Thank you! This was getting into the "who are you going to believe, me, or your lying eyes?" territory for me. Anyway, I enjoyed the World Cup, but I still hate PK deciders. I like hockey's idea of penalty shots during the season but when the Stanley Cup is on the line you play it out sudden death style as long as it takes to determine the winner.

Thanks for the laugh. Either way, who cares what you think? As if it matters a whit. Jeez, some of you people are full of yourself. Wouldn't have been more honest to say you agreed with cardshark, but noooooo, you had to go with the ego boosting pretense.

I see you're stuck on the "at war" reality bending fallacy as well. To your question though, it depends. The guy who heads the miltary wing in Syria, Mashaal, probably does think so while the Hamas leaders in Gaza and the West Bank are a mixed bag. The PFLP joined the Hamas elected govt awhile back but stated they needed to reach a political and social accord with Hamas to remain in the govt so I'm not sure where they stand. The more radical Islamic Jihad offered support but they refused to join the govt so i'd wager they are with the at war crowd. I don't know what the DFLP did so I won't guess there. Abass/Fatah probably fall on the not at war side. I'll let you know after I attend our next secret meeting.

Oh I'm sorry, you wanted a simple answer to a complex situation. I know you tried to phrase it as a simple question but, eh, darn real life for being so complex.

Mack,

Your post was awhile ago. I understand though. The obvious hypocrisy of trying to seriously answer it was too much even for them. Besides, it would've taken them off their oft repeated talking points. Better luck next time.

You put all the distortions, race baiting and name calling in one short post. It usually takes your commrades several lengthy posts to accomplish the same feat. Congrats.

"The "weasely winners" schtick grows tiresome. All you have to back it up is some impressionistic characterization of the Italians as cheating divers. Let's look at some facts:

Please let's do.....

"The Italian defense was the only one to shut down the tournament's top scoring offense (Germany); and they did it for 120 minutes."

True.

"Italy led all teams in clean tackles, by a wide margin. Gattuso and Cannavaro combined for 76 clean tackles. The entire Spanish team had 83. Sure, Gattuso and Cannavaro got to play two more games, but still, that's two guys versus an entire team..."

No, they trailed Germany in TCs (220 to 187) by a wide margin. The Spanish reference is a dubious use of stats, but, if you want to play the two more games thing, Ukraine played two less games and had 170 TCs.

"Buffon led all goalkeepers in saves."

True.

"They only got a single penalty whistled in their favor, despite being such horrendous fakers.

So? That just means they didn't get the calls in the box. They also led in FSs (Fouls suffered - 152) by a wide margin. I guess that was solely due to other teams trying to stop their fearsome attack and it didn't have anything to do with their notorious penchant for diving and flopping. Seeing as how you keep reminding us that the Italian leagues are so tough, that makes all the divaing even worse.

"They were second overall in scoring chances generated."

If you mean SOG (shots on goal), they were third behind Portugal and Germany.

"They were first in fast break chances generated, by a wide margin."

A wide margin? One more (40) than Germany (39) is not by a wide margin.

"They led the tournament in corner kicks generated--yet another marker of an aggressive offense that pushes the ball."

They were tied with Portugal (44) and only three ahead of France (41)

"Why did they manage all these things? Wait, I know: because they were weasely fakers who clogged the zone and just tried to slow the other team down with fakery and whining.

Or could it be that they just played really well?"

They did both (play well and fake/whine/clog the zone). Those those things aren't mutually exculsive.