B-Man Posted yesterday at 06:05 PM Posted yesterday at 06:05 PM The Democrats’ Latest Faux Scandal By John Hinderaker Here are my thoughts on the controversy: 1) The story is based on anonymous “sources,” i.e., deep state leakers. Unless and until someone steps forward, identifies himself, tells us what he knows and how he knows it, and takes responsibility for his statements, I assume everything in the story is probably a lie. 2) Given the lack of regard for the “law of armed conflict” that is consistently shown by our enemies, my reaction is: boo hoo. 3) Is there really a “law of armed conflict” that says you can only shoot at a target once? And if someone escapes an initial bombing, or burst of fire, or whatever, he is home free and can’t again be targeted? I’d like to see that law. I haven’t seen any news source cite to it. 4) If such a rule exists and applies in the present context, it is stupid. If it applies, and one were determined to follow it, it would incentivize a massive first strike that would eliminate any chance of survivors. And would also increase the risk of collateral, unintended damage. Meanwhile, it appears that the Trump administration may be intent on bringing about regime change in Venezuela. If armed conflict develops, the fate of the narco-traffickers will soon be forgotten. https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2025/11/the-democrats-latest-faux-scandal.php 1
pennstate10 Posted 20 hours ago Posted 20 hours ago 5 hours ago, B-Man said: The Democrats’ Latest Faux Scandal By John Hinderaker Here are my thoughts on the controversy: 1) The story is based on anonymous “sources,” i.e., deep state leakers. Unless and until someone steps forward, identifies himself, tells us what he knows and how he knows it, and takes responsibility for his statements, I assume everything in the story is probably a lie. 2) Given the lack of regard for the “law of armed conflict” that is consistently shown by our enemies, my reaction is: boo hoo. 3) Is there really a “law of armed conflict” that says you can only shoot at a target once? And if someone escapes an initial bombing, or burst of fire, or whatever, he is home free and can’t again be targeted? I’d like to see that law. I haven’t seen any news source cite to it. 4) If such a rule exists and applies in the present context, it is stupid. If it applies, and one were determined to follow it, it would incentivize a massive first strike that would eliminate any chance of survivors. And would also increase the risk of collateral, unintended damage. Meanwhile, it appears that the Trump administration may be intent on bringing about regime change in Venezuela. If armed conflict develops, the fate of the narco-traffickers will soon be forgotten. https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2025/11/the-democrats-latest-faux-scandal.php Im guessing Geneva Convention wasn’t taught at Trump University. https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/gcii-1949/article-12/commentary/2017 Fool.
sherpa Posted 19 hours ago Posted 19 hours ago 1 hour ago, pennstate10 said: Im guessing Geneva Convention wasn’t taught at Trump University. https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/gcii-1949/article-12/commentary/2017 Fool. No defense of recent actions, becasue I don't know the facts, nor does anyone else here What does seem quite obvious though, per your post, is that you have no idea who the Geneva Convention applies to, and for a clue, it isn't non combatant criminal activity. 1
pennstate10 Posted 3 hours ago Posted 3 hours ago (edited) 15 hours ago, sherpa said: No defense of recent actions, becasue I don't know the facts, nor does anyone else here What does seem quite obvious though, per your post, is that you have no idea who the Geneva Convention applies to, and for a clue, it isn't non combatant criminal activity. Problem here is that Trump and his administration are chronic liars. They've gotten trapped in their own lies. The pretext for the boat strikes given by the War Secretary and the Dept of War is that the US is engaged in a war on narcoterrorism . Thus they can shoot whatever vessels they deem to be enemy ships. Thus making the operators of said ships enemy combatants. Of course, this isnt simply my opinion. Here's of few from Republican and Independent senators. I'm sure that you can find quotes from Tucker and random bloggers who say "nothing to see here, move along". Read here: https://www.newsweek.com/republicans-demand-probe-pete-hegseth-boat-strikes-11133242 https://www.cnn.com/2025/12/01/us/video/sen-angus-king-if-the-facts-are-as-have-been-alleged-thats-a-stone-cold-war-crime https://thehill.com/policy/defense/5627952-defense-secretary-orders-drug-boat-attack/ https://www.justsecurity.org/125948/illegal-orders-shipwrecked-boat-strike-survivors/ Edited 3 hours ago by pennstate10 included more evidence
AlBUNDY4TDS Posted 3 hours ago Posted 3 hours ago 8 minutes ago, pennstate10 said: Problem here is that Trump and his administration are chronic liars. They've gotten trapped in their own lies. The pretext for the boat strikes given by the War Secretary and the Dept of War is that the US is engaged in a war on narcoterrorism . Thus they can shoot whatever vessels they deem to be enemy ships. Thus making the operators of said ships enemy combatants. Of course, this isnt simply my opinion. Here's of few from Republican and Independent senators. I'm sure that you can find quotes from Tucker and random bloggers who say "nothing to see here, move along". Read here: https://www.newsweek.com/republicans-demand-probe-pete-hegseth-boat-strikes-11133242 https://www.cnn.com/2025/12/01/us/video/sen-angus-king-if-the-facts-are-as-have-been-alleged-thats-a-stone-cold-war-crime https://thehill.com/policy/defense/5627952-defense-secretary-orders-drug-boat-attack/ https://www.justsecurity.org/125948/illegal-orders-shipwrecked-boat-strike-survivors/ The problem seems to be you have no idea what you're talking about lmao. The Geneva convention? Lmao 1
sherpa Posted 2 hours ago Posted 2 hours ago 11 minutes ago, pennstate10 said: The pretext for the boat strikes given by the War Secretary and the Dept of War is that the US is engaged in a war on narcoterrorism . Thus they can shoot whatever vessels they deem to be enemy ships. Thus making the operators of said ships enemy combatants. This is a totally false conclusion. They are not "combatants" is any historically accepted sense. Such a conclusion is preposterous. They are criminals involved in a criminal enterprise. They are very similar to anybody intentionally spreading a deadly virus in a region for simple monetary gain. I would never advocate the killing of survivors after the threat has been eliminated, but nor would I advocate any legal prosecution of these people, which would tie up an overburdened US legal system by people who have no legal standing in the US. They made their choice. The videos of the initial strikes were well publicized and available. Further, I would be very reluctant to publicize more. We have "allowed" millions and millions of people we know nothing about to enter this country under Biden. Surely, a significant number have gravitated to the drug sales and distribution world. We have seen some kill US citizens. Putting warheads on foreheads, as we task our service members to do, has the possibility of energizing people of this ilk to seek revenge. It would be incredibly simple to find out names go after those who do this and/or their families. Enough video.
pennstate10 Posted 2 hours ago Posted 2 hours ago 13 minutes ago, sherpa said: This is a totally false conclusion. They are not "combatants" is any historically accepted sense. Such a conclusion is preposterous. They are criminals involved in a criminal enterprise. They are very similar to anybody intentionally spreading a deadly virus in a region for simple monetary gain. I would never advocate the killing of survivors after the threat has been eliminated, but nor would I advocate any legal prosecution of these people, which would tie up an overburdened US legal system by people who have no legal standing in the US. They made their choice. The videos of the initial strikes were well publicized and available. Further, I would be very reluctant to publicize more. We have "allowed" millions and millions of people we know nothing about to enter this country under Biden. Surely, a significant number have gravitated to the drug sales and distribution world. We have seen some kill US citizens. Putting warheads on foreheads, as we task our service members to do, has the possibility of energizing people of this ilk to seek revenge. It would be incredibly simple to find out names go after those who do this and/or their families. Enough video. I agree. They are not combatants in the usual sense. If there is no real “war” on narcoterrorists, then DOD is illegally killing foreign nationals in international waters. DOD has shown no evidence any of these boats were even headed to the US. in fact at least one was clearly headed to Trinidad. US has no standing or authority for these extrajudicial killings in international waters. US is not, and should not be, the world’s policeman. Read the above links. Trump admin has been caught in their convoluted web of lies and half truths.
sherpa Posted 2 hours ago Posted 2 hours ago (edited) 39 minutes ago, pennstate10 said: I agree. They are not combatants in the usual sense. If there is no real “war” on narcoterrorists, then DOD is illegally killing foreign nationals in international waters. DOD has shown no evidence any of these boats were even headed to the US. Nonsense. There is a "war" on the narcotics smuggling industry, which is well funded and vibrant. In no way does that reality give a criminal activity which threatens our citizens any Geneva or other war time rules that the US is a signatory to. I have no idea how the US is determining actionable intel on these, but I would guess that they are paying informants. Discussing how they determine what to go after could very well expose "methods and sources," which we cannot do, for very obvious reasons. By the way, I'm not sure how familiar you are with the geography, but there is no way any of those boats could make it from Venezuela or Colombia to the US. They simply don't have that range. It a silly claim. They leapfrog until the product reaches the US. Edited 1 hour ago by sherpa
AlBUNDY4TDS Posted 2 hours ago Posted 2 hours ago Look at all the bleeding hearts defending drug smugglers. Pathetic. 1
Roundybout Posted 54 minutes ago Posted 54 minutes ago 1 hour ago, AlBUNDY4TDS said: Look at all the bleeding hearts defending drug smugglers. Pathetic. It’s really weird to see how you guys have abandoned every single moral possible just because it “owns the libs.” It’s also why no one believes Hegseth or any of the other clowns in Trump’s circus are actually Christians.
AlBUNDY4TDS Posted 16 minutes ago Posted 16 minutes ago 38 minutes ago, Roundybout said: It’s really weird to see how you guys have abandoned every single moral possible just because it “owns the libs.” It’s also why no one believes Hegseth or any of the other clowns in Trump’s circus are actually Christians. Simp harder for drug dealers and criminals!
Recommended Posts