Yes.
but the problem is…do they even believe in him ? 
except that’s totally not what happened
In Texas: Yes.
In the sane world: No. Proportionality is one of the key requirements: Using deadly force is only justified when the anticipated threat was that of death. So, if I run at you with a gun shouting “DIEEEEEE”, then yes, you could shoot me. However, if you tapped me on the shoulder, or went to tap me on the shoulder, then I couldn’t cut your finger off.
Also: You can’t use self-defence against lawful authority. So if a policeman comes up to you and tackles you, you can punch them back and claim self-defence
Israel’s intervention wasn’t lawful because they were on international waters. And they intervened carrying guns.
But it’s not like they were waving them around or jamming them against people’s temples. All boarding parties carry weapons, it doesn’t mean they’re trying to kill the passengers.
But really, no one is correct here. The Israelis shouldn’t have boarded, but the crew shouldn’t have tried to kill the boarders.
Well on a deeply technical level, they weren’t acting with lawful authority. But they actually intervened carrying non-lethal weaponry until the protesters went all Rambo on them.
Indeed.
That’s probably the most sensible thing said so far.
this one sentence concludes the whole thread. nice one baconeggs.
I said the same thing way back on page 4 two months ago!
You didn’t explain why both sides were wrong.
If two cars collide head-on in the center of a road, I believe the first driver to cross the center-line is to be held responsible. So the Israelis are incorrecter.
Sorry, but I did say it two months ago. 
What if the other driver was drunk and on crack and didn’t have his lights on, and it was at night? That doesn’t really apply to the topic but just food for thought lol
Israel made a judgement call when deciding to board once they refused to change course, and that judgement call resulted in unnecessary violence due to both the unnecessary violence of the “peace activists” as well as Israel’s decision to board in the first place.
TL;DR Israel had no choice but to protect themselves with their guns, but surely there must have been another way of forcing the ship to change course other than boarding trained soldiers onto it in what was clearly international waters?
every analogy just gets worse and worse, you guys should really just stop… it seems like the general consensus is that concocting a convoluted imaginary series of events that have to be stretched to the logical breaking point in order to even be marginally relevant to the discussion somehow makes your argument stronger. This is in fact not the case. Just say Israel has the right to kill peace activists if you think that’s the case! It still isn’t going to convince anyone even if you substitute “a hungry bear” for “Israel” and “double rainbow” for “peace activists” and “commuter aircraft” for “boat” and “delicious cupcakes” for “humanitarian aid…” Trying to disguise your wrong opinion through ridiculous analogies is not going to trick anyone into thinking you have a moral compass.
I mean look at it this way, if a bear breaks into your tent in the middle of the night and he just wants your cupcakes, and you happen to grab a shovel and castrate the bear, but then the bear mauls you and puts you in a coma during which you’re dreaming about finding a pearl in a clam until the doctor finally brings you back by slapping your face after 15 years, can you really blame the bear for shooting all those people? I didn’t think so.
I stopped reading. Honestly, you can’t possibly say that both parties weren’t at least somewhat responsible, as well as it being completely ridiculous that you just addressed every other poster (or those who made analogies) as having wrong opinions…
Mmmmm…delicious humanitarian aid. With mint frosting.
I thought mine was pretty good.
[COLOR=‘Black’]Sure, the other driver should have reacted better, and stayed in his lane and stopped (or swerved off the road instead of toward the center), but the guy who crossed first prompted the other driver’s poor reaction. And when a passenger in the second car gets killed, you expect to place the same amount of blame on them as is placed on the original line-crosser? Bogus.
no. there’s a decent point that you’re vaguely hinting at, but like I just said, you seem to think that talking about a car accident lends credibility to your argument, whereas that is actually not the case. on the other hand, if we were to put this issue in terms of walrus mating ritual, i think it might help everyone to get on the same page…
Way to hyperbole. A concise analogy is an accurate simulation, a simulation that can be analyzed according to precedents. Analogies are never about more or less credibility.
Proper blame only comes through acknowledging liability for a crime or atrocity. I don’t care about cars crashing, but how the law recognizes them. We can demonstrate the responsibility nations wield abroad with the responsibility drivers have over their vehicles. Outlandish analogies you introduce won’t refute this parallel.