You also clearly don't know what "terrorist" means either.

In this case you had ships in international waters boarded by a lethal military force, to suggest that anyone in the IDF was in danger is ludicrous. If the IDF thought them truly a threat they could have sunk every boat from miles away.

I leave it as an exercise to you to discover why it is a strawman.

Bascially, breaking the blockade would open up an easy resupply route for Hamas in Gaza. More rockets and other weapons. That's why I called them terrorists. They're not attacking civilians, but they're trying to pave the ground for attacks to happen.

>It means you’re arguing a point I didn’t make.

Uh huh, here's what you said:

I know two things for sure. First, Gaza is not the House of Woe that the Islamists say it is. No area that boasts its own Olympic-sized swimming pool (in the middle of a desert, yet) and a top-flight restaurant that does booming business is on the edge of ruin.

And then I said with deep sarcasm:

And yes, because Gaza has a nice restaurant and a pool there cannot be poverty and suffering from the blockade.

So how did I misrepresent your argument again?

Like I said, you don't even know what "strwamen" is. What I was doing was being sarcastic… you do know what sarcasm is right?

Here's another example:

Yes! I hate the Jews! Oohhh those Jews, hate 'em all the time!

Which is odd, considering half my family is Jewish and I was bar mitzvahed and all and spent a whole summer working in Israel where I learned just how full of nonsense the whole place is. Bunch of morons fighting over a dying strip of desert.

Of course the bigger idiots are the ones who think they know what's what from the other side of the planet.

I thought another invasion of Lebanon would be just about the stupidest thing the Israelis could do but this certainly tops it and here's one reaction:

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/seven-i…

Yeah, but Yossi Sarid probably hate Jews too and heck, he just lives there, you clearly know more than he does!

Oh and your "terrorists"? They came "armed" with tools, kitchen knives and sticks, oh yes, the IDF with their state of the art weapons equipment and training were in such danger! I flash back to Jimbo of South Park screaming "He's coming right at me!" as he blows the head off of bunny rabbit.

And there's the little matter of the flotilla being in international waters giving the IDF no legal reason to board them. But hey, they're Israel, they'll do what they want, they want to use forged and stolen passports to murder people, they'll do what they want!

Then again, you're Americans, you'll cheerfully invade an whole country for fake WMD so I suppose this is small potatoes.

One point I'll make–the title of this post may not be accurate; only under the loosest definition could the activists be called terrorists. (Because they didn't target civilians, you see…) Terrorist sympathizers? Likely. Criminals? Almost certainly. Violent? Obviously. But not terrorists. (Not based on these actions alone, anyway.)

The distinction is an important one–if you start calling all violence 'terrorism,' you lose your justification for saying that all terrorism is unjust, because the term then applies to violent rebellion against an oppressive regime. In geeky terms–You'd have to say Princess Leia and the Rebel Alliance were likewise terrorists.

What's so hard to understand?

You don't even know what "strawmen" mean.