The war on Venezuela (the war on drugs) (regime change)

[Samm]

@tnt

@Samm

The fact is, the Admiral overseeing the operation approved a second strike because the target had NOT been “destroyed” by the initial one.

When did he say that?

When did who say that? The Admiral? His job was the destroy the boat. The first strike didn’t complete the job (as evidenced by the surviving crew still with it when the second strike occurred.)

Think about it. If the orders are to destroy a bridge, bombs/missiles are deployed to take it out. People on the bridge are killed. But the bridge, though heavily damaged still stands and people and vehicles continue to use it. A second strike is ordered to finish the job even though more people will be killed including some perhaps who lived through the first strike. This situation is fundamentally no different.

[tnt]

Should we execute wall street fraudsters, out in the ocean on their boats?

[Samm]

@tnt

@Samm

@tnt

@Samm

Technically, stopping, boarding and taking the cargo and crew into custody on the high seas could be interpreted as piracy under international law. On the other hand, nobody (here) has identified an international law that illegalizes blowing boats belonging to criminal (designated as terrorist) organizations out of the water.

We can’t board them.

But we can blow them up.

What a position…

Boarding them requires that you have vessels near them when they are detected. And since their departures are unscheduled and from many locations, the Navy would have to have fast boats capable of chasing them down (the drug boats are high speed relatively small vessels) spread throughout the area. Blowing them up is much easier and more effective, does not put men at risk (intercepts would undoubtedly be met with resistance by the crews) and it’s probably cheaper as well.

Oh stop!

Your’s wasn’t a logistical argument.

You said we couldn’t board them because it might be:

@Samm

interpreted as piracy under international law.

But you think we can just blow them up instead!

You’re too confused to talk to anymore. You have completely lost track of your own point.

[GWH]

@tnt

@Gaius

Three engines.
Not frat boys sunning on the deck and drigking beer
No fishing nets
No containerized cargo.

Yup its a smuggling boat.

Although . . . . they MIGHT be smuggling knock-off Birkin bags. We don’t know for sure.

What other criminals in international water are we allowed to summarily execute? Illegal fisherman? White collar ponzi schemers on their yachts?

Drug smugglers isn’t enough? Hell, make a list. I’ll run it by the admiral.

[Samm]

@tnt

@Samm

@tnt

What other criminals in international water are we allowed to summarily execute? Illegal fisherman? White collar ponzi schemers on their yachts?

You’re becoming desperately silly.

Can you answer the question?

Silliness should not be rewarded by taking it seriously.

[tnt]

@Samm

You’re too confused to talk to anymore. You have completely lost track of your own point.

Not at all.

You argued that we couldn’t stop and board them because it might be:

@Samm

interpreted as piracy under international law.

And further:

@Samm

On the other hand, nobody (here) has identified an international law that illegalizes blowing boats belonging to criminal (designated as terrorist) organizations out of the water.

So, your claim is, we can’t board them, but we can blow them up.

And that’s idiotic.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

[GWH]

Somalian pirates. Same circumstances.

[GWH]

WAR CRIMES!!! CAUGHT ON TAPE!!! SPRING BREAK EDITION!!! GI’S GONE WILD!!!

[GWH]

@tnt

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Wow. You sound just like President Trump!

[SixFoot]

@Gaius

This guy comes to mind,
although he didn’t kill nearly as many as a boatload of fentanyl.

The boat guys are far worse than him.
https://i.makeagif.com/media/9-01-2022/1x6Q72.mp4

The cops will even execute one of their own if need be. Burn 'em alive, sometimes.

Christopher Dorner shootings and manhunt

[7426k]

yes. yes we should.

[7426k]

Fentanyl does not come from Venezuela.

[Oldandtired]

According to obama we can summarily execute United States citizens without a trial. And you don’t even have to be on the water.

[JayJay]

@Oldandtired

According to obama we can summarily execute United States citizens without a trial. And you don’t even have to be on the water.

So you agree that summary execution of human beings is a bad thing? Or is it a good thing?

I mean, Obama called those American citizens terrorists.

Terrorists need to be killed…right? Whether American or not?

Before they hurt other Americans?

Right?

[JayJay]

Now can you give us one key difference between the engagements shown in this video and the engagements against the “drug boats” in the Caribbean?

I’m sure it will come to you…but you gotta want it.

[Ben_Natuf]

If by weird you mean accurate, yeah pretty weird.

[Ben_Natuf]

@tnt

We’re not at war.

Is the President not constitutionally authorized to use military force to prevent incursions? Yes, we are at war.

@tnt

Who would we even be at war with

Narco Terrorist i.e. TdA, MS13

@tnt

What other types of criminals are we allowed to summarily execute?

Enemies, criminality is irrelevant

[Ben_Natuf]

@JayJay

If he’d actually gone about it the proper way by asking for a declaration of war or an AUMF, legally there would be little issue with what he’s doing.

True enough; however, he doesn’t need one to prevent an incursion

also odd, I did not see this angst when we bombed Libya or Kosovo

[Samm]

@tnt

@Samm

You’re too confused to talk to anymore. You have completely lost track of your own point.

Not at all.

You argued that we couldn’t stop and board them because it might be:

@Samm

interpreted as piracy under international law.

And further:

@Samm

On the other hand, nobody (here) has identified an international law that illegalizes blowing boats belonging to criminal (designated as terrorist) organizations out of the water.

So, your claim is, we can’t board them, but we can blow them up.

And that’s idiotic.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

I did not say that we cannot board them. I said, “Blowing them up is much easier (than boarding them) and more effective, does not put men at risk (intercepts would undoubtedly be met with resistance by the crews) and it’s probably cheaper as well.”

What’s the point of trying to converse if you can’t comprehend what I post?

[Ben_Natuf]

of course you should have thoughts. I’ve already said the arguments though valid are a stretch; and the longer it goes on the stretchier it gets. The more valid argument would be that after the first “incursion” the President should have consulted Congress and gotten an AUMF.

The counter point to that is of course each “incursion” is a new incursion.