Hey Paul, I couldn't but agree with your 'factual' conclusions on obama. To help buttress your argument, may I add the following:

The banks punked him by repaying the money the money he gave them with interest.

The 32 million uninsured citizens of this nation also punked him by having health insurance provided for them in the health care reform.

The health ins. companies punked him by their inability to now turn down people on grounds of pre-existing condition. Furthermore, they also punked him by their inability to drop a sick person from his insurance as contained the health care reform.

Young men and women under the age of 25 also punked him by their ability to stay in their parents policy.

The economy also punked him by the recovery its now having.

The little growth we are now seeing in the job market also punked him.

The confidence people now have in the economy as shown by the great rebounds witnessed since he became president in the stock market also punked him.

The GM and Chrysler that are now profitable thereby making it possible for jobs to be retained also punked him.

The ebullient consumer protection rules as contained in the financial reform also punked.
him.

And lest I forgot, the international community also punked him by having a more favorable view of this country than it used to have.

Also, the gay and lesbian members of the militray will soon punk him once they are able to serve freely.

I can go on and on to help you in enumerating how obama has become the 'favorite punk of everyone', but the above is the much I could because of time factor.

I love it. You got it exactly right. Obama needs to slam someone against a wall. But it's not in him. He's clearly a "bend over" kind of guy. He bent over for Gates, Petraeus, and McChrystal, the banks, the health insurance people, Netanyahu and of course The Lobby. That said, it will be interesting to see how things develop, because he absolutely, positively wants to be reelected, and each fight he shies away from makes that more difficult as people come to see how shamelessly SPINELESS he is.

Speaking of 2012, did you notice how Colin Powell just terminated his disappearing act. Tell me he isn't thinking about 2012.

Are you really that silly? Last quarter all the large money center banks made trading profits all 61 days of the quarter by trading with the Federal Reserve and not making loans, doing IPO's or otherwise providing capital for anything. When the "reform" legislation came up no caps on swaps, no central clearing of derivitives and too big to fail was not even discussed.
As to health care. Nothing in the bill to control costs, all the stocks of all the insurance carriers and providors soared and there is a public mandate. Like he said as a candidate that's as ignorant as trying to solve homelesness by mandating that everyone buy a house. However, you just keep drinking that treasury supplied kool aid and believing everything is fine while the unemployment numbers stay high the debt passes 15 trillion by the end of the year (just passed 13 trillion last week) and the bankers keep making their record bonuses. Also have you noticed what is happeneing to the prices of food and transportation? The inflation is called GDP growth. Just make the lackeys spend more for the things they must buy and book the increase as economic expansion. It's still hard for me to believe you though when you defend what he did with the banks.
What adult of any race creed or socioeconomic status whatever gives a banker money first to hear what the banker is going to do in return only after the banker already has the dough? Nobody is that inherently stupid so I must conclude that the did it for other reasons like campaign repayments.

President Obama is everyone's favorite punk? Did I miss something or what? He is a guy who was saddled by two wars that W. Bush and apologists like you left for him. Here is an economic in ruins you bequeathed him, yet you people like Paul spewing false propaganda about inflation and deficits.

Remember when Republicans led by Dick "War Wizard" Cheney said that deficits do not matter. They inflated and borrowed their way to finance two wars that W. Bush was tricked into starting but not finishing. Talk of punking, talk of W.Bush entanglements.

Maybe we should have elected War monger, John McCain and see how another republican would have been punked into attacking Iran. People like Paul would whip out the magic wand to extract thousands of troop stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan, two wars W. Bush was punked into starting.

Talk of punks!

Obama whines about two wars that democrats and republicans voted to start and finance. He wasn't there to vote "present". But to his credit he has ratcheted up the war by using drones more. Good for him. He also sniffs about the economy when the democrats ruined it. It went to heck in 2007-08. Democrats gained control of spending in 2006. Before that we were experiencing growth. Bush did try three times to get the housing market under control and was shot down three times by democrats. As late as the middle of 2008 Frank and Dodd were saying that Fannie and Freddie were just fine. Obama put in for an average of a million dollars a day in earmarks. Then he, all of a sudden, is caught by surprise by the economic downturn. He is an economic idiot for not seeing it.

and imbecilic. The creeps in the "freedom flotilla" are no more interested in peace than you are.

This USS Liberty stuff is a bad broken record. The attack on the Liberty was hardly any more illogical than the US destruction of an Iranian civilian aircraft, or thousands of other friendly fire incidents in history.

The reality of modern warfare is that friendly fire incidents can only increase. American soldiers have killed American soldiers, Israeli soldiers have killed American soldiers, and every military that's been engaged in a large war has done the same. The fact that some Israeli soldiers killed some Americans operating in a war zone over 40 years ago isn't really that remarkable, especially since there's no even remotely plausable scenario in which doing so could have benefited Israel.

Just look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friendly_fire and explain how every single thing on the list was also a Zionist conspiracy.

It is obvious that, just as Israel stated, the soldiers retained from using any live fire even when already in grave danger, because they reported the situation and waited for an order allowing them to use live fire, an order that was given only after it was dead clear that the soldiers are being attacked in an attempt to kill them.

All the videos of the boarding (several are circling the internet so far) make it clear that the at least several dozens of the people on board the ship were planing to attack the soldiers as their boarded, already waiting for them armed with metal bars and pipes.

[* For a very clear view of the paint guns held by the soldiers (if you ever saw one, you will recognize the big tank containing the paint balls) watch 00:50 - 00:54 in this video - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYjkLUcbJWo& ]

Welcome, Israeli PR man.

Two words for you: International Waters

Watch all of the propaganda videos you want, but it doesn't change the basic facts of where this took place, and that only civilians were killed.

Nice try.

Hey, I'm no PR man, thou I'll admit I'm actually voluntarily doing PR for Israel (The comment looks so fragmented and "media ready" because I have wrote it as a single page document in OO Writer and the commenting mechanism here has a character limitation for comments).

Why? Well, Obviously I'm an Israeli (thou left wing and humanist, or so I would like to think), but at least as I see it, and I hope most if not all Israelis do, it doesn't make me a supporter for default for everything my government or army do. To tell you truth, when I first heard of the incident when I woke up I got sick to my stomach - I couldn't see how 10 people (now the official IDF number is 9) could get killed, many others wounded, when they boarded a peaceful ship of peace activists. I was angry and ashamed; it sounded like unprovoked trigger-happy soldiers were spraying civilians.

I actually did nothing but read every article and video published in international media during my Linear Algebra class, but even after the army released official statements claiming the soldiers were attacked, I didn't know whether to believe this or not. Only throughout the day, validating one piece of information in this video, that one in the other, I started to piece together a picture, and it looked exactly like the official version of the IDF.

That is why I made a special reference to the paint gun thing and linked to a specific timein a specific video – it was the only thing that calmed me, assuring that the soldiers did not board the vessel with automatic weapons (as stated). That is why I linked to the first video – only after seeing it I believed a soldier was stabbed.

I'm am not ashamed with my suspicion towards the official version – I think organizations, including armies and states, have a tendency to tell only a one-sided, biased story (I guess it's actually a human tendency). I just think it turned out to be exactly right this time.

I don't know if I can convince you I'm not a PR man, thou I find I really care that you believe I'm a real person, talking to you (Hugh). It's true I'm choosing to believe the Israeli version, but I'm not doing so blindly, or because of a tribal instinct or blind patriotism, but because I really believe that most of the responsibility of what happened rest on the attackers of the soldiers. And yes, I agree things should have been done differently (perhaps boarding this way was stupid), that the IDF was wrong to expect zero resistance (thou the peaceful boarding of the 5 other vessels show this way of boarding and taking control works when boarding a vessel with only peace-keeping activists on it). And yes, I do regret the death of 9 (or more, if you choose to beileve so) civilians, even if some or most of the attackers meant to kill the boarding soldiers (I think at list some did, as evident form the on-board video).

By the way, did you see the video? It's pretty strait forward, and I think you would be forced to agree with at least some of my points. Anyway, I would love to have a discussion/argument on the subject (besides the general PR accusation). I truly wish to be informed if I am wrong, and actually I don't assume I'm 100% right – kinda impossible.

Well, I will have to repeat myself (this is a copy & paste from one of my fragmented replies):

According to the San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea, paragraph 67 permits belligerents to attack merchant vessels flying the flag of neutral States outside of neutral waters if they "are believed on reasonable grounds to be carrying contraband or breaching a blockade, and after prior warning they intentionally and clearly refuse to stop, or intentionally and clearly resist visit, search or capture". Paragraph 146 permits the capture of neutral merchant vessels outside neutral waters if they are engaged in any of the activities referred to in paragraph 67 [read it in http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.icrc.org%2FIHL.nsf%2F52d68d14de6160e0c12563da005fdb1b%2F7694fe2016f347e1c125641f002d49ce!OpenDocument&h=5b275]

The vessels of the flotilla actually qualified for all of the aforementioned conditions, knowing well in advance that they are breaching a blockade, refusing to stop after being hailed and warned for several hours and, as demonstrated in the videos shown, brutally resisted visit, search and capture. As the peaceful towing of the other five ships demonstrated, the Israeli Navy handled the arrest of the flotilla in a lawful and respected manner (not to mention that all the wounded are treated in Israeli hospitals, including those who attempted to kill the soldiers, and that Israel will transfer to the Gaza Strip all humanitarian goods carried by the vessels, as it does every day with over 100 trucks of humanitarian goods)

to LAMONT CRANSTON:

I quote here from the San Remo Manual:
"118. In exercising their legal rights in an international armed conflict at sea, belligerent warships and military aircraft have a right to visit and search merchant vessels outside neutral waters where there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that they are subject to capture".

Read again - outside neutral waters.
And in order to clarify the term neutral water I'll quote again:

"14. Neutral waters consist of the internal waters, territorial sea, and, where applicable, the archipelagic waters, of neutral States. Neutral airspace consists of the airspace over neutral waters and the land territory of neutral States."

So you see, this laws actually permits this action in any waters that are not neutral waters, as in waters of neutral states. As you knowingly pointed out, the operation was carried out in international waters, waters not belonging any state (and so, also not to any neutral state).

If you want it in a more strait-forward manner, see paragraph 10:

"10. Subject to other applicable rules of the law of armed conflict at sea contained in this document or elsewhere, hostile actions by naval forces may be conducted in, on or over:

(a) the territorial sea and internal waters, the land territories, the exclusive economic zone and continental shelf and, where applicable, the archipelagic waters, of belligerent States;
(b) the high seas; and
(c) subject to paragraphs 34 and 35, the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf of neutral States."

See (b) - the high seas. Other wise known as International waters. And yes, that is actually the official term for International Waters (see Convention on the High Seas - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_the_High_Seas)

The people on the ship saw the pirates approaching and armed themselves as best they could. It is just a shame they did not have some Stingers and RPGs with which to better defend them selves from the murderous pirates attacking them in International water. I hope Turkey manages to get some of the pirates back to Ankora so they can stand trial. Wali Muse got life but then he did not have ten counts of murder to contend with. I don't believe in capital punishment, and Turkey does not have it, but for this crime a life of hard labour seems about right, preferably for those who sent the pirates as well as those who did the killing.

doesn't mean what he's pointing out is untrue. You think the turks aren't using PR?

well, even if he is a PR man it doesn't mean what he is pointing out is untrue. You think the Turks and the Floatilla have not spent a great deal of time and MONEY preparing ahead of time with PR? I actually think they invited this situation in order to take advantage of a well orchestrated PR campaign.

[Like numerous other countries, U.S.A itself acted on these rules just recently (a year ago), when rescuing an American from Somalian pirates IN Somalian waters.]

The vessels of the flotilla actually qualified for all of the aforementioned conditions, knowing well in advance that they are breaching a blockade, refusing to stop after being hailed and warned for several hours and, as demonstrated in the videos shown, brutally resisted visit, search and capture. As the peaceful towing of the other five ships demonstrated, the Israeli Navy handled the arrest of the flotilla in a lawful and respected manner (not to mention that all the wounded are treated in Israeli hospitals, including those who attempted to kill the soldiers, and that Israel will transfer to the Gaza Strip all humanitarian goods carried by the vessels, as it does every day with over 100 trucks of humanitarian goods).

It doesn't work that way, and your argument would not hold water in a court of international law.

Two Words: International Waters.

Once again, nice try.

Yeah, a pay less is a bad one, but I believe what I'm selling, so hey...
Anyway, if what I'm saying is so much bullshit, why not try some to-the-point arguments.

See my detailed response to the same comment you made (on one the first/second part of my fragmented comment). Meaning, the one more to the top.

I don't get it. If a floatilla of Turks were trying to break into Guantanamo bay to "free" their fellow Muslims would the U.S. put up with it? I don't think so. They would intercept the boat in international waters and if our soldiers were clubbed they'd ALL be dead as a doorknob.

I think you have turned the argument on its head. dIsrael was attacked by 6 countries simultaneously in '67. Things have not improved much ever since.