Did that make them valid military targets?

It would have, if that — destroying the soldier's transportation — were the goal. But it is not. The goal of blowing up a bus is to make the population — civilians — afraid. That, by definition, is terrorism.

To put it differently, if the IDF started providing a separate transport for these soldiers going home for the weekend — prohibiting them from using the regular buses, Hamas would still try to blow up the regular transit. On contrast, if Hamas were to stop using schools and hospitals to store weapon caches or, indeed, fire from, Israel would not be shooting at those installations.

Got any more false analogies for me?

This shit keeps up and I'll just skip the goddamn Internet completely and go back to reading more books instead.

Please, do. Instead of adding anything to the discussion, you simply repeated your previous comment — only with more swear words. Please, disconnect. Remember to logout.

Whenever I see a provocative account of something from one person's viewpoint, I suspect it of not being entirely honest.

We don't know, what exactly was said, and how "provocative" both sides were. What we do know is:

1. He griped on Twitter about the agent's rudeness.
2. She called him and his boys back from the plane and threatened to call police, unless he deletes the tweet.

That threat to "call police" over nothing but an Internet-posting is enough to have her fired from the job and prosecuted for attempted malicious prosecution. Worse — because she, likely, was not busy checking the Twitter herself, but was informed by Marketing, who do monitor their @-handles all the time — there should be an investigation into a possible conspiracy to commit malicious prosecution.

These people — almost like police themselves — are granted enormous powers to do their jobs. Any time they abuse it even in the slightest, a slap on the wrist is not enough — the hand should be chopped off (yeah, I know), so that none of them do that again.

Do we really want an Internet that, with regard to the U.S. consumer, is essentially owned and operated by Comcast/Xfinity?

Whatever Comcast's failings, I wager, you'll find the Internet owned and operated by the government far worse. I predict mandatory "child-protection" filters, for example. Also, any time you violate the service terms (which will be copied from those of commercial providers), you will be committing a crime (however small), rather than merely breaking contract. Oh, and the tech-support will not only be incompetent, but also rude — because, being government employees, they will be impossible to fire.

the more competition that can be arranged the better

A government entering a market — any market — is the end of competition in it.

Roads (and rail-roads), health-care, electricity and telephone — government and government-sanctioned monopolies provide such outstanding services, only a fool or a sell-out would try to prevent their scope from expanding. Tokyo may have competing privately-owned subway lines, but we here in America know better than that!

Take Municipal WiFi — which the young and progressive generation was hailing on this very site only 10 years ago — was not that a roaring success, that swept over the nation?

What country's first ammendment guarantees you the right to intimidate or harass people online?

What country equates complaining about rudeness with intimidation and harassment? Probably, not even North Korea...

"bitch"? really? there's no need to call anyone that.

Yes, there is, of course. As described in TFA, the woman certainly qualifies for the term. Anybody abusing their power over others is a bad person ("bitch", "asshole" — pick your gender-specific name). And, in addition, malicious prosecution — which she threatened to bring upon him — is a felony, you know...

and perhaps that is the reason: the flight crew considered the tweet intimidation or threatening.

If complaining on Tweeter about rudeness can be considered either "intimidating" or "threatening" — or, indeed, "interfering" — then the First Amendment is null and void. Is that, what you are telling us?

"No person may assault, threaten, intimidate, or interfere with a crewmember in the performance of the crewmember's duties aboard an aircraft [emphasis mine -mi]] being operated under this part."

The gate-agent being talked about was not aboard the aircraft (nor part of the crew). In other words, your citation is invalid and inapplicable even if it were appropriate for a stewardess or a pilot on board.

the tweet identified someone by name.

Her name is publicly displayed. There is nothing "intimidating" about repeating it — or even taking pictures.

there are more reasonable ways to lodge a complaint, and that ain't one of them.

Whether the victim was "reasonable" or not is not being discussed. The agent threatened him with arrest over his accusing her of rudeness. What else would you blame a victim for? How about posting a negative review of a restaurant? Maybe, we "should be more like Europe" and punish people for that too?

NOT mean that the passenger doesn't have to follow crewmember instructions. if the passenger was being particularly difficult because he had his two snowflakes in tow and did not want to abide by Southwest's procedures, he should not be allowed on the plane.

But he did follow all instructions — and was allowed to board. What the bitch didn't like was him tweeting about the encounter afterwards.

Personally, I found out the hard way, what these assholes mean. I once pointed out to a New Jersey Transit conductor, that he is closing the doors one minute too early. He demanded, I leave the train in reply... I kid you not, he called police, who ordered me out and interrogated me on the platform (three uniformed bums plus one plain-clothed "detective"). They found nothing to arrest me for, but said (sternly): "You'll have to wait for the next train" (and left me on the empty platform as the train closed its doors — again — and left). It was all "legal": the rules, which you wish all of us to obey, are posted in every car. And they require passengers to "cooperate" with the conductors. Whether or not a particular passenger cooperates, is entirely up to each conductor. And, yes, he still works there — despite my complaining several times.

No flight-attendant — nor a train conductor, for that matter — should have the power to evict a passenger from a plane (or train). Other than for an offense, that's, indeed, subject to arrest.

given what's happened recently in aviation, one would think safety is important.

What has recently happened in aviation, that makes you think, safety is important?

So, he says, you should make sure you buy new hardware only when necessary, not just because of the "Ooh... shiny!" factor"

What's new about this advice? Was it not as useful and applicable 50, 100, and 1000 years ago?