• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About DonnyTJS

Contact Methods

  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

8,232 profile views
  1. I know, I keep trying to tell them but no one seems to listen to me ... Actually, my key personal criterion is that 'the greatest' must be Johan Cruyff. Not a hard one to fulfil, provided you're Johan Cruyff.
  2. And where have I said any of that? I am not the font of all knowledge, but I do know more than you about the motivation of Middle-Eastern terrorism over the last fifty years (yes, I did see what you did there; I assume it's as close as we'll get to an admission that you and the sites you linked to were wrong). I do recognize Israel. I favour a two-state solution. The vast majority of the attacks on the 'West' from the 1960s, '70s and '80s which you categorized as Islamic were in response to Israel's holding of the occupied territories after the Six-Day War and then further territory after the Yom Kippur War. Explaining something isn't the same as justifying it. The reason why it's important to point out that there has been an ideological shift in the motivation for terrorism in the past fifty years, from political to religious, is because the timing of that shift holds the key to explaining it, and explaining it offers a sliver of hope of finding some form of solution. The 1991 Gulf War. Contrary to the crap you posted above, I wasn't against that war - it had UN backing and involved a coalition of regional states that rightly feared Iraqi expansion (even fellow Ba'athist regime Syria joined in). The West's involvement shortened the war, possibly preventing another drawn-out war of attrition like Iran-Iraq of the previous decade. No attempt at regime change either (well, it was assumed Saddam would fall after the defeat). But the US stationed troops on Saudi soil. In the holiest land in Islam. And they remained after Saddam had been defeated. That's what sparked the beginnings of Islamic terrorism in the West. The increased interference, the decision to shift to enforced regime change without UN backing, the whole fvcking role-call of stupidity we've seen since 1990 is why we're where we are. I don't buy into the idea that this chaos was all planned. Imho, it's largely the result of politicians doing what they think is best (best for them and the stability of their oil supply, sure enough) and doing it incompetently. If there's any solution it involves pulling back, stopping interference, understanding the sensibilities of Islam and not spreading shite like all Middle-eastern terrorism in the West up to the 1990s was due to Islamic ideology, because that is not only completely wrong, it masks the reasons why it now certainly is Islamic and therefore makes it harder to see the motivation and the solutions.
  3. It's not me who's doing the pigeonholing. In response to GirvanTA, PIAK asks "What ideology?" and you respond with "Seriously?" followed by your preferred method of message-board discourse - posting links to pages that are either intentionally misleading or simply put together by folk who don't have a clue. These links claim that the ideological motivation for these attacks was 'Islamic'. Your latest bit of pigeonholing is that these groups were "anti-communist" - a large number of the attacks listed in your links were carried out by the PFLP, a Marxist-Leninist group founded by a Christian Palestinian. As for these groups "representing a predominantly muslim membership" - it's that species of argument that brands all Muslims as terrorists. And you accuse me of pigeonholing ... The ideological motivation for almost all Middle-eastern based attacks prior to the 1990s was anti-Zionism, not Islamism. Anti-Zionism is a political movement (like Zionism), not religious. Anti-Zionists can be of any religion or none.
  4. Are you honestly this blind? Just because someone on the internet says an attack is 'Islamic' doesn't make it Islamic. Middle-eastern based terrorism from the 1960s, '70s & '80s was anti-Zionist, anti-imperialist, and thoroughly secular. As I mentioned, these groups contained Christians, they were allied with the whole Baader-Meinhoff nexus which any self-respecting Islamist wouldn't touch.
  5. Another example of you not having a clue what you're talking about. Black September / PLO / PFLP etc were secular, political movements - hence their alliance with Western groups like the Red Army Faction. They included Arab Christians, Arab Muslims, Arab secularists. Nothing to do with Islamism.
  6. Why should that be the case? The 'title' is for an individual in the context of a team, not the team itself. Best could have been n x better than he was, as close to footballing perfection as it's possible to be, and he'd never have won a world cup. No, it's not like saying that - because they're not team sports in the footballing sense. The F1 examples were all in pursuit of individual world titles and, in the context of the championship, could be seen as aiding that pursuit. Zidane's headbutt had the opposite effect. Since neither Korchnoi nor Karpov are generally considered 'the greatest' it's a rather moot point, anyway. And I don't buy the 'peak' argument either. What's the approved duration? If it's 10 seconds, let's give the title to McFadden. It should be over a career in football, which is why the correct answer is Cruyff - the only contender with an outstanding managerial record.
  7. Because of its jaw-dropping, reputation-destroying, likely match-throwing, cretinous stupidity. It's also the only explanation for David Beckham's mysterious failure to make it onto anyone's list so far ...
  8. End of the day, it comes down to what your name's associated with ... The Pele Droop The Ronaldo Preen The Cruyff Turn The Maradona Cheating-Dirty-Handballing-Ba$tard-Incident The Zidane Moment-of-Madness The Messi Airline-Ad The Beckenbauer Backhander
  9. A great player, but that 'one moment of madness' rules him out of being the greatest, wouldn't you say? Was it ever clarified what the Italian defender had said? I vaguely recall it was meant to have been summat about his mother.
  10. Cruyff (Johan, not Jordi) - style, attitude, nicotine-intake, transition to management: the greatest.
  11. I have an instinctive aversion to pyro at games because of Bradford '85. I know my reaction is irrational as modern stadiums aren't the wooden tinder-boxes we were in back then, but it makes me uncomfortable all the same. More rationally, smoke gets in your eyes ...
  12. I owe you an apology, Mario. I've now watched the 'debate', or at least the relevant part of it (c. 34:00), thanks to Flure's prompting above, and she's a glaringly obvious activist, and Flure's point about the reporting of it is bang on. My point about jumping onto any internet claim that suits one's agenda stands (in terms of the fake claim that she's married to a Tory councillor) but I shouldn't have waded in. I don't know what the answer is regarding TV political programmes that include audience participation. There's no reason why councillors (as others say above) or activists for that matter shouldn't be involved, and you can't really stop folk lying about the degree of poverty in which they feel they live (who knows, maybe she has been scrounging from a foodbank, though I'd be well pissed off if she has having donated to 'em whenever I'm back). Exile speaks a lot of sense above.