JohnB445 said:

That molecules ended up hitting each other forming amino acids and biological matter and that by chance Earth just had just the right properties to help harbor life, and that these molecules turned into living things, and eventually just knew how to evolve into more complex sentient beings, like all this happened by mere accident.

I believe God was involved, he created life. We are sentient because of him, he knew where to put our fingers, our eyes, and how to make our eyes work, and our body digest food, he has made this all possible.

But of course the scientists would say where is our proof for our belief in the existence of God, we point to Jesus and the testimony, however they want undeniable proof and facts. How do we give them that?

Click to expand...

Nothing that science has ever discovered, nothing that science could in principle ever discover, can disprove the existence of God or his authorship of our being. Why can't you be happy with that?

Always in His Presence said:

But they were not "clinging to flotsam - floating in a life boat - or in freezing waters" - they got back into the boat and it was determined their actions were effectively re-engaging. It was completely legal to fire again according to the Commander and JAG officer making the decision.

Click to expand...

The only person claiming that is Tom Cotton. Everyone else who has seen the video (and doesn't have his own okole to cover) says differently.

This is the problem facing the military people involved at the time: The LOAC required them to have rescue facilities, a plan of some kind, available to pick up survivors. Even if they had not killed the survivors, the fact that they carried out an attack without a means to rescue survivors is already a violation of the LOAC. Leaving them eventually to drown would already be a violation of the LOAC.

Essentially, their very plan of attack had already put them in violation of the LOAC...they planned to commit a crime. Everything after that was covering their own okoles.

Always in His Presence said:

You don't consider following the law good?

Click to expand...

I don't think you thought this through very well. This means the Obamacare mandates are good, because the Supreme Court declared them legal. Or a billion other examples could be given. The legal power to do something does not mean that every use of that power is good. Might does not make Right.

Always in His Presence said:

Did I comment on them personally, or the fact that we have a President following the law? (my own words).

Click to expand...

Right, you have no idea whether the actual action was positive or negative. You're satisfied that Trump did it, and it was legal. Ergo good.

Always in His Presence said:

What makes you think it is not already politicized?

Click to expand...

Because the way Congress, by law, planned these independent organizations to be set up helped to avoid political bias by having members hold terms that spanned presidential terms.

Always in His Presence said:

If the Supreme Court rules that the president has the power to do something - then the president has the power. Not according to political party, but according to the law..

Click to expand...

As should be obvious to a child, not all uses of power are necessarily good, regardless of their legality.

NxNW said:

The intention on Jan6 was to kill multiple officials.

Click to expand...

Not by all.

BCP1928 said:

I still haven't heard that they were actually shooting back, or even preparing to do so. Have you?

Click to expand...

Who said they were shooting at any point?

durangodawood said:

Youre entitled to your opinion. The president is entitled to his.

Click to expand...

There should be consensus among Americans on such matters.

Factotum said:

I think I'm sure what you are defending here, as it illogically shows compassion for people who hate us Americans so much to whereas they risk their lives to gleefully deliver fatal [Schedule I] substances for multitudes of vulnerable Americans to fatally ingest.

I've lost people who I love, to the type of substances on the darn boat!! So please forgive me sir, as I work hard locating my compassion like you have for the perps. So far, I've been unsuccessful in my search.

Click to expand...

It's not compassion, it's the law and rules. And I am to assume that you're a mind reader to know that these people supposedly (as there has been no evidence that drugs were being trafficked shown so far), "hate" Americans instead of just doing it for the money?

Factotum said:

I can sympathize with you, and I wish you the best in handling your displeasure. I know elders who felt the same way in 2012, and especially in 2016 when Obama-Biden Afghanistan bombings killed about 100 innocent civilians incl. children and women.

Click to expand...

From the military perspective, here is the difference. I've said it before, but I'll repeat it:

Determining where military action should take place is determined by the president and Congress. If those two branches of government are in agreement (that is, Congress as a body has not disagreed with the president), nobody in uniform has the authority to say "No" to the "where."

Once in combat, how we conduct the battle is governed by the Law of Armed Conflict, which is a compendium of US laws already legislated by Congress.

If a target is itself a valid target according to the president and Congress has failed to disagree, certain levels of civilian casualties are permitted by the LOAC if they cannot be avoided or occur through accident despite due care taken. That's what was happening in all but one known case during the Obama and Biden administrations. There were the same kind of incidents that happen in any conflict.

The one questionable incident was the attack against Anwar al-Awlaki. Contrary to popular opinion, the US military killing American citizens--even deliberately--is not prohibited in every circumstance. There are circumstances that permit it. It was questionable at the presidential/Congressional level whether Anwar al-Awlaki was an allowable target. That's far above the soldier's authority to determine, and that is not governed by the Law of Armed Conflict. But how he was killed was correct under the LOAC.

As we are debating in this thread the actions of military members under the Law of Armed Conflict, the issue of Anwar al-Awlaki is irrelevant. It has nothing to do with killing shipwrecked belligerents. Killing shipwrecked belligerents who are no longer capable of returning fire is illegal in every instance under the LOAC.

Landon Caeli said:

Bombers don't deserve pardons. Neither to violent seditionists. Only those who trespassed, without violence, ever deserved a pardon.

Click to expand...

Youre entitled to your opinion. The president is entitled to his.

Hentenza said:

In other words you cannot find a post crucifixion verse that teaches that the 4th commandment is required of the Christian or a verse that shows that the sabbath was kept before Moses.

Your misuse and weaponization of Jesus words to accuse me of not being a believer shows the extent to where you will go when presented with an argument that you can’t defend so instead of concluding that you are indeed wrong you resort to ad hom attacks. How typical. You have lost all credibility.

Click to expand...

I agree. This base and groundless attack serves the only purpose to end any possibility of reasonable discussion.

Always in His Presence said:

But they were not "clinging to flotsam - floating in a life boat - or in freezing waters" - they got back into the boat and it was determined their actions were effectively re-engaging. It was completely legal to fire again according to the Commander and JAG officer making the decision.

Click to expand...

I still haven't heard that they were actually shooting back, or even preparing to do so. Have you?

MarcusGregor said:

His lawyers should and probably will argue that he is included in Trump's pardon of J6 rioters unless that pardon names each and every individual, which I don't know the answer to. And even then they may still argue it because he was unknown at the time and should have been included.

It does beg the question as to whether Trump would have included him in his pardon if he had been known and why or why not.

Click to expand...

Bombers don't deserve pardons. Neither to violent insurrectionists. Only those who trespassed, without violence (seditionists), ever deserved a pardon.

...If violent insurrectionists were pardoned, then that was a mistake that was made. Pardoning another would be an additional mistake.

RDKirk said:

Being in a lifeboat is unnecessary. Floating in the water, clinging to flotsam, all those situations are explicitly covered by examples from history in LOAC training. It's illegal to kill them in that state.

Click to expand...

But they were not "clinging to flotsam - floating in a life boat - or in freezing waters" - they got back into the boat and it was determined their actions were effectively re-engaging. It was completely legal to fire again according to the Commander and JAG officer making the decision.

Prove this is not viable:

• Survivors deemed "still in the fight" due to potential communication with other boats: Officials stated the two survivors were observed possibly radioing for help from suspected cartel members or other vessels in the area, making them active threats rather than incapacitated.
• Salvaging drugs from the wreckage: The survivors were reportedly attempting to recover portions of the boat's cocaine cargo (estimated at $50 million), which could have allowed the drugs to enter circulation and fund further cartel activities.
• Ensuring complete destruction of the boat to eliminate navigational and operational threats: The strike was authorized to fully sink the vessel, preventing it from posing a hazard to other ships or allowing any remaining elements (e.g., drugs or equipment) to be reused by traffickers.
• Compliance with pre-established Pentagon contingency plans for survivor scenarios: The action followed internal military protocols developed before the campaign began, which allowed re-engagement if survivors exhibited hostile actions, such as communication or recovery efforts.
• Alignment with broader directive to neutralize all threats on board: Admiral Frank Bradley, under guidance from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, acted to "eliminate the threat" comprehensively, as part of a strategy framing drug cartels as combatants in a "non-international armed conflict." This included destroying the drugs to disrupt cartel funding for weapons.

Oompa Loompa said:

And sponge off the welfare system for decades while bringing their "war-torn" pirate community and producing more generations of welfare sucking leaches. Now, tell me how Somalian heritage has benefitted the United States? Because you just provided nothing but that they are just another mouth to feed.

In other words, they are "fleeing their war-torn country" to relocate their "war-torn country" to America where they can reap the benifits of a welfare state and send it back to said "war-torn country" so their families can come and bring more of their "war-torn country" back to America while they replicate said "war-torn country." This cycle continues. So please try again.

Click to expand...

No, I won't humor your narrow and uninformed views any further. Go live your life blaming others.

lismore said:

The illogical thing in the current situation is that many of the waves of immigrants actually hate the country they are migrating to. The enemy are at the gate and they are being welcomed in at the expense of actual citizens.

Click to expand...

And you know this how? Have you ever met and spoken with an immigrant?

postage stamps

JohnB445 said:

however they want undeniable proof and facts. How do we give them that?

Click to expand...

That's a good question. You don't even need to provide undeniable proof, but for a scientific discussion, you will need to provide some evidence as a starting point.

essentialsaltes said:

The 'essay' itself is floating around and it really does bear no resemblance to a piece of academic writing, even a poor one.

Click to expand...

Im almost afraid to read it. My faith in undergrad writing has already been shaken by certain experiences.

(I wonder if this deficiency has infected the advanced degree population by now?)

You tried living in Uruguay?

URURA

Servus said:

Nice accusation without bothering to show the weakness of my argument. Obama's drone strikes get brought up by a lot of people because it's a perfect example of certain people not complaining about drone strikes then as opposed to now. Just like they didn't complain about Obama's condemning speeches towards illegal immigrants.

Click to expand...

OK, then why don't you go find some people who approved of Obama's drone strikes and argue with them?

dogs4thewin said:

What makes people less safe about people CARRYING a gun? I can carry a gun and police officer can carry a gun the vast majority of the time if you are not causing any problems or being a threat you will not have to worry about it and if it is concealed you will not even know unless you know. For example I know some cousins and at least one other person that I know or am pretty sure they carry a gun I know my late aunt carried (her death was to natural causes. I have another aunt I am pretty sure carries or at least has a CCW ( she does not need in GA) I know a long time friend to carry all parties ( except for my cousin in law enforcement did/do so concealed and guess what I would trust ANY of them with my life

In fact, the late aunt and now one of her daughters ( who also carries is/was known to say choose grace over violence yet both carry/carried a gun my late aunt certainly would not start violence, but you can bet that if she felt her/our lives were being threatened she would shoot the person or people that were the threat lawful gun owners are for the most part not a threat unless you are.

I say for the most part because there ARE times when people either do not know/agree with the law ( not an excuse) or either something happens that they become mentally unstable.

Click to expand...

You trust those you know well to safely handle their firearm, but do you extend that same trust to just anyone who can legally open carry?

The 'essay' itself is floating around and it really does bear no resemblance to a piece of academic writing, even a poor one.

essentialsaltes said:

It is good simply because it is legal?

Click to expand...

You don't consider following the law good?

essentialsaltes said:

What, in your own words, is good about firing these people?

Click to expand...

Did I comment on them personally, or the fact that we have a President following the law? (my own words).

essentialsaltes said:

Secondly, if this ruling holds, this means all future presidents will also have this power to politicize 'independent' agencies.

Click to expand...

What makes you think it is not already politicized?

If the Supreme Court rules that the president has the power to do something - then the president has the power. Not according to political party, but according to the law..

Always in His Presence said:

We’re the drug runners in a life boat?

Click to expand...

Being in a lifeboat is unnecessary. Floating in the water, clinging to flotsam, all those situations are explicitly covered by examples from history in LOAC training. It's illegal to kill them in that state.