I once passed a pedestrian walking along a country road (no pavement) with his back to the traffic; the road had trees down one side and long grass on either verge. It was dusk and the pedestrian was wearing a dark green ‘shooting’ jacket, camouflage trousers, camouflage gaiters and a dark green hat; he also had a full-face beard!…

My second eldest came back from a night exercise with her air cadets earlier this year and casually muttered a tale of some stupid staff member driving their mini bus down a sunken lane at night, with no lights on, trying to find but nearly running over several cadets – in camo – and insisting that it was all just a good laugh. She begged me not to raise the subject with her CO since she is up for promotion and been told by others not to rock the boat; must say that I feel much less confident in their supervising capabilities now.

Ta-daa…boom-tish!

Having seen the GoogleView car on several occasions and also having been to the MofAF a few times…were they using a GoogleView shopping trolley in there?

Must go and check some other museums…

IS means Islamic State – not Independent Scotland…;o)

The U.S. needs their backing how many they can muster it has to be seen that these Arab countries are contributing no matter how little or how effective simply because if it was the west going it alone it would be seen and portrayed by Isis as a crusade against the Muslim/Arab nations IMO.
With the backing of Arab countries the U.S. can get the support of not just the armed forces of these countries but the people’s backing too! and more than likely more support from other western countries they are all in the firing line and they need a coalition to band together then ask for more support in what ever form that would take when they need it.

How many men does IS have? How many would the anti-IS forces need, to be on the safe side, and could these ten nations supply that number without leaving themselves unable to defend their own home territory? And which other Arabic nations are likely to join the party on the good guy’s side?

Oh, good grief. Someone disagrees with you therefore they are a troll. Someone gives an opposing view to yours so they must be a troll. Don’t debate, don’t attempt to convince the ‘troll’ they are wrong and certainly don’t look at what they are saying and try to see why they might think that way and NEVER accept that view and change your own mind, oh no.

If you like Bruce delete me but a disruptive influence on this forum does nothing for peace and harmony!

I like Bruce – although not in that way – but I don’t see what that has to do with anything. But, as I said above, peace and harmony to you would consist purely of no one expressing a view contrary to your own.

Mines a pint of Pedigree please John!

Is it? Mine prefer Winalot, but by the tin…

I actually respect the way the Church is managing its decline respectfully.

Indeed, but whilst the silent minority/majority (delete as per your own belief as to which is correct) of those actually on the ‘front line’ of the church – the ones working with the public every day – might doubt their belief, the official word from the top has always been more toward an all-knowing, all-seeing deity who is infallible.
About three years ago I had the fortune to talk with a vicar who had been in Rwanda in the immediate aftermath of the genocide of 1994. He had been – in his own words – utterly traumatised by the savagery that had taken place and could not understand how the two sides could do such things to each other, nor why his god could allow it to happen. He had some medical training and was present, assisting the humanitarian aid group Doctors Without Borders, at a massacre in a refugee camp in spring 1995 where he witnessed thousands killed by the Rwandan army while the few UN troops present could do nothing; on his return he suffered a PTSD breakdown (as did General Dallaire, the Canadian commander of the UN mission in Rwanda throughout the genocide, who fought with his superiors in New York about trying to prevent the slaughter beforehand and with them when they wanted to withdraw UN forces from protecting enclaves of Tutsi, hospitals and other humanitarian sites; little wonder he subsequently tried to commit suicide…) which was prolonged by frequent visits from superiors all eager to underline the idea that his belief should be stronger after having witnessed such scenes! Apparently when others suffer similar doubts if they cannot be returned to the right path then yet want to carry on doing the church’s work (“after all“, he told me, “you can lie about what you personally believe, and no one knows unless you tell them!“) they are ‘shamed’ (his words) into silence with the plea that the church needs to present a strong public face – which was what happened to him. So when someone that high up the religious food chain, like the archbishop, makes this sort of admission – even if just in jest – it must show that some logical thinking over belief has been accepted.

Of course, how the African churches react will be the real test…

Oh, hello again. Thought you were ignoring me.

How about, for a change, you actually address the subject rather than float in, issue my dismissal like some sort of all conquering fuhrer whilst trying to drag the topic off subject, then smugly retire as though you had nothing to do with it?

The plastic must have run when they incinerated her, that’s all I can say…