No that is not your assumption.
That is my assumption.
If it was just that the boat was put out of play then we could not make any other assumptions as to what was happening. But you interjected they were out of play in a particular was as innocents stranded. When we don't know. They could have been salvaging all the drugs and then eventually get help to continue the mission.
Because it means they intend to gather them and continue the mission. Those very drugs that are gathered could end up on the streets in the US.
Their boat was capsized after their first strike, and it was still capsized at the second strike (all according to both Adam Smith and Tom Cotton in the video). No drugs were salvaged according to any reports, or do you have any other info?
Thats what happens when your trying to stop terrorist. Were the terrorist who were bombed in other hits in other situations in peril if they survived. Of course. Thats what happens when you commit terror. Expect to be put in peril. Because you commiting peril on others.
Thats the difference between being in peril out on a days fishing and engaging in terror activities. From what I read they were actually standing on the boat and taking their shirts off and gathering the parcels. So they were not exactly drowning. This happened some time back and the report says there were a number of JAGs there when it happened live and none said it was illegal.
I don't know. Your asking questions that have not come out yet. I am sure they would have all sorts of communication including phones on a boat worth 1/4 of a million dollars.
No radio communication was intercepted, see the video I linked.
The problem is what is morally right is a matter of opinion according to secular thinking. So theres no way to determine what is right. Whoever is in power gets to decide.
I think it is wrong to fire on capsized boat, do you think it is right?
Bidens government may have been softe on crime and drugs and this was morally wrong and caused harm to many. Trump may be tougher and it seems unfair but saves 10 times as many lives.
Its the good old Trolly ethical dilemma. Either way some die and some live. The more you save is deemed more moral. This is the problem with relative morality.
Not true, interdiction is the alternative. Then the same people on the streets of the US is still alive and the smugglers would not have died.
I just gave one above. If say 100 die oin drug boats but it stops 80% of the trade and saves say 10,000 people. Or we continue the same policy that has allowed it to get out of hand and we lose those 10,000 and maybe it increases to an additional 10,000 as it gets worse.
Why, interdiction is still on the table.
Interdiction. Saves the same number of people in the US with out killing the smugglers.
So if they have a right to radio for help how do you know it was not to get another boat to collect all the drugs and then continue the mission.
Then, the second strike should have been against boat number two.
You could start with the lack of action in stopping the drug trade. It has increased under Biden. You could also condemn the Dems soft policies that have allowed crime and rugs to flourish thus allowing both sides of the problem to grow and kill many people and destroy families and communities.
Did it 2024 vs 2023? The numbers of drug deaths was reduced in 2024 vs 2023, if I remember correctly.
This not onlt has to be doine but done with the same level of passion and vitriole as made against Trump and his administration. That is attack them, misrepresent the Dems and call them out at the same level with headlines and all to be consistent. No excuse making like they have for other stuff like fraud. Just call out their own for all the immoral stuff done re the drug problem and crimne associted.,
Booh for the Democrats! Ok?
Just pretend that it was the dems who helped cultivate both the drug smuggling and active use on the streets which is responsible for killing 1,000s. Because this is what the Rep will be accusing the Dems of doing.
Actually no in combating terrorism. Biden and Obama participated and gave go aheads for attacks on terrorist that involved 2nd hits at finishing the job. Heck Obama gave the ok to go into Bin Ladens compound and kill every single person in the house. Including women and children.
Booh for Obama! Ok?
Vehicles hit in terror coveys have been hit multiple times while terrorists are still running around. This is how combating in a war like situation happens with terrorist. Its easy to play moralist from the sidelines and an armchair.
It does not matter if they don't right the boat. Just trying to right the boat and getting the cargo is still actively engaged in trying to continue.
No, that in itself doesn't make it right to kill them, IMO. If they were still speeding towards their destination, ok.
I hate all this. It sounds like all the other conspiracies and claims and counter claims. People come up with all these spectualtions up until the actual facts are released.
Did you watch the video I linked? They were never in a position to carry on.
They were calling Trumps assassin a radical Right supporter or that Trump did not get hit with a bullet. All sorts of silly claims. Just let the facts come out.
I also noticed they have made another hit on another drug boat. So this is not stopping them from stopping these drug boats. They seem to believe they have a legal right and no one has challenged this yet. So they must have some pretty good intel and legal advice.
Were they hitting an already stricken boat again? Why is this an equivalent situation?
