Trump dispenses with trials, orders military strike on alleged Venezuelan drug-trafficking boat (Now up to 2, 3, 4...)

[Servus]

Yes, but the Coast Guard doesn't open fire unless needed. They always start with an arrest attempt. There has also been instances where Navy vessels have included Coast Guard personnel on board specifically for counter drug work, though I will admit to not knowing how common that is. @Aryeh Jay might know more/

Yes, there are Coast Guard law enforcement detachments on several of the ships down here.

I think one way it could be looked at is if there's a lot of smuggled drugs in the US, then perhaps more conventional methods haven't been effective.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

I find it difficult to take you seriously. You sure haven't said that to Rambot or Bradskil or any other number of foreign posters on rhe left.

No, they’re all cool. What reason would I have to tell them anything?

 

[BPPLEE]

what about the fleeing suspects that get shot?

If they are armed and are a danger to another person, like if they just shot someone and are running away while armed, the police may be justified in using deadly force

 

[stevevw]

All this what about in defense of Trump (which is not the topic). Did you even bother to vote for him?

I am not American so I could not vote lol. I am explaining how there is a deranged level of bias and partisan politics against Trump and by extenstion his admin and supporters.

That this motivates haters to create falsehoods in the negative before any evidence or facts come out. They have been busted time and time again.

So all this negative spectualtion is not just coming hate and is biased.

 

[stevevw]

I provided factual links, so your claims of bias are without merit.

What factual links.

It's not a witch hunt when he's convicted by an impartial jury.

It was not an impartial jury or not even an impartial who clearly hated Trump from his rhetoric about him. It was a witch hunt and no other person would have been subject to such attention and deranged levels of scrutiny.

We are now seeing the lawfare against Trump with Russia gate which was purposely designed to undermine Trump. Even to the point that it led to actual assassination attempts on his life. Give me a break lol. I have not seen such blatant descrimination and persecution of a single person in modern history.

So far, no dirty secrets have come out.

So we have approaching 100 arrests in relation to the hidden fraud the Dems reined over and much more will come out. That in itself shows they are willing to hide stuff and lie to ensure they keep power.

We have seen the connection to Epstein and the so called Russian collusion being exposed as lies and a purposeful plan to undermine a sitting president. It will all come out.

When people get to the point where they are willing to lie to make someone look bad then you know they are willing to do other stuff behind closed doors. I guarentee this will be the case. I know the psychology of humans.

Link?

Well you know about the massive fraud, that alone blows anything said about Trump out of the water. More will come out implicating Dems overseeing massive fraud and criminal activities.

The Epstein files have Dems all over it. Why was Clinton on Epsteins plane 11 times. Its strange how this has never been investigated by the Dems with the same vigor as they did against Trump.

That in itself disqualifis the Lefts complaints based on hypocracy. They have no moral ground to stand on. They have shown bias and cannot be trusted. So all these negative spectualtions against Trump are tarred with bias and partisanship.

The GOP were the ones suppressing the files.

Now they were not. The Dems sat on them for years and years. They knew before it was a thing lol.

Trump has actually released them.

I'm not the one committing fraud and rape and pardoning drug dealers.

Thats what I am saying. Your complaining about Trump but absolutely silent on the the same sins that Biden and others have done. Its hypocracy and disqualifies anyone as untrustworthy.

That must be why his approval rating is so low.

Actually no, the support for immigration policy is high.

Polls Show Americans Overwhelmingly Support President Trump’s Mass Deportations

Polls Show Americans Overwhelmingly Support President Trump’s Mass Deportations | Homeland Security

The American people overwhelmingly support President Donald J. Trump’s and United States Homeland Secretary Kristi Noem’s mass deportation of illegal aliens from the country, according to two national polls.

www.dhs.gov

Nobody cares about flying on a plane. They care about traveling to the island, which Clinton never did. He said to go ahead and release the files, since he's got nothing to hide.

No body cares that a politician is in Epsteins company many times. But when they get the whiff of Trump anywhere near him and all hell breaks loose. Its hypocracy at its worse. There is no credibility. I don;y trust them.

Trump was the one who allowed him to be killed in prison, not the Dems.

More conspiracies. You will go to any lengths to get Trump.

There you go, trying to change the subject.

Lol it was you who brought up Trumps fraud as a way to show how bad he was. I am doing the same and showing that those who accuse him have done much worse.

In fact just that one act of historical record fraud disqualifies completely any credibility for speaking about morality fullstop on any subject.

Which "elites" are these?

Thats what we would like to know. Mainly the ones funding the party. Like Soros and others. But also Obama and other faceless people behind the scenes who were calling the shots while Biden was incompetent and incoherent to do so.

The ones who decided it was Kamala and to bypass the democratic process. The ones who orchestrated the whole Russia briefcase lie to undermine Trumps presidency. Those types.

Never happened.

What the gas lighting of a nation over Bidens competency. That in itself tells us a lot.

So far we haven't seen anything.

From what I understand there has been some similar fraud found in California. Some States are refusing to hand over their books. Have they got something to hide. We will see. But it seems strange that they want to deny access to check if there is fraud.

The GOP? I don't see any Dem scandals at all.

Lol are you living on Mars. This shows the bias that you cannot see any lol.

They have been busted for lawfare and telling media companies to control the information they post and to make out Trump is bad. We have seen how they were biased against conservatives and Christians. Give me a break. Your only doing exactly what they have been doing lol. Gas lighting everyone and pretending they are the good ones.


ICYMI from the NYPost: FBI Emails Obtained by Grassley ‘Expose Biden DOJ’s Obsession with Piling on Trump Charges’

ICYMI from the NYPost: FBI Emails Obtained by Grassley ‘Expose Biden DOJ’s Obsession with Piling on Trump Charges’ | U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa

Miranda Devine: FBI emails revealed to The Post expose Biden DOJ’s obsession with piling on Trump...

www.grassley.senate.gov

LAWFARE: HOW THE MANHATTAN DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE AND A NEW YORK STATE JUDGE VIOLATED THE CONSTITUTIONAL AND LEGAL RIGHTS OF PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP

https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/republicans-judiciary.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/2024-07-09%20Lawfare%20-%20How%20the%20Manhattan%20District%20Attorneys%20Office%20and%20a%20New%20York%20State%20Judge%20Violated%20the%20Constitutional%20and%20Lega.pdf

ICYMI: Grassley Exposes Biden FBI for Targeting Nearly 100 Republican Groups and Individuals

ICYMI: Grassley Exposes Biden FBI for Targeting Nearly 100 Republican Groups and Individuals | United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary

WASHINGTON – Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) this week released...

www.judiciary.senate.gov

Just like the BBC they doctored reports to make out Trump was bad.

Weaponization Committee Exposes the Biden White House Censorship Regime in New Report

Weaponization Committee Exposes the Biden White House Censorship Regime in New Report

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, the House Judiciary Committee and its Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government released an interim staff report titled, "The Censorship-Industrial Complex

judiciary.house.gov

Would not trust a word the Trump haters say.

I want to hear about these dirty little secrets. How do they compare to Stormy Daniels and Micheal Cohen and Trump's collusion with Russia?

I just mentioned a few above. Theres many. See the thing is while Biden was in no one could investigate. But now Trump is in they are finding all sorts of corruption. Watch it come out. Thats why I say be careful about throwing stones in glass houses.

New Evidence Uncovers Obama-Directed Creation of False Intelligence Report Used to Launch Years-long Coup to Undermine President Trump and the American People

New Evidence Uncovers Obama-Directed Creation of False Intelligence Report Used to Launch Years-long Coup to Undermine President Trump and the American People

Joomla! - the dynamic portal engine and content management system

www.dni.gov

 

[Servus]

No, they’re all cool. What reason would I have to tell them anything?

That's exactly his point. You don't really care where he's is from. You were just trying to gatekeep him out if the discussion.

 

[stevevw]

You need a guilty verdict in a court of law before you can make such assumptions.

No you don't when it comes to terrorism. Did Biden and Obama get a guilty verdict in a court of law before they took action against terrorist. Did Isreal. If we waiterd for that then the terrorist win. They don't play by our rules in the first place.

In this country, we don't kill the innocent, nor do we kill the guilty without a trial.

Yes you do when it comes to terror. They are not innocent. That you frame it that way shows your bias.

 

[stevevw]

So far nothing has been found.

What, the biggest fraud case in US history is nothing. This is really biased.

Biden's fine.

Was he fine as president lol. Or are you going to continue the gas lighting.

Name them, or admit you fabricated that claim.

Just did.

Heres some more

Where Is Democrats’ Transparency on Epstein?

As President Donald J. Trump said, “House Republicans should vote to release the Epstein files, because we have nothing to hide, and it’s time to move on

www.whitehouse.gov

‘Democrats are going to come to regret this’: After Epstein vote, Trump ready to attack
Trump has already instructed the Department of Justice to investigate links between Epstein and notable Democrats, including former President Bill Clinton, former Harvard President Larry Summers and Democratic megadonor Reid Hoffman.

Summers announced Monday that he would step back from public life after emails revealed that the former Treasury secretary under President Bill Clinton and top adviser to President Barack Obama repeatedly sought advice from Epstein on romantically pursuing a woman he referred to as his mentee.

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/11/19/trump-white-house-train-attacks-on-democrats-in-wake-of-epstein-vote-00657796

Like I said if they want to judge and throw stones then be prepared for the same level of scrutiny and judgement that will come upon themselves.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

That's exactly his point. You don't really care where he's is from. You were just trying to gatekeep him out if the discussion.

Not at all. My comments don’t stop anyone from posting. You’re just coming to his defense because you agree with his rantings. If he wants dismiss people for their biases, I can do that too.

 

[Servus]

Still looks to me like there isn't as much concern over Narcos or a law being broken, as there is in hoping this can be used as a political weapon.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Sure.

I'm guessing this will lead to "then why do you..."

Indeed.
Why do you consider these killings acceptable? Why do you defend that your government abandons these principles?

 

[Servus]

Indeed.
Why do you consider these killings acceptable? Why do you defend that your government abandons these principles?

Yep that's the overused accusation question running though these threads. As I explained elsewhere, that accusation only fits the accuser's perspective, not the person they are accusing. It should be blatantly obvious that those who disagree with you and others, do not share their prospective. In other words they don't see it that way.

They see it as action taken against terrorist just like all of the action that's been taken against terrorist for decades. They see the tremendous collateral damage that's been caused by Narco drugs, and consider that a serious threat to the safety and wellbing of the US. Just as if instead of dangerous drugs, Anthrax was being smuggled into the US to kill hundreds/thousands of Americans. So that's were they were at in their perspective before this even incident took place.

And they found the scenario that the Navy was carrying out these operations just for theater and kicks, improbable. That whatever had happened, the Navy had a justifiable reason for carrying it out. Also they figured they were just hearing more the usual repetitive vilification attacks against Hegseth and Trump. Like what was being claimed was just more of the usual hogwash.

To them it's all coming from the sort of people who treat supporting our President, our administration, our military, and America as being a crime.

 

[stevevw]

I never claimed Trump loyalists are idiots or mindlessly doing Trump’s bidding. No , they are willfully participating and enjoying the benefits of their positions, at least for now. He will discard each and every one of them right under the bus should any of their actions (that he directly asked of them) reflect badly on him.

Your just doubling down on the bad mouthing and identity politics and adding fuel to the fire. Keep creating new unfounded narratives to discredit Trump because people are so fixated on hating him. Its glaringly obvious in that you cannot help mention hin every time you speak lol. You just pile on the accusations and demeaning remarks.

As far as the corruption of those opposing Trump, it’s been “coming out” for years and all amounts to distracting headlines and no substance. It’s hard to take each new revelation of corruption seriously at this point.

Well there is substance now.

I literally showed you the evidence and even some Dems are admitting they went too far. We literally heard the lying narrative of Biden being cognitive sharp and Obama spreading lies about some Russia conspiracy to get Trump.

We heard how they were coaching the media and deleting information. Thats literally calling the kettle black that you think the media is biased for Trump lol.

These were lies designed to get Trump and others. They were busted. So I would not be so quick to be taking the moral highground on this.

 

[stevevw]

That is my assumption.

Your assumption was more that 'a boat was put out of play'. You implied that the boat being put out of play was in an innocent situation which should not have been attacked. You did not make a neutral assumption of innocence or guilt. You assumed guit in the language you are using.

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?

And the same people who are privy to the actual intel state that nothing illegal was done. It has been the same protocol used in these situations for past presidents and military and it has never been questioned.

Now some Woke ideologues want to make a big noise about it because they hate Trump and his admin. You are using every bit of info and then assuming guilt. You don't know the intel. You think that a capsized boat means innocent parties which is an assumption. Even the way you word it implies guilt. Your not neutral and have an axe to grind.

No radio communication was intercepted, see the video I linked.

So, that doesn't mean they were not trying. This is what I mean. You take 'no radio signal' and immediate assume innocence. Every single little bit of info interpreted as guilty. Its blantantly biased and you can see it in the particular words used.

I think it is wrong to fire on capsized boat, do you think it is right?

See your doing ot again. Using the idea of a 'capsized boat' in isolation as though it could be some fisherman stranded to imply a certain meaning to "capsized boat". Its blantant bias.

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.

But that did not happen did it. Neither happened. The drug boats were not stopped and the drug problem got worse on the streets. A double wrong. So if the stopping of the drug boats saves 1,000 lives is that good.

Its an ethical dilemma. If people want to complain about the wrong of killing terrorist who are poisoning 1,000s of people systemically through the allowance of druhgs flowing into the nation at unrecedented levels.

Then people can complain about the moral wrong of not doing anything and the actions that the Dems contributed to making the problem much worse. Thus being responsible for those deaths.

Why, interdiction is still on the table.

Thats unreal. Its too late and in situations like terrorism there is no stopping them. For evey one you stop 10 replace them. Its like saying that if we tell Hamas very sternly or place a sanction on them that they will happily stop.

Its funny how those complaining suddenly now appeal to interdiction when they never bothers for years.

Interdiction. Saves the same number of people in the US with out killing the smugglers.

Thats like we keep pouring water into a bucket with a hole in it. The entire system is broken and it doesn't work. The softly, softly approach that was taken in the name of interdiction is what caused the problem. Now it time for tougher measures to stop it before it completely undermines things.

What I find telling is that the people who are calling for all these moral hoops to jump through are the ones who made the problem and now they want to be the moral police.

Then, the second strike should have been against boat number two.

Oh I see so let the terrorist call for help and wait until the backup comes and then engage. Hum I am glad you are not leading the miliary.

Did it 2024 vs 2023? The numbers of drug deaths was reduced in 2024 vs 2023, if I remember correctly.

I did not realise they were taking drug boats out back then. Whatever they did it sure did not work because they kept coming and increasing. Its funny as this is the same government who let in 20 million unchecked people who are now causing much chaos.

Booh for the Democrats! Ok?

I have nothing against the Dems and want them to be at their best to make for a good and health democracy. But they are not at their best in recent years and have become radicalised. Maybe thats a sign of the times and identity politics. .

Booh for Obama! Ok?

Poor old Barak.

No, that in itself doesn't make it right to kill them, IMO. If they were still speeding towards their destination, ok.

You don't know the intell. It may be that they have tracked all the intell and know exactly what processes they were dealing with and how these drug were making their way to the US. You don't know and yet you are claiming to know like you are one of the agents lol.

Did you watch the video I linked? They were never in a position to carry on.

That video is just the media release version. They also have the classified versions which will have all sorts of intell and angles ect.

Were they hitting an already stricken boat again? Why is this an equivalent situation?

Go back and look at the terror hits by Biden and Obama on buildings and vehicles. They often had two and three strikes at the same targets. This is playing general from an armchair and applying one rule to some and not others.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

Your assumption was more that 'a boat was put out of play'. You implied that the boat being put out of play was in an innocent situation which should not have been attacked. You did not make a neutral assumption of innocence or guilt.

You are straight up misrepresenting my position, here. To me it is irrelevant if they are innocent or not (of what?). Once their boat is incapacitated, they have a right to stay afloat and call for help.

You assumed guit in the language you are using.

Yes, killing those in peril is bad in my eyes.

And the same people who are privy to the actual intel state that nothing illegal was done. It has been the same protocol used in these situations for past presidents and military and it has never been questioned.

What second strikes on an incapacitated smuggling boat, have been done earlier?

Now some Woke ideologues want to make a big noise about it because they hate Trump and his admin.

Take it up with them.

You are using every bit of info and then assuming guilt. You don't know the intel. You think that a capsized boat means innocent parties which is an assumption.

Innocence or not is irrelevant to me, how many times do I have to tell you?

Even the way you word it implies guilt.

Only in the sense that I feel that at sea, persons are to be helped if they are in need.

Your not neutral and have an axe to grind.

No.

So, that doesn't mean they were not trying. This is what I mean. You take 'no radio signal' and immediate assume innocence.

I have already stated that I think they even have a right to call for help.

Every single little bit of info interpreted as guilty.

You are the one talking about guilt and innocence, not me.

Its blantantly biased and you can see it in the particular words used.

Like what words?

See your doing ot again. Using the idea of a 'capsized boat' in isolation as though it could be some fisherman stranded to imply a certain meaning to "capsized boat". Its blantant bias.

Smuggler or fisherman, makes no difference to me.

Let me guess, you've never been part of any Marine Rescue society?

But that did not happen did it. Neither happened. The drug boats were not stopped and the drug problem got worse on the streets. A double wrong. So if the stopping of the drug boats saves 1,000 lives is that good.

Its an ethical dilemma. If people want to complain about the wrong of killing terrorist who are poisoning 1,000s of people systemically through the allowance of druhgs flowing into the nation at unrecedented levels.

Then people can complain about the moral wrong of not doing anything and the actions that the Dems contributed to making the problem much worse. Thus being responsible for those deaths.

How is this relevant for ordering a second strike on an incapacitated boat?

Thats unreal. Its too late and in situations like terrorism there is no stopping them. For evey one you stop 10 replace them. Its like saying that if we tell Hamas very sternly or place a sanction on them that they will happily stop.

Its funny how those complaining suddenly now appeal to interdiction when they never bothers for years.

Talk to them then, why do you say this is response to me?

FYI, drug smugglers are still being interdicted and there have always been people thinking that it is important.

Thats like we keep pouring water into a bucket with a hole in it. The entire system is broken and it doesn't work. The softly, softly approach that was taken in the name of interdiction is what caused the problem. Now it time for tougher measures to stop it before it completely undermines things.

What I find telling is that the people who are calling for all these moral hoops to jump through are the ones who made the problem and now they want to be the moral police.

Why are you saying this in response to me? I didn't create the problem.

Oh I see so let the terrorist call for help and wait until the backup comes and then engage. Hum I am glad you are not leading the miliary.

I did not realise they were taking drug boats out back then.

They didn't, they interdicted them.

Whatever they did it sure did not work because they kept coming and increasing. Its funny as this is the same government who let in 20 million unchecked people who are now causing much chaos.

Relevance?

I have nothing against the Dems and want them to be at their best to make for a good and health democracy. But they are not at their best in recent years and have become radicalised. Maybe thats a sign of the times and identity politics. .

Poor old Barak.

You don't know the intell. It may be that they have tracked all the intell and know exactly what processes they were dealing with and how these drug were making their way to the US. You don't know and yet you are claiming to know like you are one of the agents lol.

That video is just the media release version. They also have the classified versions which will have all sorts of intell and angles ect.

I can only go with the information we have. The video of the second strike hasn't been released to the media (yet!), have it?

Go back and look at the terror hits by Biden and Obama on buildings and vehicles. They often had two and three strikes at the same targets. This is playing general from an armchair and applying one rule to some and not others.

I don't care if you think they are as bad. I'm no Democrat. I just think it is really really bad to target individuals clinging to a capsized boat, regardless if they are fishermen or smugglers.

 

[stevevw]

You are straight up misrepresenting my position, here. To me it is irrelevant if they are innocent or not (of what?). Once their boat is incapacitated, they have a right to stay afloat and call for help.

So does the military in interpreting this as still engaging. But this is not how you framed things. You kept framing this as a couple of people in peril and that those in peril should be saved. You already qualified this as a boating accident.

Or you have not detingusihed the difference between a mere civilian boating accident and terrorist putting themselves in peril because of their terrorist activity and being lawfully stopped. If they end up in peril that is completely different to a civilian boating accident.

We don't know because during combat there are many times when the first strike does not complete the job and it has been determined that a second or third strike is needed. All the while those who survived regardless of what they are doing or if their vehicle is half destroyed are in peril.

Because they are in the act of being stopped. Just the act of stopping these evil people puts them in peril and being in peril does not mean we should not complete the job if it is deemed that this is an ongoing threat that needs to be completely stopped. But what your doing is disregarding all that context to isolate the situation and then use this as a strawman for your moral belief on this.

Yes, killing those in peril is bad in my eyes.

But you exclude the context and are making judgements on this. If killing two terrorist who are in peril because they themselves put themselves in that situation and despite being in peril were still trying to engage in continuing the same thing that they were being stopped for. Gathering the drugs to be collected and then sent on their way to kill Americans.

When you add all that context and possibility because we don't know and you certainly don't know. All you have done is repeated narratives from people who don't know as the intel is only available to certain people.

The point is you are creating a context by dismissing all that possibility to make it a certain way that you have assumed without the facts.

What second strikes on an incapacitated smuggling boat, have been done earlier?

No I am talking about other incidents on attacking terrorists by past administrations. There are plenty of examples of second and third strikes on terrorist targets and where survivors were in peril as part of completing the mission.

Innocence or not is irrelevant to me, how many times do I have to tell you?

The framing of whether it is justified or not is about whether the targets were innocents in an innocent situation or guilty and part of a situation that justified the action. Of course its relevant. You keep saying they were just a couple of innocents smuggling drugs to feed their family on the weekend.

Assuming they were not up to anything and just innocently hanging around waiting to get resscued. You don't know that. But you keep assuming and framing things this way.

Only in the sense that I feel that at sea, persons are to be helped if they are in need.

Hum, I am glad you said you feel this as feelings are not a good indication of what is right and wrong.

I have already stated that I think they even have a right to call for help.

I love it how armchair soldiers can make these claims. So if those in the live action in the fog or war determine that the same radioing and gathering the poison to continue their mission was still trying to engage and they needed to stop that mission altogether. If others (feel) this is the right thing to do. Is that feeling ok like your feeling.

You are the one talking about guilt and innocence, not me.

Hum you keep saying they were just innocent people in the water that the military commander should not have killed. By saying they "should" not be killed you are already qualifying their action as wrong.

Like what words?

Like "should" lol. For example "Everyone that is in peril at sea, should be helped".

Smuggler or fisherman, makes no difference to me.

Thats sad. If the drug trade coming into the US is now been deemed a national secuirity issue and the Narco has been deemed terrorist does that make a difference.

Because then your claim would be "terrorist or fisherman, makes no difference to me'.

The difference being if we know its just a fishermans boat capsized in an accident and the two fisherman are in the water in peril that this is a classic case of a boating accident while doing something legal. When they go to radio through or do actions we know its innocent as they are just fishermen.

But when its terrorist who never play by rules and every action is about maintaining their mission and defying the law to continue to push their terror. Its a completely different situation the military are facing compared to the Coast Guard.

Let me guess, you've never been part of any Marine Rescue society?

Have you been part of the military facing terrorists.

How is this relevant for ordering a second strike on an incapacitated boat?

As we can see you just acknowledge that these moral complaints are your feelings or as you said IMO. So therefore this is about how people see morals and what they believe is moral.

So when people protest their moral feelings that something was immoral. So can others when they feel others were completely immoral in allowing the drug boats and problem on the streets to continue and get worse killing 1,000s.

So either way a moral wrong is being done. Its a moral dilemma not only between different moral feelings about the situation and which way to go. But also "which way to go fullstop" as far as the ultimnate moral truth.

Is it more immoral to allow 1,000s to die on the streets by not stopping the boats and all the crime and chaos that it causes not only for Americans but the Venezuelans.

As opposed to the slow and traditional ways which have never worked and allowed 1,000s to unnecessarily die considering lives are already being saved right now and will continue to be saved as well as all the other benefits in reducing crime ect. This is a national and generational moral issue that has now been highlighted.

Talk to them then, why do you say this is response to me?

But your the one ussing it as a solution. As the moral thing to do. That this way is better.

FYI, drug smugglers are still being interdicted and there have always been people thinking that it is important.

But its different now. Its become a major national an dinternation issue along with immigration, crime, gangs, terrorism ect. Often all this is intertwined and thats the issue.

That as time has gone by its become more an international and national case of safety and security for the future of the US. Because the fall out is becoming bigger and the associated problems have spread and the entire system has been undermined.

Why are you saying this in response to me? I didn't create the problem.

Were you not just dismissing all the context of a military scenario combating terrorist to a couple of blokes fishing. You said its irrelevant as to whether it was drug smugglers (terrorists) and fishermen.

They didn't, they interdicted them.

And now it has been assessed this this will not work as far as the organised criminal and terror activities of the Narcos. A Narco State in operation to import drugs to the US with connections to crime and terrorist groups.

Relevance?

Allowing unvetted illegals allows the same kind of people who are importanting the drugs. The same mentality and organised crime and terror against the US.

Thats why I keep saying I think you need to understand the Narcos targeting in the context of the bigger safety and security issues that have been identified which shows this is all connected.

Its been the slack and soft approach to the US security and safety to begin with that has allowed all this to get out of hand and the need for drastic action.

I can only go with the information we have. The video of the second strike hasn't been released to the media (yet!), have it?

Yet people are accusing Hegseth or murder and war crimes. The usual suspects jumping the gun to create false narratives at every opportunity to get Trump and his admin. Actually some Dems were accusing Trump himself of muder. I guess that goes with Nazi and all the rest.

I don't care if you think they are as bad. I'm no Democrat. I just think it is really really bad to target individuals clinging to a capsized boat, regardless if they are fishermen or smugglers.

And other people think its even worse that these terrorist export poison to kill 1,000s and destroy the US society.

I think I have said enough on this. I don't think its worth any more comment until more info comes out. I think we are probably more in common than we thing. JUst a different perspective of where the line is. But I think we have similar moral principles.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

So does the military in interpreting this as still engaging. But this is not how you framed things. You kept framing this as a couple of people in peril and that those in peril should be saved.

Yes.

You already qualified this as a boating accident.

No.

Or you have not detingusihed the difference between a mere civilian boating accident and terrorist putting themselves in peril because of their terrorist activity and being lawfully stopped. If they end up in peril that is completely different to a civilian boating accident.

No, they are still to be rescued.

We don't know because during combat there are many times when the first strike does not complete the job and it has been determined that a second or third strike is needed. All the while those who survived regardless of what they are doing or if their vehicle is half destroyed are in peril.

Because they are in the act of being stopped. Just the act of stopping these evil people puts them in peril and being in peril does not mean we should not complete the job if it is deemed that this is an ongoing threat that needs to be completely stopped.

They were hanging on a capsized boat.

But what your doing is disregarding all that context to isolate the situation and then use this as a strawman for moral outrage.

It is because the context doesn't make it right. It is never right to kill those shipwrecked.

But you exclude the context and are making judgements on this.

Yes, because I don't think the fact that they are drug runners is relevant to if they deserve to be struck again.

If killing two terrorist who are in peril because they themselves put themselves in that situation and were in peril as a result and were then despite being in peril were still trying to engage in continuing the same thing that they were being stopped for. Gathering the drugs even to be collected and then sent on their way to kill Americans.

When you add all that context and possibility because we don't know and you certainly don't know. All you have done is repeated narratives from people know don't know as the intel is only available to certain people.

Both Tom Cotton and Adam Smith agreed on that the boat was capsized.

The point is you are creating a context by dismissing all that possibility to make it a certain way that you have assumed without the facts.

The only fact needed is that their boat was incapacitated.

No I am talking about other incidents on attacking terrorists by past administrations. There are plenty of examples of second and third strikes on terrorist targets and where survivors were in peril as part of completing the mission.

And it is relevant how?

The framing of whether it is justified or not is about whether the targets were innocents in an innocent situation or guilty and part of a situation that justified the action. Of course its relevant. You keep saying they were just a couple of innocents smuggling drugs to feed their family on the weekend.

Quote me saying they were innocent or stop lying.

Assuming they were not up to anything and just innocently hanging around waiting to get resscued. You don't know that. But you keep assuming and framing things this way.

Quote me saying they were innocent or stop lying

Hum, I am glad you said you feel this as feelings are not a good indication of what is right and wrong.

I love it how armchair soldiers can make these armchair claims. So if those in the live action in the fog or war determine that the same radioing through and gathering the poison to continue their mission was still trying to engage and they needed to stop that mission altogether. If others (feel) this is the right thing to do. Is that feeling ok like your feeling.

Let's take it to court and see.

Hum you keep saying they were just innocent people in the water that the military commander should not have killed.

Quote me saying they were innocent or stop lying.

By saying they "should" not be killed you are already qualifying their action as wrong.

Did I use should?

Like "should" lol. For example "Everyone that is in peril at sea, should be helped".

Thats sad. If the drug trade coming into the US is now been deemed a national secuirity issue and the Narco has been deemed terrorist does that make a difference.

Because then your claim would be "terrorist or fisherman, makes no difference to me'. The difference being if we know its just a fishermans boat capsized in an accident and the two fisherman are in the water in peril that this is a classic case of saving them. When they go to radio through or do actions we know its innocent as they are just fishermen.

No, you fish them up regardless.

But when its terrorist who never play by rules and every action is about maintaining their mission and defying the law to continue to push their terror. Its a completely different situation the military are facing compared to the Coast Guard.

Have you been part of the military facing terrorists.

I've been part of the navy yes. Helping people in peril at sea. Facing drug runners no, since that is a police, coast guard and customs matter.

As we can see you just acknowledge that these moral complaints are your feelings or as you said IMO. So therefore this is about how people see morals and what they believe is moral. So when people protest their moral feelings that what happened was immoral. They can say what justification do you have when we feel you were completely immoral in allowing the drug boats and problem on the streets to continue and get worse killing 1,000s.

I don't advocate for allowing the drug boats do anything, it is the second strike I have the most problem with. Have the flow of cocaine even diminished since these strikes began?

It also means that if your moral complaint is a feeling then those who disagree have just as much right to how they feel that says it was the right then to do to save lives.

Of course. I'm certain there are many people that sadly think it is ok to blow narco-terrorists up if they are without a vessel at sea.

So either way a moral wrong is being done. Its a moral dilemma not only between different moral feelings about the situation and which way to go. But also "which way to go fullstop" as far as the ultimnate moral truth. Is it more immoral to allow 1,000s to die on the streets by not stopping the boats and all the crime and chaos that it causes not only for Americans but the Venezuelans with this sudden and firm action.

This is a false dilemma, the second strike saved no extra lives in the US or Venezuela.

As opposed to the slow and traditional ways which have never worked and allowed 1,000s to unnecessarily die considering lives are already being saved right now and will continue to be saved as well as all the other benefits in reducing crime ect.

What reduced crime and the peak of the opioid epidemic had already been passed in 2023?

This is a national and generational moral issue that has now been highlighted.

But your the one ussing it as a solution. As the moral thing to do. That this way is better.

But its different now. Its become a major national an dinternation issue along with immigration, crime, gangs, terrorism ect. Often all this is intertwined and thats the issue.

That as time has gone by its become more an international and national case of safety and security for the future of the US. Because the fall out is becoming bigger and the associated problems have spread and the entire system has been undermined.

Were you not just dismissing all the context of a military scenario combating terrorist to a couple of blokes fishing.

No, I know that the US calls them narco-terrorists. It is still not acceptable to observe them for 40-50 minutes with them not righting their boat and then strike them again.

You said its irrelevant as to whether it was drug smugglers (terrorists) and fishermen.

Yes, you help first and let the courts figure out culpability.

And now it has been assessed this this will not work as far as the organised criminal and terror activities of the Narcos. A Narco State in operation to import drugs to the US with connections to crime and terrorist groups.

Allowing illegals in allows the same kind of people who are importanting the drugs. The same mentality and organised crime and terror against the US.

Thats why I keep saying I think you need to understand the Narcos targeting in the context of the bigger safety and security issues that have been identified which shows this is all connected.

Its been the slack and soft approach to the US security and safety to begin with that has allowed all this to get out of hand. Thats why I think its crazy that some are attacking immigration officers who are actually getting these criminals and terrorrist out of the US. Its almost like they want to save the very criminals and terrorist who are killing Americans. Its insanity.

Yet people are accusing Hegseth or murder and war crimes. The usual suspects jumping the gun to create false narratives at every opportunity to get Trump and his admin. Actually some Dems were accusing Trump himself of muder. I guess that goes with Nazi and all the rest.

Take it up with them, not me.

And other people think its even worse that these terrorist export poison to kill 1,000s and destroy the US society.A

I think I have said enough on this. I don't think its worth any more comment until more info comes out. I think we are probably more in common than we thing. JUst a different perspective of where the line is. But I think we have similar moral principles.

 

[wing2000]

I think one way it could be looked at is if there's a lot of smuggled drugs in the US, then perhaps more conventional methods haven't been effective.

Attacking drug mules is going to be more effective than "conventional methods"?

How do you figure that attacking panga boats and killing all the occupants is more effective than interdicting, interogating and prosecuting higher value targets?

 

[BCP1928]

Still looks to me like there isn't as much concern over Narcos or a law being broken, as there is in hoping this can be used as a political weapon.

That describes the moral position of MAGA supporting Christians more succinctly than anything else in this thread.

 

[NxNW]

What factual links.

You have to click on them.

It was a witch hunt and no other person would have been subject to such attention and deranged levels of scrutiny.

No other president (other than Nixon) committed so many acts of fraud.

We are now seeing the lawfare against Trump with Russia gate which was purposely designed to undermine Trump.

Trump could have avoided that by not colluding with Russia, but he did.

Even to the point that it led to actual assassination attempts on his life.

The shooter was a Republican.

Give me a break lol. I have not seen such blatant descrimination and persecution of a single person in modern history.

Discrimination? Link?

Trump could avoid prosecution simply by following the law.

So we have approaching 100 arrests in relation to the hidden fraud the Dems reined over and much more will come out.

Link?

We have seen the connection to Epstein and the so called Russian collusion being exposed as lies

We've seen the close friendship Trump had with Epstein and evidence and confessions of his organization colluding with Russia: Flynn, Manafort, Stone, his own son (who was too stupid to pull it off), etc.

and a purposeful plan to undermine a sitting president. It will all come out.

You keep saying that.

Well you know about the massive fraud, that alone blows anything said about Trump out of the water.

I know about Trump's fraud conviction.

More will come out implicating Dems overseeing massive fraud and criminal activities.

You keep saying that.

The Epstein files have Dems all over it.

You keep saying that, but the GOP were the ones suppressing it.

Why was Clinton on Epsteins plane 11 times.

You tell me. He never went to the island, and I've already pointed out that he said to release the files, because he's got nothing to hide. You saw that, right?

Trump has actually released them.

Under protest.

Thats what I am saying. Your complaining about Trump but absolutely silent on the the same sins that Biden and others have done. Its hypocracy and disqualifies anyone as untrustworthy.

I haven't seen any criminal charges against Biden or Clinton. Do let me know when they happen.

But tell me this: why wasn't Biden impeached?

Lol it was you who brought up Trumps fraud as a way to show how bad he was. I am doing the same and showing that those who accuse him have done much worse.

And yet you can't provide any examples.

Thats what we would like to know.

So you admit you don't know any names, but you're certain these mysterious Elites exist? LOL.

Mainly the ones funding the party. Like Soros and others. But also Obama and other faceless people behind the scenes who were calling the shots while Biden was incompetent and incoherent to do so.

And Elvis shot JFK?

The ones who decided it was Kamala and to bypass the democratic process.

Harris was selected according to the published rules, as you well know.

The ones who orchestrated the whole Russia briefcase lie to undermine Trumps presidency. Those types.

Nobody forced Trump to collude with Russia and obstruct justice. He chose to do it.

What the gas lighting of a nation over Bidens competency. That in itself tells us a lot.

Until you can produce a doctor's certification that Biden was cognitively impaired, you're shooting blanks.

From what I understand there has been some similar fraud found in California. Some States are refusing to hand over their books. Have they got something to hide. We will see. But it seems strange that they want to deny access to check if there is fraud.

Now you're changing the subject again to State issues instead of federal.

Lol are you living on Mars. This shows the bias that you cannot see any lol.

You still haven't listed any examples.

They have been busted for lawfare

Never happened.

and telling media companies to control the information they post

Never happened.

We have seen how they were biased against conservatives and Christians.

Never happened.

Give me a break. Your only doing exactly what they have been doing lol. Gas lighting everyone and pretending they are the good ones.

Biden wasn't the one convicted of fraud and rape. That was Trump.

ICYMI from the NYPost: FBI Emails Obtained by Grassley ‘Expose Biden DOJ’s Obsession with Piling on Trump Charges’

ICYMI from the NYPost: FBI Emails Obtained by Grassley ‘Expose Biden DOJ’s Obsession with Piling on Trump Charges’ | U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa

Miranda Devine: FBI emails revealed to The Post expose Biden DOJ’s obsession with piling on Trump...

www.grassley.senate.gov

NY Post is unreliable.

ICYMI: Grassley Exposes Biden FBI for Targeting Nearly 100 Republican Groups and Individuals

Investigating criminals is what the FBI is supposed to do.

New Evidence Uncovers Obama-Directed Creation of False Intelligence Report Used to Launch Years-long Coup to Undermine President Trump and the American People

New Evidence Uncovers Obama-Directed Creation of False Intelligence Report Used to Launch Years-long Coup to Undermine President Trump and the American People

Joomla! - the dynamic portal engine and content management system

www.dni.gov

From your link: "the HPSCI oversight report released today confirm a treasonous conspiracy led by President Obama and his national security team, including James Clapper, John Brennan, and James Comey, to manipulate and manufacture intelligence that promoted a contrived false narrative falsely claiming: “Putin aspired to help President-elect Trump’s election chances, when possible, by discrediting Secretary Clinton.”
Except Putin did aspire to help Trump by discrediting Hillary Clinton, and Trump's organization colluded with Russia. That's why they confessed and went to prison: because they are criminals.

Biden has never been charged with a crime. Hillary has never been charged with a crime. Harris has never been charged with a crime. Obama has never been charged with a crime.

Trump is a convicted criminal. Flynn is a convicted criminal. Manafort is a convicted criminal. Stone is a convicted criminal. Bannon is a convicted criminal.

Why would you support criminals?