"Don't Give up the Ship"

Hans Blaster · 2025-11-30T15:09:37-0600

Pommer said:
Who was the incumbent President who presided when this young woman was killed?

Everyone knows that Joe Biden was president from 2016 until 3 months before the present date and that will always be so.

BPPLEE · 2025-11-30T15:43:08-0600

Hans Blaster said:
Everyone knows that Joe Biden was president from 2016 until 3 months before the present date and that will always be so.

???

Hans Blaster · 2025-11-30T15:54:23-0600

BPPLEE said:
???

Just referring to the phenomenon of blaming Biden for things that happened when he wasn't president, like the Jan 6th attacks, or the George Floyd protests, or the COVID pandemic by Trump and his most sychophantic followers. Soon they will effectively claim that Biden was president from the time of the "attacks" on his first run for president through some point not long ago, but after 20 Jan 2025, causing all of the problems Trump is trying to fix.

jonojim1337 · 2025-11-30T15:57:19-0600

Sounds like Trump is having a hard time.

NxNW · 2025-11-30T18:47:48-0600

Postvieww said:
There is no truth in that statement. You have absolutely no evidence she was trying to assassinate anyone.

She was leading the crowd which was, according to audio, intent upon assassination.

Postvieww · 2025-12-01T05:53:04-0600

NxNW said:
She was leading the crowd which was, according to audio, intent upon assassination.

Can you provide the audio of the murdered woman threatening to murder anyone? If not I stand by my statement. You do realize there were planted agitators in that crowd! Jan 6 was not what we were told by the liberal media or the sham Jan 6 committee.

Postvieww · 2025-12-01T05:57:17-0600

Hans Blaster said:
Everyone knows that Joe Biden was president from 2016 until 3 months before the present date and that will always be so.

It appears from the auto pen disaster and his obvious mental state he was not really president very much at all . His staff ran most of the show and a show it was.

FAITH-IN-HIM · 2025-12-01T09:40:10-0600

RDKirk said:
Yes, it is fundamentally political. My problem with the video from those Congresspeople is that they are shading it as a problem for Corporal Smith to face.

If they don't want the president to go to war with Venezuela, it's up to them to prevent the president from going to war with Venezuela. It's not for Corporal Smith to say, "No." Only another branch of government can check a branch of government.

What is your perspective on the recent news that the Secretary of Defense allegedly ordered a second strike on a sinking boat due to the presence of survivors?

RDKirk · 2025-12-01T13:04:11-0600

FAITH-IN-HIM said:
What is your perspective on the recent news that the Secretary of Defense allegedly ordered a second strike on a sinking boat due to the presence of survivors?

First, did such a thing even happen? I want to see named testimonies.

Second, if it did happen, did Hegseth actually give such an order? I don't believe for a moment that Pentagon lawyers would let "Kill everybody" go down the chain. OTOH, Hegseth loves to put everyone on chat during military operations, so he could have said that directly to the operational unit. Or the order may have been something ambiguous like, "It's not required to take prisoners," and someone lower down interpreted that as "kill everybody."

But, if it did happen, everyone in the operational unit (I've heard it was a SEAL team) has had Law of Armed Conflict training, so every individual knew such a thing was illegal. What does that mean?

Well, in the Vietnam case of Lt William Calley, the enlisted troops were not convicted of war crimes. Investigation showed that Calley (as an officer) had gotten training in the Geneva Conventions...but the enlisted troops had not gotten specific training. In the military, ignorance of the law is a positive defense. So, in the 70s, the military made absolutely certain nobody in uniform could any longer claim ignorance, hence the creation of annual Law of Armed Conflict training mandatory for everybody.

And the DoD is serious about that. In my last assignment, I was superintendent of the training facility for STRATCOM, a joint command. We trained all the services, and my general was dead on my butt every day until each individual was signed off on their LOAC training each year because the Pentagon was dead on her butt about it. I was in front of her desk every day handing her the numbers and names of those who hadn't taken it yet.

I say all that to point out that everyone in the operational unit knew it's illegal to strafe survivors in the water. What they know will be held against them.

If it actually happened.

Of course, Trump will probably pardon them anyway.

RDKirk · 2025-12-01T13:05:11-0600

Postvieww said:
It appears from the auto pen disaster and his obvious mental state he was not really president very much at all . His staff ran most of the show and a show it was.

That was true of Reagan's last couple of years as well. The CIA didn't even talk to him anymore, they talked to Bush whom they knew and liked.

Aryeh Jay · 2025-12-01T13:23:14-0600

RDKirk said:
First, did such a thing even happen? I want to see named testimonies.

Second, if it did happen, did Hegseth actually give such an order? I don't believe for a moment that Pentagon lawyers would let "Kill everybody" go down the chain. OTOH, Hegseth loves to put everyone on chat during military operations, so he could have said that directly to the operational unit. Or the order may have been something ambiguous like, "It's not required to take prisoners," and someone lower down interpreted that as "kill everybody."

But, if it did happen, everyone in the operational unit (I've heard it was a SEAL team) has had Law of Armed Conflict training, so every individual knew such a thing was illegal. What does that mean?

Well, in the Vietnam case of Lt William Calley, the enlisted troops were not convicted of war crimes. Investigation showed that Calley (as an officer) had gotten training in the Geneva Conventions...but the enlisted troops had not gotten specific training. In the military, ignorance of the law is a positive defense. So, in the 70s, the military made absolutely certain nobody in uniform could any longer claim ignorance, hence the creation of annual Law of Armed Conflict training mandatory for everybody.

And the DoD is serious about that. In my last assignment, I was superintendent of the training facility for STRATCOM, a joint command. We trained all the services, and my general was dead on my butt every day until each individual was signed off on their LOAC training each year because the Pentagon was dead on her butt about it. I was in front of her desk every day handing her the numbers and names of those who hadn't taken it yet.

I say all that to point out that everyone in the operational unit knew it's illegal to strafe survivors in the water. What they know will be held against them.

If it actually happened.

Of course, Trump will probably pardon them anyway.

Apparently the White House said Admiral Bradley gave the order.

FAITH-IN-HIM · 2025-12-01T13:40:40-0600

RDKirk said:
First, did such a thing even happen? I want to see named testimonies.

Second, if it did happen, did Hegseth actually give such an order? I don't believe for a moment that Pentagon lawyers would let "Kill everybody" go down the chain. OTOH, Hegseth loves to put everyone on chat during military operations, so he could have said that directly to the operational unit. Or the order may have been something ambiguous like, "It's not required to take prisoners," and someone lower down interpreted that as "kill everybody."

But, if it did happen, everyone in the operational unit (I've heard it was a SEAL team) has had Law of Armed Conflict training, so every individual knew such a thing was illegal. What does that mean?

Well, in the Vietnam case of Lt William Calley, the enlisted troops were not convicted of war crimes. Investigation showed that Calley (as an officer) had gotten training in the Geneva Conventions...but the enlisted troops had not gotten specific training. In the military, ignorance of the law is a positive defense. So, in the 70s, the military made absolutely certain nobody in uniform could any longer claim ignorance, hence the creation of annual Law of Armed Conflict training mandatory for everybody.

And the DoD is serious about that. In my last assignment, I was superintendent of the training facility for STRATCOM, a joint command. We trained all the services, and my general was dead on my butt every day until each individual was signed off on their LOAC training each year because the Pentagon was dead on her butt about it. I was in front of her desk every day handing her the numbers and names of those who hadn't taken it yet.

I say all that to point out that everyone in the operational unit knew it's illegal to strafe survivors in the water. What they know will be held against them.

If it actually happened.

Of course, Trump will probably pardon them anyway.

You are correct- it is prudent to await additional information before drawing conclusions, which is why I referred to it as an "alleged order." I recognize your deep respect for the military chain of command and trust that the system supports those who act with integrity. While I have not personally served, I value your perspective and share your hope that this trust is well placed.

As an American who believes in democracy, the rule of law, and our system of checks and balances, I have long believed in the resilience of our democratic institutions. However, recent years have presented significant challenges to this confidence. Over the past two decades, there have been instances within the executive, legislative, and judicial branches that suggest a willingness by some individuals to circumvent established protocols, thereby compromising the perceived strength and exemplary nature of our system. These frameworks are only as robust as those elected to maintain them; ultimately, their effectiveness depends on the honor and commitment of public officials.

The same standards apply within the military. Established procedures, defined chains of command, and legal oversight exist to guide conduct appropriately at every level. Nonetheless, these safeguards are effective only if leaders adhere to law and order. In light of developments across government branches, I have growing concerns about whether the U.S. military remains entirely protected from similar challenges.

Akita Suggagaki · 2025-12-01T13:53:53-0600

Postvieww said:
Can you provide the audio of the murdered woman threatening to murder anyone? If not I stand by my statement. You do realize there were planted agitators in that crowd! Jan 6 was not what we were told by the liberal media or the sham Jan 6 committee.

Then what was it that can be reconciled with all the pictures and videos?

Say it aint so · 2025-12-01T13:56:21-0600

RDKirk said:
First, did such a thing even happen? I want to see named testimonies.

Second, if it did happen, did Hegseth actually give such an order? I don't believe for a moment that Pentagon lawyers would let "Kill everybody" go down the chain.

Hegseth: Fired military lawyers were potential ‘roadblocks’ to Trump orders

Having Pentagon Lawyers clearing their throats and saying those actions are illegal is the ultimate roadblock.

RDKirk · 2025-12-01T14:16:03-0600

Say it aint so said:
Hegseth: Fired military lawyers were potential ‘roadblocks’ to Trump orders
Having Pentagon Lawyers clearing their throats and saying those actions are illegal is the ultimate roadblock.

It would work like this: When Hegseth had the operational commander in the room behind closed doors, he might say, "Kill everybody," but his most faithful lawyers would couch that though in enough legal ambiguity that it would have to be inferred by someone who already knew what Hegseth meant to say.

If it happened at all.

BCP1928 · 2025-12-01T14:26:41-0600

RDKirk said:
It would work like this: When Hegseth had the operational commander in the room behind closed doors, he might say, "Kill everybody," but his most faithful lawyers would couch that though in enough legal ambiguity that it would have to be inferred by someone who already knew what Hegseth meant to say.

If it happened at all.

Is it correct to assume that an investigation will start by looking at the orders of the poor guy who pulled the trigger and on up the chain of command after that?

Say it aint so · 2025-12-01T14:34:36-0600

RDKirk said:
It would work like this: When Hegseth had the operational commander in the room behind closed doors, he might say, "Kill everybody," but his most faithful lawyers would couch that though in enough legal ambiguity that it would have to be inferred by someone who already knew what Hegseth meant to say.

If it happened at all.

Maybe there is a good reason why the SOUTHCOM commander basically quit.
Maybe there is good reason why soldiers were reaching out to outside counsel.

RDKirk · 2025-12-01T14:36:30-0600

BCP1928 said:
Is it correct to assume that an investigation will start by looking at the orders of the poor guy who pulled the trigger and on up the chain of command after that?

I guess they can start higher than that, from this information:

White House Confirms and Defends 2nd Strike on Boat, Contradicting Trump

Karoline Leavitt's comments appear to contradict those Trump made a day earlier about the boat strikes

time.com

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said Monday that the commander of U.S. Special Operations Command acted “within his authority and the law” when striking an alleged drug boat a second time on Sept. 2 after the first strike left survivors.
<snip>
Speaking to reporters in the press briefing room, Leavitt confirmed that Hegseth authorized Admiral Frank M. Bradley, commander of U.S. Special Operations Command, to conduct the strikes. “Admiral Bradley worked well within his authority and the law, directing the engagement to ensure the boat was totally destroyed and the threat to the United States of America was eliminated,” Leavitt said.

So, Bradley has been thrown off the sleigh to the wolves. Hegseth will argue that "the boat was totally destroyed" did not necessarily mean "kill everybody."

Aryeh Jay · 2025-12-01T14:36:58-0600

Say it aint so said:
Maybe there is a good reason why the SOUTHCOM commander basically quit.
Maybe there is good reason why soldiers were reaching out to outside counsel.

He retired to spend time with his family.

RDKirk · 2025-12-01T14:37:26-0600

Say it aint so said:
Maybe there is a good reason why the SOUTHCOM commander basically quit.
Maybe there is good reason why soldiers were reaching out to outside counsel.

Yes, he didn't need a weatherman to know which way the wind was blowing.

"Don't Give up the Ship"

I march with Sherman

Well-Known Member

I march with Sherman

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Believer

Believer

Well-Known Member

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

Stuck on a ship.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Hegseth: Fired military lawyers were potential ‘roadblocks’ to Trump orders​

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

Hegseth: Fired military lawyers were potential ‘roadblocks’ to Trump orders​

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

Stuck on a ship.

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

Similar threads

Hegseth: Fired military lawyers were potential ‘roadblocks’ to Trump orders

Hegseth: Fired military lawyers were potential ‘roadblocks’ to Trump orders