2aHawaii
General Topics => General Discussion => Topic started by: eyeeatingfish on September 02, 2025, 09:30:12 PM
-
https://taskandpurpose.com/news/drug-boat-southern-caribbean/
The US military released a video showing a missile strike on an alleged drug boat from Venezuela, killing 11 people.
This leaves a few questions for me
1. How did they know it was a drug boat? I would assume they did their homework diligently but what if it wasn't? (rhetorical question)
2. Was a drug boat really worth a missile that cost as much as a nice new car? (Hellfire II missiles ranges from $45,000 and up from what I read)
3. Why not try and stop them? If they shoot at out troops then blow them out of the water but if they give up then mission accomplished. (The coast guard routinely shoots the motors of the boats to make them step when they don't want to so it is something they are easily capable of doing)
I can see the argument for being blown up as a deterrent but drug cartel leaders aren't going to care, they expect to lose a certain percentage of shipments, its baked into their profit margins.
-
I worked with JIATF-W (under PACOM) at Camp Smith. JIATF-S (under USCENTCOM) is in FL. The year before I joined, JIATF-W's resources were partially relocated from CA to HI and was segregated into the interdiction mission remaining in CA, and the INTEL and Law Enforcement mission moving the Camp Smith.
We work with the FBI, NCIS, DEA, DHS, Navy, Coast Guard, and Marines plus police and military agencies all around the Pacific Rim including the Philippines, Australia, Japan, and pretty much every country where drugs and precursors originate or are shipped to.
Sometimes the shipments are precursors (raw ingredients/chemicals) used to produce drugs like meth or X, but cocaine is a product that stands alone.
The units have a vast intelligence, surveillance and law enforcement network. The information they gather is often in the public domain, but the intel products they generate using all manner of sources are classified. Therefore, don't hold your breath waiting for an A to Z map explaining how a specific operation was executed.
If you REALLY wanted to know more, just do some searches for JIATF West & JIATF South. That's the best place to start educating yourself on the massive drug enforcement, confiscation and interdiction program the US operates in and around US waters and borders. One of my first jobs was to digitize a large tape library that held recordings of interdiction missions where US planes, choppers and boats intercepted drugs being smuggled into the US.aa
As of August 28, 2025, Joint Interagency Task Force South (JIATF-S) has supported the disruption of 402.7 metric tons (MT) of cocaine, surpassing the previous record of 328.4 MT set on July 4, 2025, and preventing approximately 334 billion lethal doses from reaching American communities. This achievement shows how JIATF-S has grown into an effective, intelligence-driven maritime security force that protects the homeland through strong partnerships. Building on our role as the leading example of interagency and international cooperation, JIATF-S has used improved capabilities and international partnerships to focus on increasingly complex criminal organizations with greater accuracy. This record reflects our commitment to innovation and staying ahead of changing threats, establishing JIATF-S as a critical part of regional security while maintaining focus on the ongoing mission ahead.
This accomplishment is thanks to the dedication of this team of teams including U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Defense, U.S. Federal Agencies, and dedicated allies and partners! This achievement leverages the effectiveness of interagency collaboration. The $10 Bil+ loss inflicted on cartels, coupled with the removal of 334 Bil+ lethal doses, enhances community and national security.
-
https://youtu.be/cQ9RTVkxeDI
-
From a psychological warfare perspective it was a smash hit. Now the cartels have to change up their entire business model for something far less profitable, but the real victory is that the looney left took the bait and are defending the cartels, completely isolating themselves from the mainstream.
-
as long as there is demand there will be a suppliers
-
as long as there is demand there will be a suppliers
Look at where fentanyl comes from. It’s a chemical weapon being used against us by hostile countries. Without the industrially manufactured precursors it would dry up nearly overnight.
-
From a psychological warfare perspective it was a smash hit. Now the cartels have to change up their entire business model for something far less profitable, but the real victory is that the looney left took the bait and are defending the cartels, completely isolating themselves from the mainstream.
I saw an interview with a reporter who talks to the cartels. Since Trump was re-elected, their motto is that they have to just wait 4 years. What also was talked about was if the US military invaded Mexico to attack them. Their reply was that they have nothing to lose and will fight to the death.
-
https://taskandpurpose.com/news/drug-boat-southern-caribbean/
The US military released a video showing a missile strike on an alleged drug boat from Venezuela, killing 11 people.
This leaves a few questions for me
1. How did they know it was a drug boat? I would assume they did their homework diligently but what if it wasn't? (rhetorical question)
2. Was a drug boat really worth a missile that cost as much as a nice new car? (Hellfire II missiles ranges from $45,000 and up from what I read)
3. Why not try and stop them? If they shoot at out troops then blow them out of the water but if they give up then mission accomplished. (The coast guard routinely shoots the motors of the boats to make them step when they don't want to so it is something they are easily capable of doing)
I can see the argument for being blown up as a deterrent but drug cartel leaders aren't going to care, they expect to lose a certain percentage of shipments, its baked into their profit margins.
I would say a drug boat is worth more than a hell fire cost. If an innocent life can be saved due to not coming in contact with the drugs, then it's fine in my book. Innocent as in a 5 year old ingest a drug their parent left on the table. Not some tweeker ODing. Those people are not "innocent". Then add in the tweekers stealing from people, possible DUI's, and assaults/murders. If 1 innocent can be spared, it's worth it.
Why not shoot them, maybe no ship was near enough. The cartels often take routes that there are less/no ships. Faster to launch an aircraft.
How do they know it's a drug boat, I will assume they have very good intel. Plus fast movers don't appear out of no where. I will assume we have satelites that track where the ship launched from.
Maybe the cartels will do what Hamas does and begin using human shields on their ships. The left loves to ignore the root cause of human shields.
-
I would say a drug boat is worth more than a hell fire cost. If an innocent life can be saved due to not coming in contact with the drugs, then it's fine in my book. Innocent as in a 5 year old ingest a drug their parent left on the table. Not some tweeker ODing. Those people are not "innocent". Then add in the tweekers stealing from people, possible DUI's, and assaults/murders. If 1 innocent can be spared, it's worth it.
Why not shoot them, maybe no ship was near enough. The cartels often take routes that there are less/no ships. Faster to launch an aircraft.
How do they know it's a drug boat, I will assume they have very good intel. Plus fast movers don't appear out of no where. I will assume we have satelites that track where the ship launched from.
Maybe the cartels will do what Hamas does and begin using human shields on their ships. The left loves to ignore the root cause of human shields.
More than half the time, there's information on when to expect a shipment, where it's launching from, where it's heading, and what contraband is on board.
Sometimes they are simply noticed by marine traffic or military vessels and reported. An intercept will be ordered. When the boat refuses to stop and tries to evade, it's a good guess they are either smuggling drugs or people ... sometimes both.
Drug smugglers follow patterns that legitimate vessels do not. It's not rocket science. No different than a cop rolling up on a drug deal involving a known dealer in a known drug-sales area at a time when most legitimate activity has ceased for the night.
-
Maybe they had insurance on the boat..
-
From a psychological warfare perspective it was a smash hit. Now the cartels have to change up their entire business model for something far less profitable, but the real victory is that the looney left took the bait and are defending the cartels, completely isolating themselves from the mainstream.
I don't really see them defending cartels so much as being upset at essentially summary execution for drug crimes.
I doubt the cartels will change their model much. They don't care if they lose a shipment to a missile or a seizure.
As far as fentanyl being a chemical weapon being used against us you are half right. It is strong enough to be akin to a chemical weapon but we (American drug users) are using it on ourselves. Thats like blaming the liquor store if I kill my liver drinking too much.
-
I would say a drug boat is worth more than a hell fire cost. If an innocent life can be saved due to not coming in contact with the drugs, then it's fine in my book. Innocent as in a 5 year old ingest a drug their parent left on the table. Not some tweeker ODing. Those people are not "innocent". Then add in the tweekers stealing from people, possible DUI's, and assaults/murders. If 1 innocent can be spared, it's worth it.
Why not shoot them, maybe no ship was near enough. The cartels often take routes that there are less/no ships. Faster to launch an aircraft.
How do they know it's a drug boat, I will assume they have very good intel. Plus fast movers don't appear out of no where. I will assume we have satelites that track where the ship launched from.
Maybe the cartels will do what Hamas does and begin using human shields on their ships. The left loves to ignore the root cause of human shields.
There is a certain logic to arguing that the drug mule's actions are worth less than the life of the people who are hurt directly or indirectly by the drugs they bring but it isn't one or the other. If it were then local cops could execute someone dealing drugs on the street corner. Kind of like the moral dilema posed in the way law enforcement stopped Bonnie & Clyde.
I do give the intelligence agencies the benefit of the doubt in this case but they have made mistakes in the past so I am hesitant so go with a lethal attack if less lethal avenues were an option. If the boat was about to get away and there way no way to find it once lost then I could see it as an option to consider.
-
I don't really see them defending cartels so much as being upset at essentially summary execution for drug crimes.
I doubt the cartels will change their model much. They don't care if they lose a shipment to a missile or a seizure.
As far as fentanyl being a chemical weapon being used against us you are half right. It is strong enough to be akin to a chemical weapon but we (American drug users) are using it on ourselves. Thats like blaming the liquor store if I kill my liver drinking too much.
That's a perfect example of how the script writers at MSNBC think. Trying to stop crime is pointless and cruel so we should just let the world burn.
-
There is a certain logic to arguing that the drug mule's actions are worth less than the life of the people who are hurt directly or indirectly by the drugs they bring but it isn't one or the other. If it were then local cops could execute someone dealing drugs on the street corner. Kind of like the moral dilema posed in the way law enforcement stopped Bonnie & Clyde.
I do give the intelligence agencies the benefit of the doubt in this case but they have made mistakes in the past so I am hesitant so go with a lethal attack if less lethal avenues were an option. If the boat was about to get away and there way no way to find it once lost then I could see it as an option to consider.
A drug mules life is worth less. The USA could wipe out the cartels if they wanted to, but they don't. We invaded Iraq (OIF) for much less and set precedent for invading and starting a war.
Cops and the military operate with different set of laws/rules. You should know that. But, I would be OK if drug dealers were executed if they were found guilty in court. There is no moral dilemma, cops are allowed to shoot if they feel there is a threat. You again should know this.
-
I don't really see them defending cartels so much as being upset at essentially summary execution for drug crimes.
Just wait. The President of Mexico has been doing so already for a few weeks now.
-
Maybe they had insurance on the boat..
All of my guns were on that boat. :'(
-
All of my guns were on that boat. :'(
...
:rofl:
-
That's a perfect example of how the script writers at MSNBC think. Trying to stop crime is pointless and cruel so we should just let the world burn.
Quite the leap in reasoning there.
-
Quite the leap in reasoning there.
Have you checked the crime stats in DC since the national guard was deployed?
Because that’s what the left is protesting against.
Their plans to reconstruct civilization into a socialist utopia only work if the old order is completely destroyed.
For them the ends justify the means, no matter how much suffering it causes the peasants.
-
A drug mules life is worth less. The USA could wipe out the cartels if they wanted to, but they don't. We invaded Iraq (OIF) for much less and set precedent for invading and starting a war.
Cops and the military operate with different set of laws/rules. You should know that. But, I would be OK if drug dealers were executed if they were found guilty in court. There is no moral dilemma, cops are allowed to shoot if they feel there is a threat. You again should know this.
We could wipe out drug cartels if we wanted to? Historical wars against guerilla level forces in the past suggest otherwise.
Of course the military and cops operate under different sets of laws/rule, I am not suggesting otherwise. The issue is taking lives for something entirely different than war or terrorism type actions. If the Taliban is sneaking a dirty nuke in on a boat blow them to hell, it is a military force coming to harm us. Even if we were to assume that intelligence was right and that these were drug runners on a drug boat destined for America, they aren't a hostile military type force.
We have a lot of experience intercepting drug boats, it is a mission we know we can accomplish without resorting to bombing the boat and taking the lives of low level mules.
If the logic is that drugs are so dangerous that they must be stopped even by taking life then that logic should allow police to execute drug dealers in the country too. If not then the logic doesn't hold water.
-
Have you checked the crime stats in DC since the national guard was deployed?
Because that’s what the left is protesting against.
Their plans to reconstruct civilization into a socialist utopia only work if the old order is completely destroyed.
For them the ends justify the means, no matter how much suffering it causes the peasants.
No, not that is not what they are protesting against.
When I said quite the leap in reasoning I was referring to you jumping to the conclusion they are fine letting the world burn.
There are no master plans for some socialist utopia or attempt to burn it all down and start over
-
prove it...
No, not that is not what they are protesting against.
When I said quite the leap in reasoning I was referring to you jumping to the conclusion they are fine letting the world burn.
There are no master plans for some socialist utopia or attempt to burn it all down and start over
-
@14:45. Would the United States of America have the guts to carry something like this out? Seems like a fast, effective, and cheaper way to solve the drug problem.
Would never happen.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgVkQ8NLP2w
-
We could wipe out drug cartels if we wanted to? Historical wars against guerilla level forces in the past suggest otherwise.
Of course the military and cops operate under different sets of laws/rule, I am not suggesting otherwise. The issue is taking lives for something entirely different than war or terrorism type actions. If the Taliban is sneaking a dirty nuke in on a boat blow them to hell, it is a military force coming to harm us. Even if we were to assume that intelligence was right and that these were drug runners on a drug boat destined for America, they aren't a hostile military type force.
We have a lot of experience intercepting drug boats, it is a mission we know we can accomplish without resorting to bombing the boat and taking the lives of low level mules.
If the logic is that drugs are so dangerous that they must be stopped even by taking life then that logic should allow police to execute drug dealers in the country too. If not then the logic doesn't hold water.
We have never "went to war" with the full force of our military against the cartels.
The taliban is a military group, but not a countries military. Theres a difference. So if we were to do the same in ur nuke example, i guess they must be detained and arrested. As it too isnt an act of war by another country. The t-ban also sells drugs. The cartels have lots of military equipment as well.
It sounds like ur in favor of protecting the lives of drug smugglers using fast boats loaded with millions of drugs.
The ocean is huge and potus is sending a message as the cartels know our ships cannot be everywhere and are much slower.
U should know better, cops arent allowed to execute people. They can defend themselves and others with lethal force.
Thanks for playing.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jS5WBBDtwXA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-0nS9c8kn8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyNGgr9KtSM
-
From a psychological warfare perspective it was a smash hit. Now the cartels have to change up their entire business model for something far less profitable, but the real victory is that the looney left took the bait and are defending the cartels, completely isolating themselves from the mainstream.
By design I suspect :rofl: :worship:
-
We have never "went to war" with the full force of our military against the cartels.
The taliban is a military group, but not a countries military. Theres a difference. So if we were to do the same in ur nuke example, i guess they must be detained and arrested. As it too isnt an act of war by another country. The t-ban also sells drugs. The cartels have lots of military equipment as well.
It sounds like ur in favor of protecting the lives of drug smugglers using fast boats loaded with millions of drugs.
The ocean is huge and potus is sending a message as the cartels know our ships cannot be everywhere and are much slower.
U should know better, cops arent allowed to execute people. They can defend themselves and others with lethal force.
Thanks for playing.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Thats a pretty blurry difference, some of these cartels are armed and operate like small military groups. The whole point was that we have found against small poorly armed militias many times and it cost is dearly. In the end sure we kill more of them than they kill of us but it is hard to say we achieved victory.
But the issue I am talking about isn't about going to war against a cartel. Drug enforcement is a whole different bucket than engaging in war. The Taliban sneaking a nuke into our country isn't the same thing as drug mules bringing in drugs to sell to Americans.
What I am in favor of is due process, not killing someone because we are pretty sure they have drugs on their boat. Cops can defend themselves with lethal force when they are being attacked, they can't shoot up a drug dealers car while he is on the way to deal drugs.
Why not try to intercept the boat? It is something we are very capable of doing. Then you not only don't have to take any lives but you can also interrogate them for information, work your way up to the big fish and take out a whole operation.
-
Thats a pretty blurry difference, some of these cartels are armed and operate like small military groups. The whole point was that we have found against small poorly armed militias many times and it cost is dearly. In the end sure we kill more of them than they kill of us but it is hard to say we achieved victory.
But the issue I am talking about isn't about going to war against a cartel. Drug enforcement is a whole different bucket than engaging in war. The Taliban sneaking a nuke into our country isn't the same thing as drug mules bringing in drugs to sell to Americans.
What I am in favor of is due process, not killing someone because we are pretty sure they have drugs on their boat. Cops can defend themselves with lethal force when they are being attacked, they can't shoot up a drug dealers car while he is on the way to deal drugs.
Why not try to intercept the boat? It is something we are very capable of doing. Then you not only don't have to take any lives but you can also interrogate them for information, work your way up to the big fish and take out a whole operation.
Can you post examples of these poorly armed militias you speak of that cost us dearly many times?
I know cops can't shoot drug dealers for just dealing drugs. You're the one that posted the what if example about them executing drug dealers.
U must not understand logistics. Drug boats purposely evade our ships. So often aircraft has a much quicker response. So to have our ships intercept is difficult.
Is there "due process" in international waters? If you think non-citzens who aren't on US soil can get "due process", then they also must be afforded their 2nd amendment right too. Cause you know, you cannot pick and choose which rights someone smuggling drugs by ocean get.
The US isn't part of the UN Conventions of the Law of the Sea. And you haven't learned that when Trump does things, he knows he will get the fake news and liberals on his case about it. So I will assume that he checked into the legality of it.
The US is finally sending a message to the cartels. I hope he authorizes more of this.
-
Thats a pretty blurry difference, some of these cartels are armed and operate like small military groups. The whole point was that we have found against small poorly armed militias many times and it cost is dearly. In the end sure we kill more of them than they kill of us but it is hard to say we achieved victory.
But the issue I am talking about isn't about going to war against a cartel. Drug enforcement is a whole different bucket than engaging in war. The Taliban sneaking a nuke into our country isn't the same thing as drug mules bringing in drugs to sell to Americans.
What I am in favor of is due process, not killing someone because we are pretty sure they have drugs on their boat. Cops can defend themselves with lethal force when they are being attacked, they can't shoot up a drug dealers car while he is on the way to deal drugs.
Why not try to intercept the boat? It is something we are very capable of doing. Then you not only don't have to take any lives but you can also interrogate them for information, work your way up to the big fish and take out a whole operation.
Mules who transport the drugs are not knowledgable of the cartel's operations. They get hired to do one thing, and there's no reason for them to know any more than that. Hoping to get information is shortsighted.
is it your belief that we should put our people's lives in danger chasing go-fasts being manned by possibly armed drug runners in order to provide the suspects "due process?" if they want due process, they can comply and stop running. Otherwise, they made the wrong choice.
-
Can you post examples of these poorly armed militias you speak of that cost us dearly many times?
I know cops can't shoot drug dealers for just dealing drugs. You're the one that posted the what if example about them executing drug dealers.
U must not understand logistics. Drug boats purposely evade our ships. So often aircraft has a much quicker response. So to have our ships intercept is difficult.
Is there "due process" in international waters? If you think non-citzens who aren't on US soil can get "due process", then they also must be afforded their 2nd amendment right too. Cause you know, you cannot pick and choose which rights someone smuggling drugs by ocean get.
The US isn't part of the UN Conventions of the Law of the Sea. And you haven't learned that when Trump does things, he knows he will get the fake news and liberals on his case about it. So I will assume that he checked into the legality of it.
The US is finally sending a message to the cartels. I hope he authorizes more of this.
Are you familiar with the events with the downing of 2 Blackhawks in Somalia?
The point in pointing out to you that cops don't shoot drug dealers just for being drug dealers is to show the flaw in the argument that killing them people on the boat is justified to keep people from getting their hands on drugs and dying. If being a drug dealer is enough to summarily execute them then it doesn't matter whether they are Americans or not.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" - The Declaration of Independence.
Funny, I don't see any mention of God giving rights to only Americans. If you are an atheist and don't believe in inherent rights then that is fine but you undercut a number of arguments for 2nd amendment rights (among others).
-
Mules who transport the drugs are not knowledgable of the cartel's operations. They get hired to do one thing, and there's no reason for them to know any more than that. Hoping to get information is shortsighted.
is it your belief that we should put our people's lives in danger chasing go-fasts being manned by possibly armed drug runners in order to provide the suspects "due process?" if they want due process, they can comply and stop running. Otherwise, they made the wrong choice.
That small amount of information they do know is still useful and like I said, they can be used to work up the food chain so even if they didn't know much they could still assist in capturing a bigger fish.
The US coast guard has snipers who train to shoot engines on speed boats while they are running, you act like blowing the vessel up is the only way. You want them to comply and stop running, were they given a chance? Did the missile have a speaker telling them to stop the boat in the fraction of a second before it blew up? We put our people in danger to stop drug dealers all the time, when cops stop a drug dealer, when the coast guard intercepts a boat, etc.
And what happens if/when we target a boat of innocent people?
-
That small amount of information they do know is still useful and like I said, they can be used to work up the food chain so even if they didn't know much they could still assist in capturing a bigger fish.
The US coast guard has snipers who train to shoot engines on speed boats while they are running, you act like blowing the vessel up is the only way. You want them to comply and stop running, were they given a chance? Did the missile have a speaker telling them to stop the boat in the fraction of a second before it blew up? We put our people in danger to stop drug dealers all the time, when cops stop a drug dealer, when the coast guard intercepts a boat, etc.
And what happens if/when we target a boat of innocent people?
Tell me you didn't bother to watch the video i posted without telling me you didn't bother to watch the video I posted.
All interdictions involve warnings and shots across the bow to send a clear message -- stop running. So, yes, they are all given a chance.
These are not "drug dealers.' Stop conflating these mass traffickers with the people dealing to users.
If the targeted boat is innocent, they won't run. They will comply with lawful orders to shut down their engines and do as ordered when boarded. Being innocent is not a license to disobey the US Navy or Coast Guard personnel when ordered to stop and be boarded. You seem to think every crime is supposed to be provided due process on the spot in the field before an investigation even begins.
-
so you have nothing
got it...
prove it...
-
Are you familiar with the events with the downing of 2 Blackhawks in Somalia?
The point in pointing out to you that cops don't shoot drug dealers just for being drug dealers is to show the flaw in the argument that killing them people on the boat is justified to keep people from getting their hands on drugs and dying. If being a drug dealer is enough to summarily execute them then it doesn't matter whether they are Americans or not.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" - The Declaration of Independence.
Funny, I don't see any mention of God giving rights to only Americans. If you are an atheist and don't believe in inherent rights then that is fine but you undercut a number of arguments for 2nd amendment rights (among others).
You posted about militia type and "many times". You just provided an example for 1 event that happened many years ago. Why not mention our war against the crown as that too had the militia involved. And if you look at the numbers, the kill death ratio was heavily in our favor in Mogadishu. But the trump factor is 1 US life is worth way more than 1 skinny's life.
Your "point being" is flawed as the military operate on separate rules. Do you believe that cops have missiles too? Or do you believe that cops operate under the same rules as the military does? f you do, then anyone killed in a war also requires "due process" that you talk of.
You writing the declaration of independence is funny. Do you think this applies on non US soil? You must do since you posted about it and mentioned Americans. And you're ignoring how our rights in HI are being violated (2A). So this statement is being violated all the time in HI.
Your entire reply is funny. Thanks for playing.
-
Add on the fact that the missile strike arguably isn't even legal.
Trump has authority to designate Tren De Aragua a terrorist organization but that designation doesn't give him authority to kill the people on the boat.
They dive into the legality in the beginning of this podcast.
https://thedispatch.com/podcast/advisoryopinions/congress-wont-contradict-trump/
-
Tell me you didn't bother to watch the video i posted without telling me you didn't bother to watch the video I posted.
All interdictions involve warnings and shots across the bow to send a clear message -- stop running. So, yes, they are all given a chance.
These are not "drug dealers.' Stop conflating these mass traffickers with the people dealing to users.
If the targeted boat is innocent, they won't run. They will comply with lawful orders to shut down their engines and do as ordered when boarded. Being innocent is not a license to disobey the US Navy or Coast Guard personnel when ordered to stop and be boarded. You seem to think every crime is supposed to be provided due process on the spot in the field before an investigation even begins.
Drug deliverers vs drug dealers is a pointless distinction when the issue is the summary execution of them.
Were these guys given a chance to surrender before struck by a missile? Maybe I missed that part of the video. Were they even running?
If the targeted boat was innocent they won't run? If you didn't do anything wrong you won't mind cops searching your car.
Your argument is basically due process for me but not for thee.
-
You posted about militia type and "many times". You just provided an example for 1 event that happened many years ago. Why not mention our war against the crown as that too had the militia involved. And if you look at the numbers, the kill death ratio was heavily in our favor in Mogadishu. But the trump factor is 1 US life is worth way more than 1 skinny's life.
Your "point being" is flawed as the military operate on separate rules. Do you believe that cops have missiles too? Or do you believe that cops operate under the same rules as the military does? f you do, then anyone killed in a war also requires "due process" that you talk of.
You writing the declaration of independence is funny. Do you think this applies on non US soil? You must do since you posted about it and mentioned Americans. And you're ignoring how our rights in HI are being violated (2A). So this statement is being violated all the time in HI.
Your entire reply is funny. Thanks for playing.
Only need one example to prove it is possible.
Never said the military operates on the same rules as cops but that isn't an excuse to use excessive force. I remember when people were upset that Obama used a predator drone to blow up an American who had joined an Islamic terrorist group, someone actually trying to kill Americans. Now because it is Trump, blowing up a boat of supposed drug runners is perfectly fine. I say supposed because 11 is a lot more than needed to move drugs and they weren't near the USA so how do we even know they were headed for the USA.
Due process doesn't apply when someone is actively trying to kill you. Cops don't have to give due process when someone pulls a gun on them.
I notice you avoided the issue, did God only give rights to people on US soil or do you subscribe to the belief there are no inherent human rights, just rights created by law?
-
so you went and researched further on the missile strike, but didn't research your incorrect statement about the national guard?
got it...
Add on the fact that the missile strike arguably isn't even legal.
Trump has authority to designate Tren De Aragua a terrorist organization but that designation doesn't give him authority to kill the people on the boat.
They dive into the legality in the beginning of this podcast.
https://thedispatch.com/podcast/advisoryopinions/congress-wont-contradict-trump/
-
Add on the fact that the missile strike arguably isn't even legal.
Trump has authority to designate Tren De Aragua a terrorist organization but that designation doesn't give him authority to kill the people on the boat.
They dive into the legality in the beginning of this podcast.
https://thedispatch.com/podcast/advisoryopinions/congress-wont-contradict-trump/
missing a LOT of information.
-
Drug deliverers vs drug dealers is a pointless distinction when the issue is the summary execution of them.
Were these guys given a chance to surrender before struck by a missile? Maybe I missed that part of the video. Were they even running?
If the targeted boat was innocent they won't run? If you didn't do anything wrong you won't mind cops searching your car.
Your argument is basically due process for me but not for thee.
Major difference between a search and stopping to investigate. Cops can investigate the driver and vehicle during a routine traffic stop. If I take off at 100 mph, is it your opinion that I'm innocent and should not be stopped before I kill a real innocent?
Nobody being targeted with a missile is compliant and allowing a quick inspection -- which is our government's right according to international law. Using a vehicle search as an analogy is totally irrelevant. A boat on the high seas is not the same as a car on a highway. Different set of laws and circumstances.
Due process? Do you even know what that means? If you're a cop being threatened by a man with a knife and you kill him, did he receive "due process" prior to being executed? No, I'm not equating this with the boat interception. I'm using it to illustrate the meaning of due process in legal terms.
-
Add on the fact that the missile strike arguably isn't even legal.
Trump has authority to designate Tren De Aragua a terrorist organization but that designation doesn't give him authority to kill the people on the boat.
They dive into the legality in the beginning of this podcast.
https://thedispatch.com/podcast/advisoryopinions/congress-wont-contradict-trump/
How many times have we heard this story. Lol.
If its sooooo illegal, why isnt he in handcuffs?
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
How many times have we heard this story. Lol.
If its sooooo illegal, why isnt he in handcuffs?
Or impeached?
I did some reading, and the fact that Trump designated drug runners as terrorists broadens the legal landscape.
Is what he did legal? Who cares. Are the people running drugs breaking several nations' laws and international law? Absolutely.
We know for certain when someone is running drugs over the water. We have many sources of INTEL to make sure we are able to track and intercept them. The "innocent" boaters always stop their engines and allow the authorities to board their vessel.
i read one article that asked the question: if we change our tactics from law enforcement (detain and prosecute) to military (stop them by any means necessary), what stops the cartels from militarizing their operations to counter it?
i wish the cartels good luck in finding enough crews willing to risk dying to for way less money than they make for their employers.
-
Or impeached?
I did some reading, and the fact that Trump designated drug runners as terrorists broadens the legal landscape.
Is what he did legal? Who cares. Are the people running drugs breaking several nations' laws and international law? Absolutely.
We know for certain when someone is running drugs over the water. We have many sources of INTEL to make sure we are able to track and intercept them. The "innocent" boaters always stop their engines and allow the authorities to board their vessel.
i read one article that asked the question: if we change our tactics from law enforcement (detain and prosecute) to military (stop them by any means necessary), what stops the cartels from militarizing their operations to counter it?
i wish the cartels good luck in finding enough crews willing to risk dying to for way less money than they make for their employers.
This all ties into that we should use the full force of our military to destroy the cartels. Any country who argues, screw them. They won't go to war with us to protect drug dealers. They will take shit, like how the Mexico President is, but all talk.
And we do have precedent to doing so. We invaded Iraq for "WMD's", we entered Syria for Bin Laden without permission, etc...
-
How many times have we heard this story. Lol.
If its sooooo illegal, why isnt he in handcuffs?
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Who is going to handcuff him? By your logic if there are no cops around to enforce the law, nothing is illegal.
-
so you went and researched further on the missile strike, but didn't research your incorrect statement about the national guard?
got it...
Do you have something to add or just felt like trolling?
-
not trolling
you had the ROE and roles of the national guard in DC wrong and refuse to admit it
and it was easily checkable...
Do you have something to add or just felt like trolling?
-
Major difference between a search and stopping to investigate. Cops can investigate the driver and vehicle during a routine traffic stop. If I take off at 100 mph, is it your opinion that I'm innocent and should not be stopped before I kill a real innocent?
Nobody being targeted with a missile is compliant and allowing a quick inspection -- which is our government's right according to international law. Using a vehicle search as an analogy is totally irrelevant. A boat on the high seas is not the same as a car on a highway. Different set of laws and circumstances.
Due process? Do you even know what that means? If you're a cop being threatened by a man with a knife and you kill him, did he receive "due process" prior to being executed? No, I'm not equating this with the boat interception. I'm using it to illustrate the meaning of due process in legal terms.
.....i wish the cartels good luck in finding enough crews willing to risk dying to for way less money than they make for their employers.
Again, is there any evidence they were running from an order to stop? Even the coast guard doesn't blow up the boat, they just shoot the engine. Is the Navy not skilled enough to do that? You said no one is being targeted who is stopping for inspection, where is there evidence anyone asked them to stop?
You say international law allows the US government to stop boats for inspection, where are you getting this from? I did a search and found the below listed limited authority under international law but it doesn't mention drug movement.
A U.S. warship may only board a foreign private vessel if there is "reasonable ground for suspecting" that the vessel is involved in one of the following activities:
Piracy
The slave trade
Unauthorized broadcasting
The ship is without nationality (stateless)
The ship is, in reality, of the same nationality as the warship, despite flying a foreign flag or refusing to show its flag
If suspicions prove to be unfounded, the vessel must be compensated for any damage or loss it sustained.
If you take off from a cop at 100mph they can't summarily execute you, they can't even execute you if you are known to be a felon and flee. Prison guards are allowed to shoot a prisoner climbing over a fence to escape though but in that case they are already convicted.
What makes you think the cartels care? What makes you think they are hiring people with competitive wages/benefits rather than threatening them to kill their family if they don't deliver the drugs? Blow up one boat and they will go to the next fisherman, point a gun at his wife, and tell him to move some bundles no questions asked.
Lastly, I find the arguments to justify killing people bringing in drugs to be incompatible with the whole argument of guns don't kill people. A baggie of heroin sitting on a desk never killed anyone on it's own.
-
not trolling
you had the ROE and roles of the national guard in DC wrong and refuse to admit it
and it was easily checkable...
I didn't refuse to admit it, I clearly indicated I conflated two different parts of the story.
-
Who is going to handcuff him? By your logic if there are no cops around to enforce the law, nothing is illegal.
You tell me. You stated that what he did was "arguably illegal". Usually when a law is broken, someone is handcuffed when arrested. Unless he instead willingly turns himself in. Then I ask, where would he turn himself in at?
-
You tell me. You stated that what he did was "arguably illegal". Usually when a law is broken, someone is handcuffed when arrested. Unless he instead willingly turns himself in. Then I ask, where would he turn himself in at?
The POTUS is not a usually type of situation. If Trump came to Hawaii, drank a soda and threw the can on the ground, what do you think would happen to an HPD officer trying to arrest him for littering?
-
you admitted you had the timeline wrong
you never admitted you had the roles of the guard wrong...
I didn't refuse to admit it, I clearly indicated I conflated two different parts of the story.
-
You say international law allows the US government to stop boats for inspection, where are you getting this from? I did a search and found the below listed limited authority under international law but it doesn't mention drug movement.
Quote
A U.S. warship may only board a foreign private vessel if there is "reasonable ground for suspecting" that the vessel is involved in one of the following activities:
Piracy
The slave trade
Unauthorized broadcasting
The ship is without nationality (stateless)
The ship is, in reality, of the same nationality as the warship, despite flying a foreign flag or refusing to show its flag
If suspicions prove to be unfounded, the vessel must be compensated for any damage or loss it sustained.
Is there more to this that you left out? There is an ethics class at Annapolis and about a US warship stopping a ship full of refugees to render aid. The point of this was if there is a pregnant woman on board and she gives birth on the US warship, then her child becomes a US citizen. So with the above, would no sailor render aid by boarding the vessel if needed? What if someone has a medical emergency and cannot board the US warship? Wouldn't by the examples you posted, the corpsman would be unable to board and render any life saving aid?
-
The POTUS is not a usually type of situation. If Trump came to Hawaii, drank a soda and threw the can on the ground, what do you think would happen to an HPD officer trying to arrest him for littering?
We are talking about killing people in a drug boat that you claim is "arguably illegal" and now you're comparing it to littering. Thanks for playing.
-
you admitted you had the timeline wrong
you never admitted you had the roles of the guard wrong...
I never stated what the role of guard would be doing, I was talking about issues that would happen if the guard were used for certain roles.
-
Is there more to this that you left out? There is an ethics class at Annapolis and about a US warship stopping a ship full of refugees to render aid. The point of this was if there is a pregnant woman on board and she gives birth on the US warship, then her child becomes a US citizen. So with the above, would no sailor render aid by boarding the vessel if needed? What if someone has a medical emergency and cannot board the US warship? Wouldn't by the examples you posted, the corpsman would be unable to board and render any life saving aid?
If someone we heaving a heart attack and up pulls the US Navy offering to help there wouldn't be an issue because the man isn't going to resist help coming aboard, they are going to be adamantly requesting it.
-
We are talking about killing people in a drug boat that you claim is "arguably illegal" and now you're comparing it to littering. Thanks for playing.
Swoosh!
You said when a law is broken usually someone gets arrested. I pointed out the problem of who is going to step forward and arrest him? Local police? The Secret Service? The Navy?
I was not comparing a missile strike to littering.
-
https://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=57312.msg506585#msg506585
I never stated what the role of guard would be doing, I was talking about issues that would happen if the guard were used for certain roles.
-
so stupid. Its like people trying to tell me how to make a Big Mac without ever working at a McDonalds or visited one. Especially one person who is just speculating how everything is "supposed" to work and arguing with everyone else.
-
If someone we heaving a heart attack and up pulls the US Navy offering to help there wouldn't be an issue because the man isn't going to resist help coming aboard, they are going to be adamantly requesting it.
Ur post said US ships can ONLY board a vessel for the following....
Whethee the captain of said ship allows them or not is irrelevant.
Thanks for playing.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
Swoosh!
You said when a law is broken usually someone gets arrested. I pointed out the problem of who is going to step forward and arrest him? Local police? The Secret Service? The Navy?
I was not comparing a missile strike to littering.
Wrong. Hahahhaha
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
so stupid. Its like people trying to tell me how to make a Big Mac without ever working at a McDonalds or visited one. Especially one person who is just speculating how everything is "supposed" to work and arguing with everyone else.
No speculation needed, there are plenty of videos of the coast guard doing this type of interdiction. I can find them for you if your youtube search function isn't working.
Maybe its just that the Navy doesn't have some specialized soldiers capable of such a task.
Plus you are avoiding the biggest issue here, since when do we kill people for being part of the drug trade? Sure, we kill people trying to kill us (terrorists, foreign military, etc.) but when do we decide we can take the life of someone bringing in a product Americans are wanting to buy?
-
https://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=57312.msg506585#msg506585
Maybe you should read the post you link to better... I only indicated proper training if they are tasked with a law enforcement role.
-
Ur post said US ships can ONLY board a vessel for the following....
Whethee the captain of said ship allows them or not is irrelevant.
Thanks for playing.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Talking about a forcible/non-consensual boarding.
I figured that was obvious unless you seriously though I was saying it was illegal for a soldier to go onto another boat if invited. I guess I will spell it out for you next time better.
-
Wrong. Hahahhaha
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Can't admit you are wrong or even defend your position. Gotcha
:stopjack:
-
No speculation needed, there are plenty of videos of the coast guard doing this type of interdiction. I can find them for you if your youtube search function isn't working.
Maybe its just that the Navy doesn't have some specialized soldiers capable of such a task.
Plus you are avoiding the biggest issue here, since when do we kill people for being part of the drug trade? Sure, we kill people trying to kill us (terrorists, foreign military, etc.) but when do we decide we can take the life of someone bringing in a product Americans are wanting to buy?
where did I mention you?
-
where did I mention you?
::)
-
please show me where you said "if"...
Maybe you should read the post you link to better... I only indicated proper training if they are tasked with a law enforcement role.
-
Talking about a forcible/non-consensual boarding.
I figured that was obvious unless you seriously though I was saying it was illegal for a soldier to go onto another boat if invited. I guess I will spell it out for you next time better.
No, you need to admit your quote was lacking information or wrong. Refer to my reply.
-
Can't admit you are wrong or even defend your position. Gotcha
:stopjack:
No, you don't got it.
-
3rd strike and it was confirmed that all 3 happened in international waters.
I'll bet cartels will use human shields next since the left love to bash effective things that work.
-
Plus you are avoiding the biggest issue here, since when do we kill people for being part of the drug trade? Sure, we kill people trying to kill us (terrorists, foreign military, etc.) but when do we decide we can take the life of someone bringing in a product Americans are wanting to buy?
Since a few weeks ago. Everything starts from somewhere.
You left out "products that Americans are wanting to buy illegally".
-
hey 5-0, do you not arrest drug dealers because they are selling "a product Americans are wanting to buy"?
No speculation needed, there are plenty of videos of the coast guard doing this type of interdiction. I can find them for you if your youtube search function isn't working.
Maybe its just that the Navy doesn't have some specialized soldiers capable of such a task.
Plus you are avoiding the biggest issue here, since when do we kill people for being part of the drug trade? Sure, we kill people trying to kill us (terrorists, foreign military, etc.) but when do we decide we can take the life of someone bringing in a product Americans are wanting to buy?
-
Man, I hope all those boats are already paid for …
-
hey 5-0, do you not arrest drug dealers because they are selling "a product Americans are wanting to buy"?
He's gonna then say cops do (avoiding admitting he ever did arrest one), but they (police in general) don't execute them as he has used that example in this thread about cops executing drug dealers. Which was comparing apples to oranges as LEO have different rules than the military does. But lets wait and see when he comes back what he will say to weasel out of it.
-
He's gonna then say cops do (avoiding admitting he ever did arrest one), but they (police in general) don't execute them as he has used that example in this thread about cops executing drug dealers. Which was comparing apples to oranges as LEO have different rules than the military does. But lets wait and see when he comes back what he will say to weasel out of it.
Since this was in International waters, and the occupants of the boat are fleeing, and the boat's owners are designated terrorists, the normal tenants of US laws are not applicable.
You have to look up international maritime laws to know if the act is considered justified or not. Like, if someone is trying to forcibly board your boat and doesn't identify themselves as any government's military or law enforcement agency, you don't have to wait until they shoot at you to use deadly force to repel them.
-
I wonder if OP feels the same about the Bin laden raid?
We entered Pakistan w/o approval. Some could see that as an invasion/act of war.
There was no knock on the door, so it was damaged as it was breached. Holes in the wall from bullets, so even more property damage done.
Others in the compound were shot, unsure if they're AQ or not when the shooting took place. How would you react if you had an AK and someone in the middle of the night attacked your home. Esp in the dark where you cannot see.
We stole items from the home as no permission was given.
We left brass and 1 of our helicopters so that's littering.
No due process.
This is fun.
-
I wonder if OP feels the same about the Bin laden raid?
We entered Syria w/o approval. Some could see that as an invasion/act of war.
There was no knock on the door, so it was damaged as it was breached. Holes in the wall from bullets, so even more property damage done.
Others in the compound were shot, unsure if they're AQ or not when the shooting took place. How would you react if you had an AK and someone in the middle of the night attacked your home. Esp in the dark where you cannot see.
We stole items from the home as no permission was given.
We left brass and 1 of our helicopters so that's littering.
No due process.
This is fun.
Syria?
The compound that was raided and where bin Laden was killed is located in Pakistan.
-
Syria?
The compound that was raided and where bin Laden was killed is located in Pakistan.
Thanks for catching that.
-
no focus
Thanks for catching that.
-
please show me where you said "if"...
I didn't use the word "if" but it was a conditional statement. It is inherent to the statement. If no guardsmen are tasked with that duty then it is a moot point, I don't need the word "if" to be in there.
-
No, you need to admit your quote was lacking information or wrong. Refer to my reply.
Gosh you are trying hard for the smallest win. "but what about someone invited for medical care...." Obviously it goes without saying that this doesn't apply to the issue of when the military boarding a drug boat.
-
hey 5-0, do you not arrest drug dealers because they are selling "a product Americans are wanting to buy"?
So why not let cops kill drug dealers on US soil as well then? The same logic in protecting American lives remains.
-
Since this was in International waters, and the occupants of the boat are fleeing, and the boat's owners are designated terrorists, the normal tenants of US laws are not applicable.
You have to look up international maritime laws to know if the act is considered justified or not. Like, if someone is trying to forcibly board your boat and doesn't identify themselves as any government's military or law enforcement agency, you don't have to wait until they shoot at you to use deadly force to repel them.
Still waiting for evidence they were fleeing or had been given an order to stop.
Being designated a terrorist alone doesn't give authority for a lethal strike
This isn't just a legal question, this is a moral one too. Are we as a country/society really saying it is ok to kill someone for a drug crime?
Missionaries are heavily restricted in China, if China found a boat of unapproved Christian missionaries sneaking in bibles, would you be fine with them blowing up the boat, killing all on board?
-
I wonder if OP feels the same about the Bin laden raid?
We entered Pakistan w/o approval. Some could see that as an invasion/act of war.
There was no knock on the door, so it was damaged as it was breached. Holes in the wall from bullets, so even more property damage done.
Others in the compound were shot, unsure if they're AQ or not when the shooting took place. How would you react if you had an AK and someone in the middle of the night attacked your home. Esp in the dark where you cannot see.
We stole items from the home as no permission was given.
We left brass and 1 of our helicopters so that's littering.
No due process.
This is fun.
Maybe ask the OP.
Bin Laden was the leader of a group that openly targeted and tried to kill Americans. There are legal gray areas that the USA operated in order to get him but he is hardly comparable to a drug mule who may be just shipping drug bundles so the cartels don't kill his family. Try a little harder to justify killing all those people.
-
Still waiting for evidence they were fleeing or had been given an order to stop.
Being designated a terrorist alone doesn't give authority for a lethal strike
This isn't just a legal question, this is a moral one too. Are we as a country/society really saying it is ok to kill someone for a drug crime?
Missionaries are heavily restricted in China, if China found a boat of unapproved Christian missionaries sneaking in bibles, would you be fine with them blowing up the boat, killing all on board?
Do your own homework.
Popping in once or twice a month to respond to posts isn't helping at all -- other than your ego.
-
Someone has no experience working at that echelon of law enforcement. No insights into the processes what so ever.
-
Someone has no experience working at that echelon of law enforcement. No insights into the processes what so ever.
And when has that ever mattered to someone?
i've actually worked in this facet of the Coast Guard and Homeland Security. Someone has no idea whatsoever about the realities involved versus someone's beliefs.
He's demanding evidence of this or that. i guarantee most of that is classified to protect sources and methods. A lot of what we did involved covert methods that i can't get into, but it's everything from drone surveillance and human reporting to electronic eaves dropping. It's real 007 type stuff.
If we sent a missile to blow up a drug runner's boat, I can guarantee we were 100% sure they were running drugs on that specific go-fast.
Many boats intercepted was sunk by the operators. They have plugged holes in the hull so that if intercepted, they could quickly pull the plugs to sink the boat and drugs -- no evidence recovered. The sinking boat had time to disappear because, when people are in the water, the mission to intercept ends, and the US boat is required to rescue all survivors instead. The bad guys know all this. They would rather lose a single boat's shipment which is probably going to be seized anyway than have their people put in prison for drug charges.
A go-fast boat is a small, fast powerboat designed with a long narrow platform
and a planing hull. Depending on definitions used, it is either a speedboat
(synonymously) or a certain type of speedboat.
During the United States alcohol prohibition era, these boats were used in
"rum-running", transferring illegal liquor from larger vessels waiting outside
US territorial waters to the mainland. Their high speed enabled them to avoid
interception by the law enforcement. The present conception of such boats is
based largely on designs by Donald Aronow for offshore powerboat racing in
the 1960s. During this period, these boats were also used by drug smugglers
to transfer drugs across the Caribbean to the United States.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go-fast_boat
(https://i.imgur.com/mPYop8a.png)
-
"Indeed, it is a very learnable knowledge base, I only hope it is actually taught to a certain minimum for any Guardsmen tasked with such a mission.
The National Guard is commonly called up for natural disasters and large level protests, but not so often to enforce criminal law.
One would hope the Guard learned the lessons from the Kent State Massacre."
i see TWO declarative statements
and you were told IN THE VERY NEXT POST what the duties of the NG were
and i made 2 posts later illustrating what the EXACT duties of the NG were
and all you only admitted you were wrong about the 30 days
never ONCE did you mention about any "conditional statement' until now
cannot move goalposts if you never even take the field...
I didn't use the word "if" but it was a conditional statement. It is inherent to the statement. If no guardsmen are tasked with that duty then it is a moot point, I don't need the word "if" to be in there.
-
Maybe ask the OP.
Bin Laden was the leader of a group that openly targeted and tried to kill Americans. There are legal gray areas that the USA operated in order to get him but he is hardly comparable to a drug mule who may be just shipping drug bundles so the cartels don't kill his family. Try a little harder to justify killing all those people.
Hahahahha he fell for it.
-
Maybe ask the OP.
Bin Laden was the leader of a group that openly targeted and tried to kill Americans. There are legal gray areas that the USA operated in order to get him but he is hardly comparable to a drug mule who may be just shipping drug bundles so the cartels don't kill his family. Try a little harder to justify killing all those people.
Hahahahha he fell for it.
Drug cartels don't target Americans nor have they ever killed an American -- not with their products and not with violence.
My keyboard almost burst into flames typing that! :geekdanc: :rofl:
It doesn't matter if the boat crew are peasants working for the cartels or cartel leaders themselves. Bin Laden is not the only terrorist we killed in his organization. We took out as many leaders as we could find, and those doing the work on the ground as well.
Guilt by association. If you're complicit in facilitating the crimes, you're a target.
So, running drugs is the only solution to having family threatened? isn't this the definition of what asylum is for? Go to an embassy and apply. Have your family relocated to a country that can protect them. Breaking the law is not the only answer to coercion.
-
Do your own homework.
Popping in once or twice a month to respond to posts isn't helping at all -- other than your ego.
You made the claim, the burden of proof is on you. Don't use that bit as part of the justification for the strike then expect me to do the work to support your argument.
Are you the post frequency nazi police now? I can't come here and have discussions unless I do so at a level of regularity you approve of?
-
You made the claim, the burden of proof is on you. Don't use that bit as part of the justification for the strike then expect me to do the work to support your argument.
Are you the post frequency nazi police now? I can't come here and have discussions unless I do so at a level of regularity you approve of?
There's no "burden of proof" on the Internet.
You should have learned that by now. You demonstrate this many, many times when you can't offer up sources to support your conclusions.
If you can't take the time to learn before posting BS opinions, don't look to the rest of us to do it for you. Not our "burden" to spoon feed you what is readily accessible to everyone.
-
Drug cartels don't target Americans nor have they ever killed an American -- not with their products and not with violence.
My keyboard almost burst into flames typing that! :geekdanc: :rofl:
It doesn't matter if the boat crew are peasants working for the cartels or cartel leaders themselves. Bin Laden is not the only terrorist we killed in his organization. We took out as many leaders as we could find, and those doing the work on the ground as well.
Guilt by association. If you're complicit in facilitating the crimes, you're a target.
So, running drugs is the only solution to having family threatened? isn't this the definition of what asylum is for? Go to an embassy and apply. Have your family relocated to a country that can protect them. Breaking the law is not the only answer to coercion.
Drug mules aren't terrorists no matter what Daddy Trump tells you.
Drug cartels "target" Americans with their products? Yeah, Americans are just victims here, drug dealers coming in and forcing us to take the drugs ::)
You keep trying to change the nature of the argument here. I am not excusing the actions of the cartels or the drug runners, nor am I saying we can never use lethal force against them. I am saying it is wrong to summarily execute them for the crime of bringing drugs into the country. Every whataboutism argument you have presented is avoiding that ethical question, you just seek to justify Trump's order.
You say the product is killing Americans, so are you blaming an inanimate object (drug)?
-
There's no "burden of proof" on the Internet.
You should have learned that by now. You demonstrate this many, many times when you can't offer up sources to support your conclusions.
If you can't take the time to learn before posting BS opinions, don't look to the rest of us to do it for you. Not our "burden" to spoon feed you what is readily accessible to everyone.
Back pedaling hard there. Can't even support your own opinion.
-
Drug mules aren't terrorists no matter what Daddy Trump tells you.
Drug cartels "target" Americans with their products? Yeah, Americans are just victims here, drug dealers coming in and forcing us to take the drugs ::)
You keep trying to change the nature of the argument here. I am not excusing the actions of the cartels or the drug runners, nor am I saying we can never use lethal force against them. I am saying it is wrong to summarily execute them for the crime of bringing drugs into the country. Every whataboutism argument you have presented is avoiding that ethical question, you just seek to justify Trump's order.
You say the product is killing Americans, so are you blaming an inanimate object (drug)?
Nobody is being summarily executed by our forces. You're confusing them with the drug cartels (which you ARE defending here) who summarily execute their opponents, competition and anyone they feel is a threat to their operation.
You're making a very simple concept overly complex.
The evidence you demand LIKE I ALREADY TOLD YOU would reveal sources and methods of collection. You can hold your breath demanding i give you something I promise you exists for all I care. Nobody is saying "hello" to our little friend, the missile, unless the evidence is available to those with a need to know and which is indisputable. That much i know happens from direct experience.
-
Nobody is being summarily executed by our forces. You're confusing them with the drug cartels (which you ARE defending here) who summarily execute their opponents, competition and anyone they feel is a threat to their operation.
You're making a very simple concept overly complex.
The evidence you demand LIKE I ALREADY TOLD YOU would reveal sources and methods of collection. You can hold your breath demanding i give you something I promise you exists for all I care. Nobody is saying "hello" to our little friend, the missile, unless the evidence is available to those with a need to know and which is indisputable. That much i know happens from direct experience.
Blowing up a boat moving drugs is summarily executing them. They sure as heck aren't alive, they sure as heck didn't receive any semblance of a hearing/trial, and it wasn't done in accordance with the powers Trump legally has. Sounds a lot like a summary execution.
I am not defending the cartels, I am upholding principles that make our country great, I am not sure why that eludes you.
I never demanded that the government produce every bit of classified detail, cut it with the strawman. You made the comment about refusing to stop but now refuse to say how YOU knew they refused to stop. Like I said, if the military says their intelligence thoroughly verified they were drug runners then I take them at their word. I am not questioning what the military knew here, if I was the structure of my argument would look much different. I am challenging you on your defense of the decision to blow up the boat instead of intercepting it like the coast guard routinely does. You countered with the argument about them running and refusing to stop with no pointing to any evidence to support that this was the case.
You have also never given any good reason why a non-lethal method wasn't tried first.
-
Blowing up a boat moving drugs is summarily executing them. They sure as heck aren't alive, they sure as heck didn't receive any semblance of a hearing/trial, and it wasn't done in accordance with the powers Trump legally has. Sounds a lot like a summary execution.
I am not defending the cartels, I am upholding principles that make our country great, I am not sure why that eludes you.
I never demanded that the government produce every bit of classified detail, cut it with the strawman. You made the comment about refusing to stop but now refuse to say how YOU knew they refused to stop. Like I said, if the military says their intelligence thoroughly verified they were drug runners then I take them at their word. I am not questioning what the military knew here, if I was the structure of my argument would look much different. I am challenging you on your defense of the decision to blow up the boat instead of intercepting it like the coast guard routinely does. You countered with the argument about them running and refusing to stop with no pointing to any evidence to support that this was the case.
You have also never given any good reason why a non-lethal method wasn't tried first.
Let's for the sake of argument stipulate there was no prior command given to stop their engines, no warning to stop or be fired upon, no instructions to prepare to be boarded for inspection, etc.
So what? As I said the boat was thoroughly investigated and vetted to be a drug smuggling vessel carrying large amounts of illegal drugs or precursors for distribution in the US and other nations.
if the US policy is to use any means necessary against this national security threat, it's no different than sinking a boat that's wandered into restricted waters or an aircraft that's in restricted airspace. If you're unarmed and driving your car toward the gates of a military base, and nobody is yelling for you to stop, so you think the gate guard is going to jail for shooting you dead before you can reach them? You could be sight-seeing or just followed some screwed-up directions on your crappy GPS device. As long as you continue without communicating your intentions and complying with instructions, you're a threat -- and that makes you a target.
If fair warning is given beforehand (the base has signs saying use of deadly force is authorized), then you really can't blame anyone but yourself for making your life end abruptly. Same with the boats. If ample warning is given to the cartels and the drug-smuggling countries at large that the US will sink any vessels we know is smuggling drugs regardless of how many mules lose their lives, the ball is literally in their court.
You can say the crews may be trying to save their families from Cartels by agreeing to smuggle drugs under coercion, but that's not our problem. Those civilian shield tactics play on our good nature to save the innocent, but we shouldn't avoid doing what's responsible because of other's bad acts. If someone has your wife tied up being held hostage, and the bad guys tell you to go rob a bank for them or they will kill her, do you honestly think the Cops who respond are going to just let you go having heard your excuse? Will they not use lethal force if you try to flee?
It's been said many times that the war on drugs failed because we can't stop the drugs from coming in, so we need to eliminate the demand. Then the supply will dry up in response.
Well, here's someone actually showing one method of stopping the supply in transit, and people are gnashing their teeth in response.
I guess we just do nothing -- as usual -- and tell our kids to always have some Naloxone handy.
-
Let's for the sake of argument stipulate there was no prior command given to stop their engines, no warning to stop or be fired upon, no instructions to prepare to be boarded for inspection, etc.
So what? As I said the boat was thoroughly investigated and vetted to be a drug smuggling vessel carrying large amounts of illegal drugs or precursors for distribution in the US and other nations.
if the US policy is to use any means necessary against this national security threat, it's no different than sinking a boat that's wandered into restricted waters or an aircraft that's in restricted airspace. If you're unarmed and driving your car toward the gates of a military base, and nobody is yelling for you to stop, so you think the gate guard is going to jail for shooting you dead before you can reach them? You could be sight-seeing or just followed some screwed-up directions on your crappy GPS device. As long as you continue without communicating your intentions and complying with instructions, you're a threat -- and that makes you a target.
If fair warning is given beforehand (the base has signs saying use of deadly force is authorized), then you really can't blame anyone but yourself for making your life end abruptly. Same with the boats. If ample warning is given to the cartels and the drug-smuggling countries at large that the US will sink any vessels we know is smuggling drugs regardless of how many mules lose their lives, the ball is literally in their court.
You can say the crews may be trying to save their families from Cartels by agreeing to smuggle drugs under coercion, but that's not our problem. Those civilian shield tactics play on our good nature to save the innocent, but we shouldn't avoid doing what's responsible because of other's bad acts. If someone has your wife tied up being held hostage, and the bad guys tell you to go rob a bank for them or they will kill her, do you honestly think the Cops who respond are going to just let you go having heard your excuse? Will they not use lethal force if you try to flee?
It's been said many times that the war on drugs failed because we can't stop the drugs from coming in, so we need to eliminate the demand. Then the supply will dry up in response.
Well, here's someone actually showing one method of stopping the supply in transit, and people are gnashing their teeth in response.
I guess we just do nothing -- as usual -- and tell our kids to always have some Naloxone handy.
You also left out all those vehicles with non uniformed military that were taken out in Iraq and A-stan over the past decades. Looks like a civilian driver as no uniform was visible. They too lacked due process and were executed for not stopping their vehicle. There is no way to know if the driver was a terrorist or not either until after the fact.
-
You also left out all those vehicles with non uniformed military that were taken out in Iraq and A-stan over the past decades. Looks like a civilian driver as no uniform was visible. They too lacked due process and were executed for not stopping their vehicle. There is no way to know if the driver was a terrorist or not either until after the fact.
This is why declaring the cartels terrorist organizations is important. we now have more latitude with which to stop their activities including directed munitions.
If we could do this within the drug cartels' countries, we would. But, the sad fact is many of those country's governments are controlled by those criminals wither directly or covertly. We get promises from those countries they will crack down on the production and flow of narcotics, but it never happens to any significant degree.
We can't wait until they enter the US, because catching them becomes harder as they hide among the homes and businesses here.
Personally, if I were Trump, i would have taken a page from James Bond 007 and created a ship like in The Spy Who Loved Me.. Have a cargo ship situated in the path of the drug runners. Use drones to neutralize the boat and crew, then capture them both, boat and all, inside the well-disguised cargo ship which is actually a floating harbor. The boat gets seized for its monetary value. The drugs are seized and destroyed. And the crew are sent to Gitmo and interrogated. With all the evidence obtained, they could also be tried, convicted, extradited to their homes and/or put in prison for 10 years.
The go-fasts are often modified with trackers and remote receivers that can disable them and then resold to people needing them to run drugs. Another way to grab them without destroying the whole thing.
As boats start mysteriously disappearing from the water, the cartels will have to change methods or stop using the waterways at all for transporting druggs.
Maybe this can be the new Bermuda Triangle? :geekdanc:
-
Let's for the sake of argument stipulate there was no prior command given to stop their engines, no warning to stop or be fired upon, no instructions to prepare to be boarded for inspection, etc.
So what? As I said the boat was thoroughly investigated and vetted to be a drug smuggling vessel carrying large amounts of illegal drugs or precursors for distribution in the US and other nations.
if the US policy is to use any means necessary against this national security threat, it's no different than sinking a boat that's wandered into restricted waters or an aircraft that's in restricted airspace. If you're unarmed and driving your car toward the gates of a military base, and nobody is yelling for you to stop, so you think the gate guard is going to jail for shooting you dead before you can reach them? You could be sight-seeing or just followed some screwed-up directions on your crappy GPS device. As long as you continue without communicating your intentions and complying with instructions, you're a threat -- and that makes you a target.
If fair warning is given beforehand (the base has signs saying use of deadly force is authorized), then you really can't blame anyone but yourself for making your life end abruptly. Same with the boats. If ample warning is given to the cartels and the drug-smuggling countries at large that the US will sink any vessels we know is smuggling drugs regardless of how many mules lose their lives, the ball is literally in their court.
You can say the crews may be trying to save their families from Cartels by agreeing to smuggle drugs under coercion, but that's not our problem. Those civilian shield tactics play on our good nature to save the innocent, but we shouldn't avoid doing what's responsible because of other's bad acts. If someone has your wife tied up being held hostage, and the bad guys tell you to go rob a bank for them or they will kill her, do you honestly think the Cops who respond are going to just let you go having heard your excuse? Will they not use lethal force if you try to flee?
It's been said many times that the war on drugs failed because we can't stop the drugs from coming in, so we need to eliminate the demand. Then the supply will dry up in response.
Well, here's someone actually showing one method of stopping the supply in transit, and people are gnashing their teeth in response.
I guess we just do nothing -- as usual -- and tell our kids to always have some Naloxone handy.
Lets say, for the sake of argument that the boat was thoroughly investigated and vetted to be carrying large amounts of drugs to the USA. (I say this because we will never get an answer to how they knew this but we know that intelligence doesn't have a perfect record)
You say it is no different than downing a plane that wanders into restricted airspace. In 1983 the USSR shot down a Korean Airliner going from Alaska to Korea that had accidentally entered Soviet airspace killing 269 people including a US congressman. The USSR admitted shooting it down because they believed it to be a US spy plane. The logic of your statement suggests this was a legitimate use of force, is that your position? I posed the question earlier to you of American missionaries sneaking bibles into China, if China blew up an American boat, killing a dozen Americans, with the argument that Christianity represented a national threat to China, would you shrug your shoulders and defend China's rights to defend itself?
As I said many pages ago, if the boat was given clear warnings to stop and it was evident that forces would be unable to intercept the boat (helicopter running out of fuel and would lose track of the boat for example) then I would consider a lethal force option, especially if actually in US waters. Even then though, what happens if we were wrong? What happens if it is a boat of innocent people fleeing Venezuela to go to another country? It is not our problem if these people are being forced to smuggle drugs you say. Let me ask you this, is America the greatest country on Earth because we have the biggest military or is it because of our values and legal principles? The difference that makes us the best country in the world used to be that we would attempt to capture instead of merely kill.
If I rob a bank to save my wife's life and I flee when the cops show up they can't shoot me for fleeing. There is SCOTUS case law on the issue of deadly force against a fleeing felon.
You say this is one method of reducing the supply, I have seen zero evidence that this is having any effect on supply, at best it might have a small effect on drug prices. The USA used to have a problem with meth labs but the number has gone way down. Do you know why? Because it was cheaper to make in Mexico and bring into the USA. So lets say bombing drug mules actually does have an effect on supply, what do you think is going to happen? Demand doesn't go away, people will start making it in the USA again.
-
You also left out all those vehicles with non uniformed military that were taken out in Iraq and A-stan over the past decades. Looks like a civilian driver as no uniform was visible. They too lacked due process and were executed for not stopping their vehicle. There is no way to know if the driver was a terrorist or not either until after the fact.
There were multiple instances where the US military bombed innocent people based on intelligence they were combatants so there's the fact we know that intelligence isn't perfect. Having said that, we are talking about a completely different situation, those examples are in wartime theaters under wartime rules. Drug mules aren't enemy militaries trying to attack us, they aren't combatants, and though it is referred to as "war on drugs" it is not a wartime situation.
-
Lets say, for the sake of argument that the boat was thoroughly investigated and vetted to be carrying large amounts of drugs to the USA. (I say this because we will never get an answer to how they knew this but we know that intelligence doesn't have a perfect record)
You say it is no different than downing a plane that wanders into restricted airspace. In 1983 the USSR shot down a Korean Airliner going from Alaska to Korea that had accidentally entered Soviet airspace killing 269 people including a US congressman. The USSR admitted shooting it down because they believed it to be a US spy plane. The logic of your statement suggests this was a legitimate use of force, is that your position? I posed the question earlier to you of American missionaries sneaking bibles into China, if China blew up an American boat, killing a dozen Americans, with the argument that Christianity represented a national threat to China, would you shrug your shoulders and defend China's rights to defend itself?
As I said many pages ago, if the boat was given clear warnings to stop and it was evident that forces would be unable to intercept the boat (helicopter running out of fuel and would lose track of the boat for example) then I would consider a lethal force option, especially if actually in US waters. Even then though, what happens if we were wrong? What happens if it is a boat of innocent people fleeing Venezuela to go to another country? It is not our problem if these people are being forced to smuggle drugs you say. Let me ask you this, is America the greatest country on Earth because we have the biggest military or is it because of our values and legal principles? The difference that makes us the best country in the world used to be that we would attempt to capture instead of merely kill.
If I rob a bank to save my wife's life and I flee when the cops show up they can't shoot me for fleeing. There is SCOTUS case law on the issue of deadly force against a fleeing felon.
You say this is one method of reducing the supply, I have seen zero evidence that this is having any effect on supply, at best it might have a small effect on drug prices. The USA used to have a problem with meth labs but the number has gone way down. Do you know why? Because it was cheaper to make in Mexico and bring into the USA. So lets say bombing drug mules actually does have an effect on supply, what do you think is going to happen? Demand doesn't go away, people will start making it in the USA again.
"I have seen zero evidence that this is having any effect on supply"
What sources do you have that are tracking the immediate effects of drug interdiction events?
You think a couple of sunk boats full off drugs is going to have a long term effect on supply? Prices?
Why do people with TDS expect every solution Trump implements to have an immediate positive impact -- else the solution has failed?
Drug trafficking, the border, the economy, crime, drain the swamp, national security, etc.?
His solutions are not magic pills that erase decades of failures in a day, week or month. The results have to have time to be observed, and the solutions have to continue before that can happen.
i would think someone who champions logic, objectivity and rational thinking would already know this.
TDS is stronger than common sense.
-
There were multiple instances where the US military bombed innocent people based on intelligence they were combatants so there's the fact we know that intelligence isn't perfect. Having said that, we are talking about a completely different situation, those examples are in wartime theaters under wartime rules. Drug mules aren't enemy militaries trying to attack us, they aren't combatants, and though it is referred to as "war on drugs" it is not a wartime situation.
Didn't you hear, the war was announced over by GW on the aircraft carrier. So was it "wartime"? We never declared war either against Afghanistan (the country). Yet innocents were killed there and they had no due process when disregarding a check point in a vehicle.
Thanks for playing.
-
"I have seen zero evidence that this is having any effect on supply"
What sources do you have that are tracking the immediate effects of drug interdiction events?
You think a couple of sunk boats full off drugs is going to have a long term effect on supply? Prices?
Why do people with TDS expect every solution Trump implements to have an immediate positive impact -- else the solution has failed?
Drug trafficking, the border, the economy, crime, drain the swamp, national security, etc.?
His solutions are not magic pills that erase decades of failures in a day, week or month. The results have to have time to be observed, and the solutions have to continue before that can happen.
i would think someone who champions logic, objectivity and rational thinking would already know this.
TDS is stronger than common sense.
Maybe EEF expects every single drug to be hit all at the same time, but not to have anyone killed in the process as no due process is given.
-
Maybe EEF expects every single drug to be hit all at the same time, but not to have anyone killed in the process as no due process is given.
It's like Vampire lore. Destroy the "head' drug smuggler, and the rest explode instantaneously.
-
"I have seen zero evidence that this is having any effect on supply"
What sources do you have that are tracking the immediate effects of drug interdiction events?
You think a couple of sunk boats full off drugs is going to have a long term effect on supply? Prices?
Why do people with TDS expect every solution Trump implements to have an immediate positive impact -- else the solution has failed?
Drug trafficking, the border, the economy, crime, drain the swamp, national security, etc.?
His solutions are not magic pills that erase decades of failures in a day, week or month. The results have to have time to be observed, and the solutions have to continue before that can happen.
i would think someone who champions logic, objectivity and rational thinking would already know this.
TDS is stronger than common sense.
Ok, I will give you the point that it is too early to gauge the effectiveness, but looking at the past, all the things we have tried over the past 40+ years of the "war on drugs", nothing has stopped the flow of drugs because as long as Americans are buying, someone with by supplying. We see changes in methods of moving drugs and changes in where and how drugs are made so pardon my skepticism that blowing up drug boats is going to make a difference, especially given we already intercept them regularly so it isn't the case that drug boats had free reign until Trump decided to use missiles. If we are going to authorizing the taking of life to stop drugs then we should have evidence it will actually work, that is my position. I don't blame Trump for not solving the drug problem immediately at all, you are trying to shift it to being about Trump when that was never my point, it was about the extrajudicial taking of life when non-lethal methods are tried and true.
You keep avoiding multiple key issues I pose to you and only reply to the easy one.
#1. Trump doesn't have the legal authority for these strikes under law.
#2. Would you be OK with other countries doing this to Americans who are breaking their laws? (Gave you an actual example and a hypothetical)
#3. Lets assume missiles work and Trump has the authority, why not shoot out the motors and seize the boat like the coast guard does all the time? Why take the life of a drug mule when there are other options?
-
Didn't you hear, the war was announced over by GW on the aircraft carrier. So was it "wartime"? We never declared war either against Afghanistan (the country). Yet innocents were killed there and they had no due process when disregarding a check point in a vehicle.
Thanks for playing.
I didn't say anything about disregarding a checkpoint, I am talking about targeted strikes based on "intelligence"
Thanks for playing.
-
Ok, I will give you the point that it is too early to gauge the effectiveness, but looking at the past, all the things we have tried over the past 40+ years of the "war on drugs", nothing has stopped the flow of drugs because as long as Americans are buying, someone with by supplying. We see changes in methods of moving drugs and changes in where and how drugs are made so pardon my skepticism that blowing up drug boats is going to make a difference, especially given we already intercept them regularly so it isn't the case that drug boats had free reign until Trump decided to use missiles. If we are going to authorizing the taking of life to stop drugs then we should have evidence it will actually work, that is my position. I don't blame Trump for not solving the drug problem immediately at all, you are trying to shift it to being about Trump when that was never my point, it was about the extrajudicial taking of life when non-lethal methods are tried and true.
You keep avoiding multiple key issues I pose to you and only reply to the easy one.
#1. Trump doesn't have the legal authority for these strikes under law.
Opinions vary. Until there is a specific challenge made by Congress (impeachment) or the Supreme Court (injunction), he can take any action he deems necessary and prudent. Saying he doesn't have the authority at this stage is both biased (TDS) and not proven (no SCOTUS ruling)
#2. Would you be OK with other countries doing this to Americans who are breaking their laws? (Gave you an actual example and a hypothetical)
What's your evidence that other countries don't already do this? Whether or not they are acting in a similar manner is a whataboutism. "What about other countries?" That's not a valid concern. We can't control what other countries do/don't do. How many US citizens are running drugs into foreign countries? I'm guessing not enough for it to be a problem.
#3. Lets assume missiles work and Trump has the authority, why not shoot out the motors and seize the boat like the coast guard does all the time? Why take the life of a drug mule when there are other options?
What's the percentage of effective engine disabling efforts by the USCG? I bet it's not anywhere near as high as you think.
have you ever tried to hit a target the size of an inboard or outboard motor? While in a helicopter going close to 100MPH? While in a Coast Guard vessel doing the same? With the target going top speed and making evasive maneuvers?
If you've ever shot skeet, you'll know how much harder it can be to hit a moving target. And that's with a shotgun!
The drug mule put his own life at risk the minute he boarded the boat loaded with drugs and crossed into US-protected waters. He then made things worse by refusing to stop when ordered. Do you feel any amount of moral indignation for him being the primary reason the situation on the water exists, or is it only the US military who gets the blame when we take the steps necessary to stop them?
If a man goes into a bank and holds someone hostage, do you blame the Cops for showing up, not letting him leave, and putting a bullet through his head? I mean, the only option you gave him was surrender and go to prison. Shooting him in the head without due process and while he's not directly and immediately threatening to kill anyone -- actual gun to the head -- is not playing fair.
I answered your questions. That's more than you are willing to do most of the time.
-
I didn't say anything about disregarding a checkpoint, I am talking about targeted strikes based on "intelligence"
Thanks for playing.
Please show me where I said you said anything about disregarding a checkpoint.
When you try to move goal post, facts become hard. FYI: "intelligence" shows that the ununiformed person in a car who disregarded a check point has a high chance of being a suicide bomber.
-
Opinions vary. Until there is a specific challenge made by Congress (impeachment) or the Supreme Court (injunction), he can take any action he deems necessary and prudent. Saying he doesn't have the authority at this stage is both biased (TDS) and not proven (no SCOTUS ruling)
So if the president does something questionable, any reading of the law which says he couldn't do that thing is already biased? Sounds like you already made up your mind (bias)
So lets say SCOTUS rules that Trump broke the law in authorizing the killings, are you going to call for his impeachment or is SCOTUS just a goalpost to be moved back later if you don't get your way there?
On top of that, do you really think it is a good idea for presidents to do whatever they want until a SCOTUS ruling stops them?
What's your evidence that other countries don't already do this? Whether or not they are acting in a similar manner is a whataboutism. "What about other countries?" That's not a valid concern. We can't control what other countries do/don't do. How many US citizens are running drugs into foreign countries? I'm guessing not enough for it to be a problem.
I never argued other countries don't do this, I gave you a specific example where the USSR did what you seemed to condone. The question is meant to challenge the logic of your argument, if you say we can do it then you can't complain if other countries do too. If China blows up a boat bringing in missionaries and Bibles into China, are you going to defend it or are you going to abandon the logic of the argument you made letting us blow up drug boats? Did you have no comment when North Korea basically killed the US Citizen who went to NK and allegedly stole a poster because they can do what they want?
What's the percentage of effective engine disabling efforts by the USCG? I bet it's not anywhere near as high as you think.
have you ever tried to hit a target the size of an inboard or outboard motor? While in a helicopter going close to 100MPH? While in a Coast Guard vessel doing the same? With the target going top speed and making evasive maneuvers?
If you've ever shot skeet, you'll know how much harder it can be to hit a moving target. And that's with a shotgun!
The drug mule put his own life at risk the minute he boarded the boat loaded with drugs and crossed into US-protected waters. He then made things worse by refusing to stop when ordered. Do you feel any amount of moral indignation for him being the primary reason the situation on the water exists, or is it only the US military who gets the blame when we take the steps necessary to stop them?
Trying out a little google-fu
For a 3 year period ending in 2022 there was a 90% success rate for pursuits. What number did you have in mind?
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2022/06/uscg-discloses-90-interdiction-success-rate-for-pursuits-over-the-last-three-years/
As for the difficulty in shooting at moving targets from a moving target, they have apparently overcome it. Maybe the US Navy doesn't have good marksmen?
BTW, this isn't a "shoot the gun out of their hand" type suggestion, the USCG specifically trains to shoot out the motors and they do so successfully on a regular basis. This "do you know how hard..." isn't a good rebuttal when they have shown they can do it repeatedly.
Here is a video example if you think I am making this up.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BneybEOPh5g
If a man goes into a bank and holds someone hostage, do you blame the Cops for showing up, not letting him leave, and putting a bullet through his head? I mean, the only option you gave him was surrender and go to prison. Shooting him in the head without due process and while he's not directly and immediately threatening to kill anyone -- actual gun to the head -- is not playing fair.
If a cop walks in finding a man robbing a bank but with no visible weapon, they are generally not going to be able to justify shooting him on the spot.
-
Please show me where I said you said anything about disregarding a checkpoint.
When you try to move goal post, facts become hard. FYI: "intelligence" shows that the ununiformed person in a car who disregarded a check point has a high chance of being a suicide bomber.
Arguing to argue, not interest in your games.
-
So if the president does something questionable, any reading of the law which says he couldn't do that thing is already biased? Sounds like you already made up your mind (bias)
So lets say SCOTUS rules that Trump broke the law in authorizing the killings, are you going to call for his impeachment or is SCOTUS just a goalpost to be moved back later if you don't get your way there?
On top of that, do you really think it is a good idea for presidents to do whatever they want until a SCOTUS ruling stops them?
I never argued other countries don't do this, I gave you a specific example where the USSR did what you seemed to condone. The question is meant to challenge the logic of your argument, if you say we can do it then you can't complain if other countries do too. If China blows up a boat bringing in missionaries and Bibles into China, are you going to defend it or are you going to abandon the logic of the argument you made letting us blow up drug boats? Did you have no comment when North Korea basically killed the US Citizen who went to NK and allegedly stole a poster because they can do what they want?
Trying out a little google-fu
For a 3 year period ending in 2022 there was a 90% success rate for pursuits. What number did you have in mind?
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2022/06/uscg-discloses-90-interdiction-success-rate-for-pursuits-over-the-last-three-years/
As for the difficulty in shooting at moving targets from a moving target, they have apparently overcome it. Maybe the US Navy doesn't have good marksmen?
BTW, this isn't a "shoot the gun out of their hand" type suggestion, the USCG specifically trains to shoot out the motors and they do so successfully on a regular basis. This "do you know how hard..." isn't a good rebuttal when they have shown they can do it repeatedly.
Here is a video example if you think I am making this up.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BneybEOPh5g
If a cop walks in finding a man robbing a bank but with no visible weapon, they are generally not going to be able to justify shooting him on the spot.
I'm not getting into a lengthy hypothetical thought experiment with you. I know it's all you enjoy doing, but I'm not going down the rabbit hole and waste my entire day.
p.s. "Do you know how had it is to hit a moving target on the water at 100Mph," is not an argument. It's a question. Aren't you the one calling Mac out when you used a question mark earlier? (rhetorical)
-
Arguing to argue, not interest in your games.
So you can't show me like usual. I and everyone understands. Thanks for playing.
-
So if the president does something questionable, any reading of the law which says he couldn't do that thing is already biased? Sounds like you already made up your mind (bias)
So lets say SCOTUS rules that Trump broke the law in authorizing the killings, are you going to call for his impeachment or is SCOTUS just a goalpost to be moved back later if you don't get your way there?
On top of that, do you really think it is a good idea for presidents to do whatever they want until a SCOTUS ruling stops them?
I never argued other countries don't do this, I gave you a specific example where the USSR did what you seemed to condone. The question is meant to challenge the logic of your argument, if you say we can do it then you can't complain if other countries do too. If China blows up a boat bringing in missionaries and Bibles into China, are you going to defend it or are you going to abandon the logic of the argument you made letting us blow up drug boats? Did you have no comment when North Korea basically killed the US Citizen who went to NK and allegedly stole a poster because they can do what they want?
Trying out a little google-fu
For a 3 year period ending in 2022 there was a 90% success rate for pursuits. What number did you have in mind?
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2022/06/uscg-discloses-90-interdiction-success-rate-for-pursuits-over-the-last-three-years/
As for the difficulty in shooting at moving targets from a moving target, they have apparently overcome it. Maybe the US Navy doesn't have good marksmen?
BTW, this isn't a "shoot the gun out of their hand" type suggestion, the USCG specifically trains to shoot out the motors and they do so successfully on a regular basis. This "do you know how hard..." isn't a good rebuttal when they have shown they can do it repeatedly.
Here is a video example if you think I am making this up.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BneybEOPh5g
If a cop walks in finding a man robbing a bank but with no visible weapon, they are generally not going to be able to justify shooting him on the spot.
USCG Discloses 90% Interdiction Success Rate
for Pursuits Over the Last Three Years
Is it your belief that all interdictions by the USCG all invlove shooting at the suspect vehicle's engines?
Read the damn article before posting as a source for a given opinion or assertion.
"Threat high-speed vessels can range from “Go-Fast” drug running boats,
smuggler speedboats, pirate ships, illegal cargo ships, fishing vessels, or
other criminal or even terrorist boats and ships."
"Each maritime pursuit chase is unique, and factors such as ambient lighting
and sea state, target speed and actions, and the target’s proximity to land
directly influence interdiction results. Despite these myriad factors, the Coast
Guard has an approximately 90% interdiction success rate, once starting
pursuit operations, over the last three years. Enhanced pursuit capabilities,
including unmanned aerial surveillance, in combination with changes in pursuit
tactics, like airborne use of force, and refinement of tactical geometry
assessments may have increased the recent level of interdiction success,”
Lieutenant Kneen said.
90%?? Try again. Maybe Google how to comprehend English before slapping a link in your comments and saying, "For a 3 year period ending in 2022 there was a 90% success rate for pursuits. What number did you have in mind?" when the question was:
"What's the percentage of effective engine disabling efforts by the USCG? I bet it's not anywhere near as high as you think."
Each pursuit is UNIQUE. Each of them may or may not present an opportunity to disable the engines. 90%? LOL!!
-
The Russians are calling the hot drug war a smokescreen in order to revive the Monroe Doctrine
https://www.rt.com/news/625996-monroe-doctrine-is-back/
It's probably a mixture of truth. The fact that Venezuela was actively participating in the Democrat/CCP gave Trump the perfect excuse to go after their oil.
-
USCG Discloses 90% Interdiction Success Rate
for Pursuits Over the Last Three Years
Is it your belief that all interdictions by the USCG all invlove shooting at the suspect vehicle's engines?
No.
90%?? Try again. Maybe Google how to comprehend English before slapping a link in your comments and saying, "For a 3 year period ending in 2022 there was a 90% success rate for pursuits. What number did you have in mind?" when the question was:
"What's the percentage of effective engine disabling efforts by the USCG? I bet it's not anywhere near as high as you think."
Each pursuit is UNIQUE. Each of them may or may not present an opportunity to disable the engines. 90%? LOL!!
I gave the closest thing I could find to an answer on the subject. So far you haven't put up anything other than your assumption that it is not as high as I think. If you have some data about the percentage of times the USCG loses these drug boats or that shooting the engine doesn't work then by all means post it. Otherwise you are just moving the goalpost back because I have shown you that it is possible, that they train for it and the method works. So far you haven't given any concrete reason why a non-lethal approach won't work, just excuses to justify killing the people on the boat.
-
No.
I gave the closest thing I could find to an answer on the subject. So far you haven't put up anything other than your assumption that it is not as high as I think. If you have some data about the percentage of times the USCG loses these drug boats or that shooting the engine doesn't work then by all means post it. Otherwise you are just moving the goalpost back because I have shown you that it is possible, that they train for it and the method works. So far you haven't given any concrete reason why a non-lethal approach won't work, just excuses to justify killing the people on the boat.
Deflecting your lack off google-fu back on me. :geekdanc: :rofl:
-
Deflecting your lack off google-fu back on me. :geekdanc: :rofl:
Maybe you should lead by example next time. I gave you something which is infinitely greater than the nothing you supported your argument with.
Instead of beating around the bush, moving goalposts, and trying to undermine my position with speculative whataboutism, why not just come out and say you don't care about the lives of those people? You grasp for any argument to justify killing them instead of a non-lethal option even when a non-lethal option could lead to catching the bigger fish, so why not just come out and say that their lives (people not on American soil) don't have much value to you?
-
Maybe you should lead by example next time. I gave you something which is infinitely greater than the nothing you supported your argument with.
Instead of beating around the bush, moving goalposts, and trying to undermine my position with speculative whataboutism, why not just come out and say you don't care about the lives of those people? You grasp for any argument to justify killing them instead of a non-lethal option even when a non-lethal option could lead to catching the bigger fish, so why not just come out and say that their lives (people not on American soil) don't have much value to you?
Giving me rice when i asked you for steak and potatoes is not fulfilling the request. You get no points for your irrelevant posts.
This comment shows how you always resort to emotional tantrums when you can't google anything to successfully argue with.
I never said anyone's lives have more or less worth than another's. However, it's not our place to protect the lives of people from other countries who break our laws, put our military members in harms way, and distribute poison for money.
Those drug runners can just as easily die trying to outrun the Coast Guard with no missiles involved. They put their own lives in jeopardy. Why would you put more worth on their lives than the drug runners themselves do? Just to argue? :geekdanc:
-
Giving me rice when i asked you for steak and potatoes is not fulfilling the request. You get no points for your irrelevant posts.
This comment shows how you always resort to emotional tantrums when you can't google anything to successfully argue with.
I never said anyone's lives have more or less worth than another's. However, it's not our place to protect the lives of people from other countries who break our laws, put our military members in harms way, and distribute poison for money.
Those drug runners can just as easily die trying to outrun the Coast Guard with no missiles involved. They put their own lives in jeopardy. Why would you put more worth on their lives than the drug runners themselves do? Just to argue? :geekdanc:
Can't complaint about my rice when you bought zero facts to the table, just some assertion that it wasn't as many as I thought.
You complain about the facts not being specific enough when in reality you are just distracting from the fact you don't have good answers to the issues I am pointing out.
Who said anything about protecting their lives? Deciding not to murder someone doesn't mean you are protecting them :crazy: :crazy: :crazy:
Why take extra steps to avoid killing them when we don't have to? Because that is what makes us the best country in the world, that is what separates animals from a civilized society. It is fundamental in the founding documents of the USA. Otherwise we are just a bully, lets just bomb anyone who breaks laws regulating imports so we can "protect America"
-
stop. You are not an 1811.
-
I don't remember, but recently I think it was the Venezuala President who spoke against this. AKA protecting drug cartels.
The cartels have 2 options:
Lay low until the new POTUS
Fill a drug boat with children. Record them going in the boat and wait for a strike. Then send vid to the fake news and let the rest work itself out.
-
I don't remember, but recently I think it was the Venezuala President who spoke against this. AKA protecting drug cartels.
The cartels have 2 options:
Lay low until the new POTUS
Fill a drug boat with children. Record them going in the boat and wait for a strike. Then send vid to the fake news and let the rest work itself out.
Or third option
They stop this s%!+ right now before Trump drops a bunker buster on Meduro!
Enough is enough, no more drugs, no more criminal gangs coming into our country, no more apartment takeovers, no more cop killing, this s%!+ ends now!
-
Or third option
They stop this s%!+ right now before Trump drops a bunker buster on Meduro!
Enough is enough, no more drugs, no more criminal gangs coming into our country, no more apartment takeovers, no more cop killing, this s%!+ ends now!
Or invade to destroy the cartels. We invade Iraq for OIF for much less. Invaded Pakistan for Bin Laden, etc...
-
The claim was that these boats are being destroyed to stop fentanyl from getting into America because so many Americans are dying from fentanyl overdoses but Venezuela isn't a source for fentanyl. It is however a source for cocaine. Cocaine overdoses account for less than half the overdose deaths of fentanyl.
These boats are also not long distance boats, getting to the continental USA would take days and many refill stops.
The people upset by this aren't just liberals.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/jwCX9oyBqro
-
Or invade to destroy the cartels. We invade Iraq for OIF for much less. Invaded Pakistan for Bin Laden, etc...
We can't win the drug war on our own shores, what makes you think we can win it somewhere else?
-
We can't win the drug war on our own shores, what makes you think we can win it somewhere else?
SWOOOOSSSHHHHHH
-
SWOOOOSSSHHHHHH
Can't answer the question so you have to pretend I missed the point :crazy:
-
Can't answer the question so you have to pretend I missed the point :crazy:
lol. You still don't understand swooooosshhh. Swooooshhh X2.