed. The fact is that many of the newer recruits are not from some shithole but often from comfy middle class backgrounds.

Which is pure unadulterated monkey shite.

This is probably one of the best posts in this entire thread.

Agreed. How can someone expect loyalty when he himself has been disloyal in the past.

IS have and its predecessors have been on the go since the 1930s - what's different now is the splinter groups that have caused the terror - either homegrown or European based - are much harder to track and neutralise. Some of the action credited to IS has been little more than in the name of IS - with little real input from them themselves, It's this random terrorism - the guns on the beaches terrorism that we saw in Tunisia - that worries me. It's also clear that those who have been involved are not disillusioned working-class muslims but those from well-educated middle-class backgrounds. What makes someone who has everything going for them strap a bomb to themselves or go on a suicide shooting mission? That is the real frightening thing.

That's Capitalism for you. Someone, somewhere, will be making a fast buck providing arms to one (or more) of the participants in this conflict.

I'd not disagree with a multilateral force but it still does not deal with fundamental issue of tackling the ideologues. Dealing with ISIS and their ilk is like tackling the hydra - cut off its head and another two pop up in its place.

That's the point I was making.I don't think either bombing (or not bombing) is dealing with the more fundamental issues. I think there is a military role but it has to go hand-in-hand with tackling the idealogues. That is not easy.

You started it. And it's the one question no one has really tried to answer on any side.

So how do you propose ISIS should be dealt with?

Swanson would be a cracking signing - but as Ludo says it's unlikely to happen.

I know you did - I wouldn't call the SSP socialist either. Back-stabbing shitebags maybe, but not socialists.

Didn't work for the SSP. Did work for the SNP.

Thoughts? Will it affect the elections next May? My own view - in a word - no.