Lets deal with facts, Bakes.
This debate between you and i stemmed from this sentence: While some bravely risked their lives to save others, many more exhibited the mindless tribal outrage which is football hooliganism. (Which also occurred at Hillsborough)
That sentence bears no relevance to your charge You asserted that Liverpool fans on the day were part to blame for the deaths, It also is very offensive to even suggest that I "asserted" such.
You are correct, that is where the disagreement started. Whatever the normal usage of "hooligan" or "hooligan behavior" out on the streets... in the context of FOOTBALL, "hooliganism" takes on a particular meaning. But let's start by taking a look at the rest of your comments on "hooliganism":
"Unless you have actually been in a situation with 10's of thousands of fans, it would seem hard to understand how decent supporters can react in that manner. I seem to recall Juventus fans throwing flares into the Liverpool fans. No doubt, before that, there was plenty of verbal abuse from both sides and possibly, pelting of bottles etc. I'm not blaming Juventus fans for the tragedy, but there is usually a spark that ignites an explosion. When it "kicks off" panic sets in, which often leads to pushing and fear of being crushed."The overall impression you paint (and tie to Hillsborough) is that the fans were unruly and out of control. This is bolstered by the definition you provided from Merriam-Webster.
Now, my interpretation of hooliganism may differ from yours, but since you like Merriam-Webster so much, their definition is : rowdy, violent, or destructive behavior
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hooliganism
You continue condescendingly stating facts, findings, statements blah blah blah. I understand your interest, but I read those initial words when they were initially printed. I read the counter claims when they were originally made. I watched the footage when it was originally shown and I spoke to people who were actually there (though none from Leppings Lane end).
You never "asserted" that the fans contributed to the deaths at Hillborough, but the implication was clear... why even bring it up? Hillsborough is infamous because of the death of the fans. You have implicitly tied those deaths to fan behavior. It may not have been your intent, but this is precisely what the cover up was all about, and why people react to the assertion/implication as they do. There was nothing "violent or destructive" about the fan behavior on that day. You say you read the initial accounts... dude, the initial accounts were wrong! I don't know what better way to make it clear to you. The police union was part of a conspiracy spreading lies to the press within hours of the tragedy. 90% of the newspaper articles you read came from a South Yorkshire press service that was linked to the police union. They distorted the story, and other newspapers across England picked up the false stories.
I don't think I ever stated that I must be right because I was closer to the event. However, I do believe in my own opinion, otherwise, why would I offer it?
Now, you may counter my opinion if you wish, but bleating out paragraphs to counter my opinion is really not necessary.
You seem to think that taking quotes from an official inquiry makes any other opposing views as completely wrong. Yet, there is video evidence of rowdy, destructive and unruly behavior. Actions defined by Merriam-Webster as "hooliganism". You can even hear Forest and Liverpool fans chanting until they realised this was not hooliganism, but a major disaster.
You didn't state that your version has to be right, but when I offered a better account (and yes, I will use better, for reasons I'll explain shortly), you took offense to it by accusing me of thinking that I "know best"... why would you make that statement, if 1) you weren't offended by me countering your "opinion", and 2) if you didn't think your version of what happened was better?
And YES, taking quotes from an official inquiry is infinitely better than any personal subjective opinion you can offer second-hand, it's even better than any one personal opinion offered by a primary source. This is because hundreds of witnesses were interviewed. There is literally reams of reports from survivors and police officers that were never included in the Taylor Report. The police brass suppressed that info. These eyewitness statements were cross-referenced against each other. One person might think that the situation unfolded one way, but others might see it differently. If hundreds of people, including police officers in the crowd, are saying there was no "rowdy, violent, destructive" fan behavior... then why should I, or anyone accept a second-hand version.
You say you saw footage... I bet the footage you saw was from the BBC broadcast. That footage shows mayhem that ensued as people were fighting for their lives to get out of the pens... that's not footage of people pushing because they're unruly. Even the poor cops on the field were pulling people over the fence once they realized what was going on. Many of those brave officers did their best to help... when we talk about a cover up it's not them who engaged in the cover up. They made reports, and their reports were CHANGED by higher ups to cover their own asses.
I wasn't there so the report is the next best thing... especially since the report looked at not the BBC footage... but CCTV footage shot from the very box Duckenfield was standing in. This footage is shown in the Hillborough documentary I linked earlier. Watch, if you will, the segment of the video from 14:30 - 21:00 thereabouts, it shows actual CCTV footage among others. It continues throughout the documentary, but I'm trying to narrow the focus for you. If you don't care then don't bother, it's up to you.
Now I understand you don't have time to go thru the report or to look at the link, but don't come talking about me "bleating out paragraphs", those paragraphs represent facts... not opinion. Now if you still want to hold fast to your opinion that fan behavior was an issue on the day, never mind the facts contradicting you then fine. But that intransigence won't shield you from criticism, and you can't then whine and complain about me and how my posts sound to you, when all I'm doing is offering facts.