Orlando Buffalo Posted 3 hours ago Posted 3 hours ago 2 hours ago, Roundybout said: I think they should be taken in and given a fair trial instead of Kegsbreath turning them into deviled ham. How would you feel if our troops were the ones bombed in the water like that? Your comparison is insulting to our military, but if an American drug dealer was running drugs towards another country to kill a thousand of their citizens I would not be mad at the other country for killing them. 3 hours ago, SectionC3 said: Hoax. Also, speaking of things people suck at, it’s hard to believe someone pays you to teach our youth. FYI. This is a slippery slope here from Mr. anti vax conspiracy theory. I am actually curious which "conspiracy" theory do I believe that has not been proven true?
AlBUNDY4TDS Posted 3 hours ago Posted 3 hours ago 3 hours ago, Andy1 said: So why is “blast the boat” strategy better than the traditional legal protocol of the Coast Guard intercepting the vessel, boarding it, taking the boat and drugs, arresting the people, interrogating them and obtaining intelligence from them about who is directing them and who is buying the drugs in America? Hmm maybe just maybe by blowing up enough of these #######s would deter other #######s from trying the same thing? 1
gobills404 Posted 3 hours ago Posted 3 hours ago 1 minute ago, BillsFanNC said: Blowing up women and children on the other side of the world is fine but blowing up narco terrorists attempting to enter our country is where they draw the line apparently. 1 1
Roundybout Posted 2 hours ago Posted 2 hours ago 1 hour ago, Orlando Buffalo said: Your comparison is insulting to our military, but if an American drug dealer was running drugs towards another country to kill a thousand of their citizens I would not be mad at the other country for killing them. I am actually curious which "conspiracy" theory do I believe that has not been proven true? There is no reason that we as a first world nation should abandon morality and decency in war. Be better. 21 minutes ago, gobills404 said: Blowing up women and children on the other side of the world is fine but blowing up narco terrorists attempting to enter our country is where they draw the line apparently. remember when Trump was "President of Peace?" ICE zip-tied kids, by the way, so you don't get to pretend like you care about children. 1
B-Man Posted 2 hours ago Posted 2 hours ago 10 minutes ago, Roundybout said: Wow. A worse than usual post from Roundabout. Filled with false opinions. Meanwhile: 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
Roundybout Posted 2 hours ago Posted 2 hours ago 3 minutes ago, B-Man said: 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. Article 3 of the International Humanitarian Law: " (1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed 'hors de combat' by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. As usual, your weirdo right-wing blogs are wrong. And you support war crimes. Very sad, and you'll have to answer for it someday.
Orlando Buffalo Posted 2 hours ago Posted 2 hours ago 28 minutes ago, Roundybout said: There is no reason that we as a first world nation should abandon morality and decency in war. Be better. We killed the people responsible for the deaths of our countrymen with zero collateral damage, that is the definition of decency in war. Truly what are your opinions of Obama, FDR, Lincoln, and Washington? They weren't always so precise.
Roundybout Posted 1 hour ago Posted 1 hour ago 26 minutes ago, Orlando Buffalo said: We killed the people responsible for the deaths of our countrymen with zero collateral damage, that is the definition of decency in war. Truly what are your opinions of Obama, FDR, Lincoln, and Washington? They weren't always so precise. Which of them executed survivors in the water, a violation of the law created by the Geneva Convention?
Orlando Buffalo Posted 1 hour ago Posted 1 hour ago 10 minutes ago, Roundybout said: Which of them executed survivors in the water, a violation of the law created by the Geneva Convention? Geneva Convention only applies to soldiers in uniforms, the fact you would try to apply that here is hilarious.
gobills404 Posted 50 minutes ago Posted 50 minutes ago (edited) 1 hour ago, Roundybout said: ICE zip-tied kids, by the way, so you don't get to pretend like you care about children. I’m not pretending to care about either thing. Just pointing out y’all caring about one thing but not the other Edit: also how disingenuous you gotta be to compare getting zip tied to getting blown up lmao Edited 41 minutes ago by gobills404
Recommended Posts