I think the thread amply demonstrates why we shouldn't want the military being the nation's primary response to crime. The military already has a purpose for which it is well-suited. And so does law enforcement and the courts.

I think some of you are missing an important point. God’s Law, all of it, is good. Sabbathblessing has been arguing that keeping the Sabbath is part of the Law. Therefore, it is good to keep the Sabbath, and it is not doing works for salvation. We are saved by the grace of God through the sacrifice of Christ, but it doesn’t change the fact that the Law is good. Take part of the Law that most Christians reject for good reason, which is not eating pork (Acts 15:29), since the letter does not address this issue. That doesn’t mean that you must eat pork, but it does mean that God thinks it is a bad idea. You would not force a Christian to eat pork, if they find it against God’s Law. Why would you argue that one should not keep the Sabbath? So far I have not seen any posts that would say Sabbath keeping is wrong based on the Bible, but I do see a lot of rationalization trying to excuse oneself for not keeping the Sabbath. If you really don’t think it is important to keep the Sabbath, you should not try to stop somebody who does think it is important.

Dan1988 said:

As I have previously stated, there is only one true gospel and only One true Church. God said "that it's not possible to deceive His elect. And I am an elect Saint of God, so I will never be deceived by the doctrine of demons, or a false version of the gospel.

Click to expand...

Well there you go then. You don't need Jesus or His Warnings or Peter's teaching, as you are already there, based on your own words. JW's also teach the same about themselves. Calvinists too. And Catholics, and Mormons and SDA. All claiming they live by the one true gospel and are members of the only true church as they compete against one another for contributing members.

For me, I still need Jesus and I still need His Instruction and His warnings, and the Teaching HE gave me through His Prophets and Apostles, because I am a corruptible human, surrounded by an evil world that "professes to know God" but are disobedient to Him.

"Take heed that no man deceive you. For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many."

"For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect."

It might be prudent to remind you that the "Very Elect" takes Heed of the "many" who call Jesus Lord, Lord, that they are not deceived. You promoted this to SB. "We can only obey after we are born again and receive the Holy Spirit, and it is the Holy Spirit who leads us and enables us to obey."

Peter, in my understanding, wasn't deceived when the Spirit of Christ had him write down the Words I posted, that you refused to even to acknowledge.

You seem to have your reward. Good for you. I'm still seeking it.

RDKirk said:

It should not have come out easily. A good open-carry holster will be specifically designed not to release the gun except from the proper angle and with the proper manipulation of the person wearing it.

This is a point of serious contention. On one hand, I can understand an officer being uncomfortable talking to someone wearing a firearm. At the same time, I think if the situation was significant enough to order the suspect out of the vehicle, it was probably serious enough to have the suspect disarm himself, even if under the drawn weapon of the officer.

Click to expand...

I would just never carry a gun with a round in the chamber if it doesn’t have a decocking feature. My position is that if you want to carry a gun with a round in the chamber you should buy a gun that has a decocking feature that is double action that way the hammer is blocked from striking the firing pin and can easily be fired quickly if need be.

d taylor said:

-
​

I will add one, Jesus does not first return when He comes back to earth. To the Mt of Olives, Jesus first return to Bozrah

Click to expand...

Please expand on your comment. What chapter, verse(s) ? Isaiah 63 ?

Bozrah does not exist any more, although it could be a location of some of the armies that will be part of the Armageddon force.

It does say that Jesus's garments will be dipped in blood in Revelation 19:13. So that may come from destroying those armies that will be in the Bozrah location, not far east of Jerusalem.

Hentenza said:

Verse 16 regarding Christ two edge sword coming out of His mouth which is metaphor of the strength of the word of God.

Click to expand...

I don’t see how that has anything to do with what He said in Luke 25. Just because He used the word sword?

Say it aint so said:

Actual numbers show the same trend

Click to expand...

That article doesn’t actually give enough information to make a valid point. First of all in the parade where guns were fired into the air apparently no one was injured otherwise that information would’ve been paraded in the article. Second it doesn’t mention whether or not any arrests were made it just claims that there was little the 800 police officers could do which is not a statement of fact. The 800 officers could’ve arrested everyone they saw firing their firearms. Third the article for some reason only mentions what happened during a three year period after the right to constitutional carry law had been passed instead of a seven year period of what the trends were up until the article was written.

“The Trace analyzed gun violence data and found that 16 of the 20 states that enacted permitless carry between 2015 and 2022 saw more shooting deaths — excluding suicides — after the laws took effect than during an equivalent time period before. In Missouri, average monthly shooting fatalities, adjusted for population, were 28.7 percent higher in the three years after the introduction of permitless carry, compared to the three years before. In neighboring Kansas, which enacted permitless carry in July 2015, fatalities were 24.9 percent higher.”

And Missouri has still kept the exact same constitutional carry law until this day. So the article focuses on one spike during the time that the constitutional carry law was implemented, not a trend during the whole time of its existence. It’s suspicious that the article only talks about what happened over a 3 year period during the last 7 years, less than half of the time since the law had been passed. I would expect that if those trends had continued beyond that 3 year period the author would’ve been more than eager to display that evidence, therefore I have to assume that the last 4 years must’ve indicated a less than desirable trend to support his article.

ladodgers6 said:

I never said or even suggested man made in God's image was destroyed. I also hold to an image that is marred, but I will also add that fallen man postlapsarian is Totally Depraved. Now interesting enough Arminius also believe this as well. But other Synergistic theologies do not. Which my friend is a lofty view of fallen man.​

Click to expand...

The only way man could be totally depraved is if the imago dei was destroyed in the fall. it's not a lofty view of fallen man, you simply have a misanthropic view.

ladodgers6 said:

Do you believe that Adam needed Donum Superadditum prelapsarian?​

Click to expand...

I don't think grace is over and above, and that all men including Adam are dependent on grace at every moment.

ladodgers6 said:

​

I never said these are the only options. There are obviously a lot more false heresies than just Arminianism.

Click to expand...

It is Calvinism that is heresy, given that it didn't crop up until the 16th century.

ladodgers6 said:

Well friend, either we are under a curse of sin or not. Either we are exiled or not. Either we can save ourselves or not. Either we are dead in sin or not. There is no third category as synergists suggest between life and death somewhere in limbo (Prevenient Grace). This friend is a man-made heresy. Like, "you will not surely die", one suggested.​

Click to expand...

The curse of sin is mortality and infirmity, not Total Depravity/inability

ladodgers6 said:

Good! But the Synergists say otherwise. Sometimes you have to take the time and read the fine print.

Click to expand...

No, synergists don't. We are not Pelagians.

ladodgers6 said:

It is the crux of it!

Click to expand...

Nope, just under your false dilemma.

ladodgers6 said:

Gift means it's given freely to whom ever he wills because it is not earned nor can be because we are fallen. The only thing I contribute is sin, I have nothing else. Which it is why God also gives us renewed minds to understand him and new hearts to believe him.

Click to expand...

Freely given to all men, but only effective for those who receive. And under Calvinism you don't even contribute sin, as that's provided by Adam. so you have no part in salvation, it is irrelevant to you.

ladodgers6 said:

This is why Jesus says he came to heal the sick. He will make the lame walk, the blind see, the deaf hear, and the dead rise! It's His doing friend which is why we must be humbled, because we receive it with empty hands not by God owing us anything by what we do or will do.​

Click to expand...

We must receive it, God doesn't do that part for us. Unlike what Calvinism teaches.

Delvianna said:

The whole argument of Hebrews 4 is STILL keeping the sabbath and not doing it is linked to disobedience where you will "perish".

It comes down to this, you have to ignore this chapter in order to say keeping the sabbath doesn't matter. That is picking and choosing what you want to follow and accept. Using God's grace, or sacrifice on the cross to argue against Hebrews 4 is misunderstanding what God did and what he still expects from us. The scriptural truth has to incorporate all teachings and verses while not ignoring a single point or verse. This is why understanding context matters. The context of Hebrews 4 is obedience vs disobedience. When you introduce concepts like grace, resting in Jesus, and justification, the context of those concepts are different.

Click to expand...

Hebrews 4:7-10

2 Corinthians 6:2

What day is it again?

stevevw said:

How do you know what the stakes are. Do you have the intel. How do you know there is not connections to actual terrorist. That the money from drugs is funding terrorism. Who says that the flooding of poison into a neighbouring nation that kills 1,000s and destroys families and communities is not an act or terror.

Click to expand...

You need a guilty verdict in a court of law before you can make such assumptions.

In this country, we don't kill the innocent, nor do we kill the guilty without a trial.

stevevw said:

Yes sure. We all know there was corruption. Its coming out now.

Click to expand...

So far nothing has been found.

stevevw said:

Actually I feel sorry for Biden as he was cognitively impaired and did not know.

Click to expand...

Biden's fine.

stevevw said:

Its the people behind him that are now being found out.

Click to expand...

Name them, or admit you fabricated that claim.

CoreyD said:

Nothing is wrong with relaxation and recreation, so long as it's wholesome.
Playing video games can be fun and relaxing... much better than watching TV.
In both cases, it is the content that matters. Something is only sinful, when it violates God's righteous standards.

For example, using a computer is not a sin, but if we use a computer to be entertained with violent or immoral content, or even spread violent or immoral content, we are sinning against God.
Isn't that so?

Click to expand...

God is a man of war so…

I like war games.

That being said, it’s important not to make anything into an idol. We don’t want to profane the Sabbath now do we.

That being said, I’m not here to judge anyone who does play video games.

That being said, maybe I would like to spend my time on a more edifying activity than that.

Thus, I think it’s optimal to always be ready, like a good steward, who doesn’t know when the master of the house is coming.

stevevw said:

The need to stop these people so that they cannot spread their evil. The rules are completely different to a civilian situation.

Click to expand...

If Trump was concerned about drugs, he wouldn't be pardoning drug dealers.

stevevw said:

They were calling Trumps assassin a radical Right supporter or that Trump did not get hit with a bullet.

Click to expand...

Both of those are true.

stevevw said:

Your using language "in peril at sea" implies innocent people were killed. When you don't know the context. This is not some boating accident but terrorist actively engaged in the transfer of drugs.

Click to expand...

None of them were ever convicted of any crimes.

stevevw said:

That you say this actually shows your bias and in doing so are promoting the very thing I am talking about.

Click to expand...

I provided factual links, so your claims of bias are without merit.

stevevw said:

Ah the old Trumps a felon. I have not heard that one for a while. When all else fails revert back to the stock standard narrative. We have already seen the witch hunt with all that lawfare trying to get Trump.

Click to expand...

It's not a witch hunt when he's convicted by an impartial jury.

stevevw said:

I wonder if the same level or even half that level will expose the dirty secrets of those who tried to get him.

Click to expand...

So far, no dirty secrets have come out.

stevevw said:

Already some are being exposed. More will come out. It seems the Dems fingerprints are all over the Epstein files.

Click to expand...

Link?

The GOP were the ones suppressing the files.

stevevw said:

Give me a break you have no moral ground to stand on.

Click to expand...

I'm not the one committing fraud and rape and pardoning drug dealers.

stevevw said:

So far Trump has done exactly what he promosed and it seems most people supported this.

Click to expand...

That must be why his approval rating is so low.

stevevw said:

Hum have you asked Epstein exactly what Clinton was doing on the plane so many times.

Click to expand...

Nobody cares about flying on a plane. They care about traveling to the island, which Clinton never did. He said to go ahead and release the files, since he's got nothing to hide.

stevevw said:

Or exactly what he was saying to a Dem rep in congress. Or what all the other Dems connection is with Epstein were up to. Why had this not been investigated by the Dems with the same vigor in getting Trump.

Click to expand...

Trump was the one who allowed him to be killed in prison, not the Dems.

stevevw said:

Why did the Dems including Waltz who was actually a VP candidate not investigate the many frauds under his watch as though he knew all along but kept it quiet because he would lose votes. Or at the least was grossly incompetent and yet was made the Vice Presidential candidate.

Click to expand...

There you go, trying to change the subject.

stevevw said:

Which shows how far out of touch with reality they were. Not that everyone already knew that with a inadequate presidential candidate who was not even vetting democractically but chose by the same elites who look like also being connected to all the fraud and dirty deeds.

Click to expand...

Which "elites" are these?

stevevw said:

While gaslighting the nation over Biden and the auto signing of a record number of people including known felons or those potentially who did wrong being shielded.

Click to expand...

Never happened.

stevevw said:

There is still more Dem states to be investigated and it looks like more fraud and corruption. In fact the biggest fraud scandel in US history.

Click to expand...

So far we haven't seen anything.

stevevw said:

Like I said I would be very careful about throwing stones. There is absolutely no moral ground and they have disqualified themselves as credible.

Click to expand...

The GOP? I don't see any Dem scandals at all.

stevevw said:

In fact their corruption and incompetence is so bad that this is why such drastic action is needed. Because this is a system wide breakdown. Its unreliable, untrustworthy and actually a national safety and security risk. Thus a complete restructuring is needed. We will see how low the Dems in power have gone with their dirty little secrets.

Click to expand...

I want to hear about these dirty little secrets. How do they compare to Stormy Daniels and Micheal Cohen and Trump's collusion with Russia?

Factotum said:

I am wondering if it really is as 'black and white' as you think it is within your words there.

Click to expand...

Are you disputing that American drug users seek out the dealers and give them money in exchange for goods? What shades of grey do you think would be more accurate?

Factotum said:

Because your words give the appearance that this (below) is a unilateral approach, and is at odds with all political leaders who are anti-Trump:

Click to expand...

What? How do my words give that "appearance"? What is at odds with all political leaders who are "anti-Trump", which encompasses a multitude of variations and flavors - one size does not fit all?

Factotum said:

Designating Cartels And Other Organizations As Foreign Terrorist Organizations And Specially Designated Global Terrorists

DESIGNATING CARTELS AND OTHER ORGANIZATIONS AS FOREIGN TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS AND SPECIALLY DESIGNATED GLOBAL TERRORISTS By the authority vested in me as

www.whitehouse.gov

Click to expand...

Is this legal here or internationally?

jonojim1337 said:

I think it’s important to store your treasures in heaven, and not in video games. That being said, I do occasionally play a little video games, and it’s nothing I’m particularly proud of. He must increase and I must decrease, and whatever is in store for me, I guess I’ll find that out eventually.

Click to expand...

Nothing is wrong with relaxation and recreation, so long as it's wholesome.
Playing video games can be fun and relaxing... much better than watching TV.
In both cases, it is the content that matters. Something is only sinful, when it violates God's righteous standards.

For example, using a computer is not a sin, but if we use a computer to be entertained with violent or immoral content, or even spread violent or immoral content, we are sinning against God.
Isn't that so?

SabbathBlessings said:

That's right, why we need to depend on God's righteousness (right and wrong doing) Psa119:172 Isa56:1-2 which is everlasting Psa119:142 and not depend on what we feel is right or wrong (our righteousness) which is as fifthly rags,.

Click to expand...

What is it you expect me to do on the seventh day of the week? Roll my thumbs?

And what calendar are you even using are you sure it’s the right one

Mom of Karoline Leavitt’s Nephew Speaks Out After Her ICE Arrest​

In an interview with The Washington Post, published Sunday, Bruna Ferreira called the White House’s depiction of her as an absentee mother “disgusting,” and said she "made a mistake" in trusting Leavitt [over her only sister] to be her son's godmother.

Ferreira is a Brazilian national who traveled to the U.S. legally at the age of 6 and previously held Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals status.

Since [the arrest], the White House has depicted the 33-year-old—her relationship with her son, the press secretary and the broader Leavitt family—in a way that sharply contrasts with her own account.

In a recent interview with Newsweek, Ferreira’s attorney Todd Pomerleau said that his client has no criminal record and maintains close ties to the Leavitt family, contrary to the administration’s portrayal.

A spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) previously told Newsweek that Ferreira had an arrest for battery on her record, and in a statement to CNN, the DHS called Ferreira a “criminal illegal alien from Brazil.”

Delvianna said:

I look at it as, where is the "magic" coming from? Because biblically, people are able to heal the blind, raise the dead, call down fire from heaven, make an iron axe head float... So we can't say thats bad or evil since the power was coming from God. I'm sure you wouldn't feel wrong playing an RPG that had you going around healing people for God, right? But obviously if you were running around healing people and the RPG clearly stated you gained your power from a god named Metisathes, then that would be an absolute no. So thats why I say for me it depends on context and not necessarily just the word.

Click to expand...

I understand how you are seeing it, but when God says, "You must not anan." That is, cloud over, giving rise to the idea of veiling or obscuring (figuratively) to act covertly, i.e. practice magic, there is a clear distinction between magic and miracles.
So while I have heard persons argue that they are both the same, the Bible does not equate the two.
Otherwise, people could not perform miracles, and Jesus would be a magic practicing rabbi... which would make him an enemy of God.

However, Jesus did not practice magic, but used the power of God, which his disciples were given access to.
At Deuteronomy 18:10-14, God says, "There shall not be found among you anyone who ... anan (figuratively) acts covertly, i.e. practices magic... for these nations, which you are about to dispossess, anan (figuratively) acted covertly, i.e. practiced magic.. But as for you, the LORD your God has not allowed you to do this.

So while God allowed his servants to perform miracles, he does not allow them to practice magic - something distinct and different from miracles.
Magic is never a miracle. It is a hidden - covered over - practice, that involves some sort of deception.
Is that not true?

Bob S said:

Since the begining there has always been law.

Click to expand...

Well certainly not the Levitical Priesthood Law God gave on Mt. Sinai, because of Transgressions. It didn't exist in the beginning. Levi wasn't even born until centuries after Abraham. God's Grace existed, man's Faith existed, God's definition of Sin existed. But the Priesthood Covenant God made with Levi, because of Transgressions, added 430 years after Abraham, didn't exist in the beginning.

Why would a man, who professed to know God, choose to refuse to accept or even acknowledge this simple and undeniable Biblical Fact?

Bob S said:

That does not mean that the Sinai Covenant reached back to the beginning,

Click to expand...

That is the point of Paul's teaching in Gal. 3. The "LAW" Abraham didn't have, that the Pharisees were still promoting, that was ADDED "Because of Transgression" and was only to be in place, Till the High Priest, "After the Order of Melchizedek should come", didn't reach back to Abraham's time. Abraham was justified of his sin, "Apart" from this Law. The Pharisees were trying to force the Galatians, and the Gentiles in Acts to come to them, Priests in the Temple, for the remission of sins, as per this LAW.

I have asked you before and you refused to answer. But I'll ask again, maybe this time you will answer.

This "ADDED" Law Paul speaks to, what was it ADDED to? And this LAW that was added, "because of transgressions", transgressions of what?

Bob S said:

ant that doesn't mean that mankind today is subject to all of the previous laws.

Click to expand...

Certainly man was not under all the previous Laws of the Levitical Priesthood Law for the remission of Sins, that Abraham wasn't under, that wasn't even added until 430 years after Abraham, and was Prophesied to end at the coming of Gods Prophesied High Priest, "After the Order of Melchizedek".

The mainstream preachers of Paul's Time was still promoting it, as they rejected this Prophesied Messiah, and murdered Him. But truly it was not God's Intent for this Priesthood Law to stay the same forever. I was intended to lead men to the True Lamb of God, as it did for Zacharias, David, Simeon, Anna and the Wise men. Even Abraham saw the Day of Jesus, and was glad.

Gen. 22: 7 And Isaac spake unto Abraham his father, and said, My father: and he said, Here am I, my son. And he said, Behold the fire and the wood: but where is the lamb for a burnt offering? 8 And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together.

Bob S said:

Jesus gave mankind a New and better Covenant. Every human being is under the new covenant because Jesus fulfilled the old one. The question I have for you who claims to be under the Law, how do you go about picking some laws and culling others?

Click to expand...

Yes, Jesus is a High Priest of a New and better Priesthood Covenant for the remission of sins, not like the Priesthood Covenant God made with Levi on Mt. Sinai. I'm happy to discuss Gods Laws you preach to others I am "culling", but please be more specific.

Bob S said:

in other words who has given you permission to avoid parts of the all the covenants God has ever placed on

Click to expand...

Like I said, I am happy to discuss the parts of God's Laws you accuse me of avoiding. But you will have to be more specific in your accusations towards me.

Bob S said:

Not that that is wrong I never pointed it out. There is no need to. Did Adam have a law prohibiting his son for taking his daughter.

Click to expand...

Gen. 6: 1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, 2 That the "sons of God" saw the "daughters of men" that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

I only know what God chose to reveal to men in Scriptures. I am not foolish enough to believe I am privy to every Word God Spoke, or that I know or have been given perfect knowledge of all of his creation, since I only "know in part". Since I'm not here to justify a dislike and rejection of some of God's Laws, I'm not inclined to accuse or assume Abel sinned against God or that Noah was the product of human inbreeding.

You are free to make whatever judgments of God and His Word that you want, after the imagination of your own heart. You certainly wouldn't be the first.

I do know that Noah's sons knew it was a sin to look on the Nakedness of their father, and that one son, Ham, just like you, didn't like God's Law telling him what to look at and what not to look at. But his other two sons respected God in this matter. I believe it is because they chose to honor and humble themselves to God, while Ham chose to dishonor God choosing instead to satisfy the Lusts of his own flesh. This was also done by Eve, who didn't like God's Law telling her what to eat, or Cain who didn't like God's Law showing him how to treat his brother, or Sodom who didn't like God's Law defining His Righteousness that HE showed them, or the Children of Israel who despised God's Judgments and didn't Like God's Law telling them what day was Holy, or the Pharisees who didn't like God's Commandments so they created and promoted commandments of men.

And now here you are, trying to justify yourself "because" you don't like Gods Law telling you what to eat, or His Laws telling you what to look at, or His Laws telling you how to treat your brother, of His Laws defining God's righteousness, or His Laws telling you what days are to be Holy to you, or His Commandments, and you have created your own commandments.

This is "the course of this World", and we all have walked in it. We are supposed to repent from this evil behavior, as defined by God, and be renewed in the spirit of our mind, and "put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.

The old self "that doesn't like to be told by God what to", crucified with Christ, replaced by a New Man who Yields himself to God, and his body as instruments of God's Righteousness. Who strives to be perfect, even as his Father in heaven is perfect, who delights in God's Laws.

Hard to do when you judge God's instruction in righteousness as unworthy of your honor and respect.

The rest of your post deserves attention, if nothing more than for mere courtesy. I'll deal with it in another post.

Does anyone here think State Dept head, Hillary Clinton, did not need to mention that Venezuelan perps are exempt from her idea here?

Stopped_lurking said:

The assumption that their boat was put out of play? Who is arguing that their boat wasn't? Bradley? Tom Cotton?

Click to expand...

No that is not your assumption. If it was just that the boat was put out of play then we could not make any other assumptions as to what was happening. But you interjected they were out of play in a particular was as innocents stranded. When we don't know. They could have been salvaging all the drugs and then eventually get help to continue the mission.

Stopped_lurking said:

What difference does it make if they were trying to gather the packages?

Click to expand...

Because it means they intend to gather them and continue the mission. Those very drugs that are gathered could end up on the streets in the US.

Stopped_lurking said:

They were in peril.

Click to expand...

Thats what happens when your trying to stop terrorist. Were the terrorist who were bombed in other hits in other situations in peril if they survived. Of course. Thats what happens when you commit terror. Expect to be put in peril. Because you commiting peril on others.

Thats the difference between being in peril out on a days fishing and engaging in terror activities. From what I read they were actually standing on the boat and taking their shirts off and gathering the parcels. So they were not exactly drowning. This happened some time back and the report says there were a number of JAGs there when it happened live and none said it was illegal.

Stopped_lurking said:

Did they have any means to reach the shore according to Bradley?

Click to expand...

I don't know. Your asking questions that have not come out yet. I am sure they would have all sorts of communication including phones on a boat worth 1/4 of a million dollars.

Stopped_lurking said:

Say it then. Then I'll just say that I wish all narcotics smugglers to be interdicted (that is what I want!).

Click to expand...

The problem is what is morally right is a matter of opinion according to secular thinking. So theres no way to determine what is right. Whoever is in power gets to decide.

Bidens government may have been softe on crime and drugs and this was morally wrong and caused harm to many. Trump may be tougher and it seems unfair but saves 10 times as many lives.

Its the good old Trolly ethical dilemma. Either way some die and some live. The more you save is deemed more moral. This is the problem with relative morality.

Stopped_lurking said:

Which situations do you want to compare?

Click to expand...

I just gave one above. If say 100 die oin drug boats but it stops 80% of the trade and saves say 10,000 people. Or we continue the same policy that has allowed it to get out of hand and we lose those 10,000 and maybe it increases to an additional 10,000 as it gets worse.

Which is more moral.

Stopped_lurking said:

They have a right to radio for help, otherwise they would likely have been hurt or even died from exposure.

Click to expand...

So if they have a right to radio for help how do you know it was not to get another boat to collect all the drugs and then continue the mission.

Stopped_lurking said:

That wasn't what I was asking, in this post Trump dispenses with trials, orders military strike on alleged Venezuelan drug-trafficking boat (Now up to 2, 3, 4...)

You alluded that those that complain cannot do that because we who complain in some way allowed something much worse to happen (unclear how). So before I complain about this, what much worse thing do you think I should complain about? I wish the US took better care about those that struggle with addiction. Is this what you're after?

Click to expand...

You could start with the lack of action in stopping the drug trade. It has increased under Biden. You could also condemn the Dems soft policies that have allowed crime and rugs to flourish thus allowing both sides of the problem to grow and kill many people and destroy families and communities.

This not onlt has to be doine but done with the same level of passion and vitriole as made against Trump and his administration. That is attack them, misrepresent the Dems and call them out at the same level with headlines and all to be consistent. No excuse making like they have for other stuff like fraud. Just call out their own for all the immoral stuff done re the drug problem and crimne associted.,

Just pretend that it was the dems who helped cultivate both the drug smuggling and active use on the streets which is responsible for killing 1,000s. Because this is what the Rep will be accusing the Dems of doing.

Stopped_lurking said:

Firing at a capsized boat is always wrong.

Click to expand...

Actually no in combating terrorism. Biden and Obama participated and gave go aheads for attacks on terrorist that involved 2nd hits at finishing the job. Heck Obama gave the ok to go into Bin Ladens compound and kill every single person in the house. Including women and children.

Vehicles hit in terror coveys have been hit multiple times while terrorists are still running around. This is how combating in a war like situation happens with terrorist. Its easy to play moralist from the sidelines and an armchair.

Stopped_lurking said:

(check 1 minute and 25 seconds in the video below). Might there be more information coming, sure. If the films show that they righted the boat and got it going again then the second strike was justified, but so far no one has even claimed that they righted the boat and got it going again.

Click to expand...

It does not matter if they don't right the boat. Just trying to right the boat and getting the cargo is still actively engaged in trying to continue.

Stopped_lurking said:

Login to view embedded media

Click to expand...

I hate all this. It sounds like all the other conspiracies and claims and counter claims. People come up with all these spectualtions up until the actual facts are released.

They were calling Trumps assassin a radical Right supporter or that Trump did not get hit with a bullet. All sorts of silly claims. Just let the facts come out.

I also noticed they have made another hit on another drug boat. So this is not stopping them from stopping these drug boats. They seem to believe they have a legal right and no one has challenged this yet. So they must have some pretty good intel and legal advice.