pennstate10 Posted 12 hours ago Posted 12 hours ago Back on topic. Here is a thoughtful summary of the relevant issues. Delivered without once using the word “fu*ktard”. https://www.nytimes.com/video/us/politics/100000010560634/are-us-boat-strikes-near-venezuela-legal.html?campaign_id=9&emc=edit_nn_20251204&instance_id=167462&nl=the-morning®i_id=116970848&segment_id=211780&user_id=f478ac3a0b1d975ab3972d2c3836ae01 1
IYKYK Posted 12 hours ago Posted 12 hours ago 12 hours ago, Orlando Buffalo said: The amount of effort to defend the narco terrorists by some people here is astounding to me. The fact that not one of you had any issues when Obama was killing terrorists over in the Middle East while having collateral damage but this is where you draw the line tells me that your TDS is out of control. The same dirtbags on here. Bitching about drug dealers getting killed are the same scumbags who cheered Charlie Kirk’s death!!!! The POS leftists on here can rot in hell for all I care!!!
Joe Ferguson forever Posted 12 hours ago Posted 12 hours ago 18 minutes ago, IYKYK said: The same dirtbags on here. Bitching about drug dealers getting killed are the same scumbags who cheered Charlie Kirk’s death!!!! The POS leftists on here can rot in hell for all I care!!! i don't care where you rot,, just niimby. I didn't cheer Kirk's death. I also didn't cheer an extrajudicial war.
Roundybout Posted 11 hours ago Posted 11 hours ago (edited) 1 hour ago, JDHillFan said: That was then. it’s nice when you guys admit to war crimes on camera Edited 11 hours ago by Roundybout 1
B-Man Posted 43 minutes ago Posted 43 minutes ago ANOTHER MEDIA INVENTION No direct quote. No evidence. No wrongdoing. Just partisan operatives feeding rumors to desperate reporters hunting for another scandal that doesn’t exist. Under his authority as commander in chief, the president can blow up pretty much anybody on Earth whom he deems a national security threat. He does not need permission from Congress, the media, or a panel of self-appointed commentators. The missile strikes on drug-running vessels operated by a designated terrorist group are lawful, routine, and predictable. What made the episode explosive was that it enraged exactly the faction that always reacts this way: the political left. Impeachment is the only real consequence available to the administration’s critics, and after two failed efforts, that prospect does not keep President Trump awake at night. Republican control of the House makes even a symbolic attempt unlikely. The central allegation is that Secretary of War Pete Hegseth issued an order to “kill everybody” on the vessel. The Post framed it this way: “Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth gave a spoken directive, according to two people with direct knowledge of the operation. ‘The order was to kill everybody.’” The headline amplified the accusation: “Hegseth order on first Caribbean boat strike, officials say: Kill them all.” A “spoken directive” means no record. The quote is a paraphrase. Nothing indicates that the source actually heard the Hegseth say those words. This is an anonymous, secondhand characterization of an alleged statement — precisely the sort of raw material the Post loves to inflate into scandal. If these anonymous sources truly believed the secretary issued an illegal order, they were obligated to report it through the chain of command. Their silence speaks louder than any paraphrase. The most plausible explanation is that someone misunderstood — or deliberately distorted — an aggressive statement by Hegseth and nothing more. The United States targets terrorists. The implication behind the Post’s story is that survivors remained after the first strike and that either the secretary or JSOC ordered a second engagement to kill them. No evidence supports that claim. No one outside the direct participants knows what the surveillance picture showed or what tactical conditions existed immediately after the first blast. It is time to put a moratorium on the online laws-of-armed-conflict “experts” who materialize whenever a strike hits a target they sympathize with. They insist that the presence of wounded combatants instantly transforms a hostile platform into a protected site and that destroying the vessel itself becomes a war crime. Even the New York Times — no friend of the administration — punctured that claim: According to five U.S. officials … Mr. Hegseth’s directive did not specifically address what should happen if a first missile failed to accomplish all of those things … and his order was not a response to surveillance footage showing that at least two people on the boat survived the first blast. The mobs demanding Hegseth’s scalp will be disappointed. The voters who supported this administration expected firm action against terrorist cartels and open-ocean drug networks. Another hostile vessel was reduced to an oil slick, and most Americans see that as a success. https://www.theblaze.com/columns/opinion/turns-out-that-hegseths-kill-them-all-line-was-another-media-invention https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/01/us/hegseth-drug-boat-strike-order-venezuela.html
Joe Ferguson forever Posted 34 minutes ago Posted 34 minutes ago 5 minutes ago, B-Man said: ANOTHER MEDIA INVENTION No direct quote. No evidence. No wrongdoing. Just partisan operatives feeding rumors to desperate reporters hunting for another scandal that doesn’t exist. Under his authority as commander in chief, the president can blow up pretty much anybody on Earth whom he deems a national security threat. He does not need permission from Congress, the media, or a panel of self-appointed commentators. The missile strikes on drug-running vessels operated by a designated terrorist group are lawful, routine, and predictable. What made the episode explosive was that it enraged exactly the faction that always reacts this way: the political left. Impeachment is the only real consequence available to the administration’s critics, and after two failed efforts, that prospect does not keep President Trump awake at night. Republican control of the House makes even a symbolic attempt unlikely. The central allegation is that Secretary of War Pete Hegseth issued an order to “kill everybody” on the vessel. The Post framed it this way: “Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth gave a spoken directive, according to two people with direct knowledge of the operation. ‘The order was to kill everybody.’” The headline amplified the accusation: “Hegseth order on first Caribbean boat strike, officials say: Kill them all.” A “spoken directive” means no record. The quote is a paraphrase. Nothing indicates that the source actually heard the Hegseth say those words. This is an anonymous, secondhand characterization of an alleged statement — precisely the sort of raw material the Post loves to inflate into scandal. If these anonymous sources truly believed the secretary issued an illegal order, they were obligated to report it through the chain of command. Their silence speaks louder than any paraphrase. The most plausible explanation is that someone misunderstood — or deliberately distorted — an aggressive statement by Hegseth and nothing more. The United States targets terrorists. The implication behind the Post’s story is that survivors remained after the first strike and that either the secretary or JSOC ordered a second engagement to kill them. No evidence supports that claim. No one outside the direct participants knows what the surveillance picture showed or what tactical conditions existed immediately after the first blast. It is time to put a moratorium on the online laws-of-armed-conflict “experts” who materialize whenever a strike hits a target they sympathize with. They insist that the presence of wounded combatants instantly transforms a hostile platform into a protected site and that destroying the vessel itself becomes a war crime. Even the New York Times — no friend of the administration — punctured that claim: According to five U.S. officials … Mr. Hegseth’s directive did not specifically address what should happen if a first missile failed to accomplish all of those things … and his order was not a response to surveillance footage showing that at least two people on the boat survived the first blast. The mobs demanding Hegseth’s scalp will be disappointed. The voters who supported this administration expected firm action against terrorist cartels and open-ocean drug networks. Another hostile vessel was reduced to an oil slick, and most Americans see that as a success. https://www.theblaze.com/columns/opinion/turns-out-that-hegseths-kill-them-all-line-was-another-media-invention https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/01/us/hegseth-drug-boat-strike-order-venezuela.html somebody gave the order, somebody followed it. If you want to believe the admiral did it on his own, have at it. I don't. We'll find out when the audio and video of the attack is released and the testimony of the admiral to the congressional committee becomes public. Regardless, declaring war without congressional authorization is unconstitutional and illegal.
Recommended Posts