egg

Given your noble support for the human rights of other countries, are you boycotting American products after their change to their abortion law which impact only their people? Or do gay people matter more than women to you? Do you refuse to buy Chinese made products? Must be tough having to put back clothes made in Bangladesh? Are you lobbying your MP to stop sales of arms to Saudi Arabia? Or are you just another div banging on about LGBTQ rights in Qatar ignorant to the fact that homosexuality was illegal in the USA until not long ago (did you spend your evenings pushing for the change, and never watch a Hollywood movie until they did it? Thought not), and that it is illegal in 60+ other countries, many of them former colonies of ours, some still in the commonwealth, but that you'll sit down and watch the matches anyway?!

Nope. I agree with Rob Green's take on it - Southgate only sees him as a wide player. Obviously to me he should have replaced Mount and played as an attacking midfielder. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/live/football/60976197?ns_mchannel=social&ns_source=twitter&ns_campaign=bbc_live&ns_linkname=6381342ce7e8f473cfbfb862%26'Foden only considered for wide role'%262022-11-25T22%3A19%3A55.142Z&ns_fee=0&pinned_post_locator=urn:asset:9c77a604-2ce4-4a92-9051-d96c53a73b8b&pinned_post_asset_id=6381342ce7e8f473cfbfb862&pinned_post_type=share

Nah, we were poor. Negative. Risk averse. Overrun in midfield. Poor performance.

He is!

Yep, he was decent. Commanded his box. Went on a better run with the ball than any of our lads did.

Wow. Completely shite. We were like Brazil on Monday, but were back to being like England tonight.

Yep. Makes no sense. Arguably our best player. Not sure what Mount offers that Foden doesn't.

Yep, looks lost. Rice has far too much to do.

Yep. Mount offering nothing up top, not even a press, and not deep enough to help midfield.

Embarrassing from Mount.

Not sure where a goal is coming from at the moment. Can't play through them, or around them.

According to you, who it has fuck all to do with. Qatar domestic issues and gay rights is a matter for Qatar and it's people. This is boring af mate. I said earlier let's agree to differ and you came back with some nonsense. Have the last word if it'll cheer you up.

Yep. A simple concept. Unless you don't understand it. Or pretend not to in order to be contrary.

You ain't in a position of strength on choice of language mate. Enjoy the footy 👍

God knows.

It really isn't comparable. You're campaigning for change in a foreign country because you believe they need change. We have no idea if the people want it, but in any event, it has nothing to do with us. Your stance on Afghanistan misunderstands what's happened on the ground over there. People, and their families, have changed their position in society and practices based on what we facilitated, and have been dragged into the streets and killed because of it. It beggars belief how anyone can suggest that kind of meddling has helped the people of that country. It's not our circus.

You're not covering yourself in glory here mate. Enjoy the football.

Jesus wept. I cba to even start responding to that nonsense. Let's agree to differ.

It is desperate, and it's disgusting that you allege that I say that it's fine to kill people based on my beliefs. I've said nothing of the sort - if you want a discussion, please be respectful and don't make up nonsense. I'm saying that Qatar is free to continue to interpret, and enforce, sharia law on its own country as it has hitherto. Sure, it's unpleasant, but it's their established religious law. That is altogether different to the Nazis coming along and imposing it's flavour if political ideology, and enforcing it, at home and in other countries. Your suggestion that Nazi genocide in foreign countries is comparable to the Qatar situation isn't a sensible line of argument. The above has nothing to do with my beliefs. It's you who's stamping your feet saying that you feel that there must be change in another country because of your belief that our way should replace their way. That's disrespectful of their way. Also ask yourself how any change could realistically he sustained, and how it may be for the people if they follow our way and then inevitably have to revert to type. If you're struggling for an answer, Afghanistan is a very recent example of how our attempt to force our will on an islamic state went to absolute rat shit for it's people. A new way of life, followed by the clamp down based on its way. Lives were built, changed, then reversed, then lost because we meddled believing we knew best for another country and it's people. But yeah, let's do it our way, that will work.

No, you're hanging on to erroneous idea that another country should change their ways because it's so different to our perception of the right way. It's arrogant and disrespectful. The Holocaust point is desperate - you're better than that.

Yes, absolutely that. Our way, so it should be their way. Disrespectful. We ain't the policy makers for the world.

In your view (mine too) but it ain't for us to change or seek to influence change.

What a daft statement...the law of a land is the law of the land. On your argument, I shouldn't have to live by laws of this land if I don't want to. The whole point of this is that we in the west do not believe that these laws are right, but their laws are exactly that.

Of behave. Their religion and their law. Our wish for them to change is our will. Failing to understand that is pretty hard to do. I cba with the rest as you seem a bit angry.

It's got absolutely nothing to do with the west though. Non islamic countries need to stop instilling their will on the people of islamic countries. If the people of those countries rise up, cool, but it's not for us to instigate or encourage it. As crazy as Infantino came across the other day, his point that people who'd lived in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, was right. I mean, the leaders of the free world have just rewound the clock on women's right to abortion, and many states hardly have a liberal attitude on homosexuality - who are they to express moral outrage?