hypochondriac

I agree with that. Whilst I disagree with the idea that there has been no backlash (as there clearly has been one even though it definitely could have been bigger and more widespread) that does not mean that there isn't clearly a problem within Islam at the moment- a fact agreed with by many other Muslims and those within the government in Iraq amongst others. I'm not sure why it's controversial to point that out. Yes terrorism, is an issue within every religion etc but it's Islam that has the biggest problem with it in April 2016.

I made no noises about allowing anything. I simply stated that you're incredibly dull and repetitive droning on and on and coming across as a bit thick. You've already said you're going to continue to do it regardless so I'll keep pointing it out no matter if you tell me to mind my own business or not (the forum is the business of everyone who posts on it).

I'm not judging anything, I'm stating facts.

That's rubbish. My business pays tax like most other people and I don't pay in cash to avoid it. Your attitude is why things like the NOTW hacking scandal occurred.

There were quite a few rumours swirling round when we went through our bad run. Not sure how true they were though.

We were a 'ringleader' apparently. Not sure how that works when one vote is the same as anyone elses but u suppose it makes a good newspaper headline.

Me for one.

Here you go again with your mind- numbing replies. Utter tool.

Can't see batman saying that from that post. Whelk I'll give you- though I disagree with him.

Well if that is true then it would be a story. Has probably come from one of the aggrieved players and whilst it may be exaggerated, there's probably a grain of truth in there.

Could well be. Seems a more likely scenario than the journalist simply making the story up.

Agreed with all that. I would say particularly during the big slump earlier in the season which was getting to crisis point before we hauled ourselves out of it with some excellent form. There is probably some truth in this article but I agree the players are responsible first a d we have had some good results so you can't complain about koeman.

Agreed. We should assess each story based on the headline and if we don't like what we see then we should go no further.

See. If even I agree with someone as deluded as soggy then there must be something in it.

The fact I agree with soggy on this despite thinking he's a buffoon on 99% of issues regarding this matter should tell you a lot. I haven't seen either whelk or batman saying there has been no sort of backlash from any Muslims against terrorism. Do you have the post numbers?

This is what I'm talking about. You ignore the definition that you didn't like and then claim that there was no backlash because you didn't like the type of the backlash and thus say that one did not exist- not a single other poster on this thread has expressed any agreement with your absurd position. You quite clearly made up the guff posted earlier about jihad support being a price worth paying for the Islamic takeover of Britain.

People have given you loads of answers but you've ignored them, denied the answers existed and then invented things that you imagine people have said. He's right you are being a d*ckhead and that's from someone who has had some sympathy with some of the points you were making.

What you do is the other side of the coin to what soggy does. You're both a bit mental and you both invent things to support your opposing arguments. It's really odd.

Because there will be some change for the better.

Now you're just being immature. You're ignoring the definition that I showed fitted this situation. That's fine if you want to do that if it makes you feel better.

There's no point in me trying to find new words to explain the same thing.

You either have sovereignty or you don't. Watering sovereignty down means you no longer have it and is unacceptable to me.

So you are ignoring the other definition which doesn't say this?

Again, the amount of people taking part in the backlash was not the question, it was simply if their actions that have been publicised met the definition. Now you can twist it all you want but I would say it's fairly obvious to everyone else that it is antagonistic regardless of who hears it. You won't admit you are wrong but I'm afraid in this instance you quite clearly are.

If there is not a negative consequence to footballers coming and working here then why would the government not make it as easy as possible to continue what it does now?