egg

Just coming in on this. Meghoma isn't a credible option, yet. Bree has been injured, and is coming back. Manning is the only option. Manning being out of position by taking corners on the wrong side is plainly on RM. Manning tucking in is also on RM. He did it in his first friendly game and has done it since. I agree though that he's not good enough defensively.

I'm not that a case can't be made linking who's getting the votes with the method. That said, I share your view that postal voting should be discouraged unless absolutely necessary. People should get to the polling station (and give ID) imo.

They voted for a principle in a protest vote, not the personality fronting it.

Ha!! I'm not sure that outcome would have been much different in a town with a lower Muslim demographic - that's a vote that's in step with the feelings of the masses imo.

Trucks escaping Israeli gunfire?

Agreed...but we'd have said otherwise if we'd won and not had any injuries.

Fuck me. That Adams throw says it all.

How is that goal on Manning? Danns was lost between THB and Stephens.

The commentator thinks he's Edozie! I wish he was right.

Charles. Hard to believe we paid all that money for that.

Not sure what game you're watching mate. He's had sully for cover, and had to step into the middle cos Charles is half asleep. Done well.

Yep. His tracking has been brilliant.

Why? Manning has had a good game.

If anyone again asks why RM doesn't trust him, and why he trusts Stephens, this half answers the question.

It was mentioned ages ago mate. All confirmed https://www.southamptonfc.com/en/news/article/saints-sign-ussumane-djalo-on-youth-loan

Lumpy gravy. No excuses. Sieve it if you must, but don't serve it with lumps.

Yep. Their kids will press us all over the pitch and kill us with pace. Could be a very long night I think.

I don't think it would have been much different. I think the only real difference would have been if the US had put a hand on their shoulders early on. Conversely, and reverting to the Britain/Ireland/NI point, I'm not sure how that would have gone had the US not been supportive of Ireland.

Your post that I labelled idiotic followed you casting aspersions on people for mentioning both sides of the debate in the same breath. Your opinion is wrong, yet you state it as a fact and disrespect people in the process. When you're disrespectful, don't complain when you get a bit back.

Your posts are littered with your opinions of people who don't agree with you. Glass houses etc.

That's a more constructive and considered post. Fwiw, I don't see this as a war - you can't have a war between a strong military and a glorified militant group. What we've had is 7/10 followed by an undeniably ott reaction with lots of unnecessary killing of civilians and destruction of infrastructure. Handing back hostages won't end this, and I appreciate you won't share my view on this, but Israel 'arresting' thousands of people in the west bank (without charge) isn't much better conduct. As for Hamas hiding themselves, that keeps getting said but in reality they ain't going to stand in the open. In any event, Israel taking out 100+ people to get one bloke who's suspected of being a Hamas member, is not on any assessment necessary or proportionate. I've highlighted the last bit as the stated aim of Israel just isn't achievable. Sure, they'll nullify the Hamas threat for a while at least, and may even force the organisation to disband, but they'll jack in the box as something else. If anyone thinks otherwise, just remember the attempts to do the same with the PLO in 1982. Other entities formed from the ashes of that, and it was cited as the motivation for 9/11.

Nonsense. Talking about both sides of an issue is taking a balanced approach. Idiotic comments like yours are used by people to try to shut off opinion and cast aspersions.

True. Some don't seem have any sympathies for the Palestinians either.

Are you suggesting that people can't simultaneously have sympathy with the republican (and Palestinian) cause, and have genuine condemnation for how militants behave?

You don't have to go back thousands of years to understand context form a Palestinian perspective. You can start in 1948, then add 1967, then add 1982 (not least Sabra and Shatila), then keep adding the Israeli behaviour since. Palestinians reacted to Israeli behaviour in an appalling way, and Israel reacted to that in an appalling way. It seems that the differences on here are that some feel that a Palestinian response to what they've suffered was inevitable, whereas others focus on the justification of the Israeli response to the events of 7/10.