Your assumption was more that 'a boat was put out of play'. You implied that the boat being put out of play was in an innocent situation which should not have been attacked. You did not make a neutral assumption of innocence or guilt. You assumed guit in the language you are using.
Their boat was capsized after their first strike, and it was still capsized at the second strike (all according to both Adam Smith and Tom Cotton in the video). No drugs were salvaged according to any reports, or do you have any other info?
And the same people who are privy to the actual intel state that nothing illegal was done. It has been the same protocol used in these situations for past presidents and military and it has never been questioned.
Now some Woke ideologues want to make a big noise about it because they hate Trump and his admin. You are using every bit of info and then assuming guilt. You don't know the intel. You think that a capsized boat means innocent parties which is an assumption. Even the way you word it implies guilt. Your not neutral and have an axe to grind.
No radio communication was intercepted, see the video I linked.
So, that doesn't mean they were not trying. This is what I mean. You take 'no radio signal' and immediate assume innocence. Every single little bit of info interpreted as guilty. Its blantantly biased and you can see it in the particular words used.
I think it is wrong to fire on capsized boat, do you think it is right?
See your doing ot again. Using the idea of a 'capsized boat' in isolation as though it could be some fisherman stranded to imply a certain meaning to "capsized boat". Its blantant bias.
Not true, interdiction is the alternative. Then the same people on the streets of the US is still alive and the smugglers would not have died.
But that did not happen did it. Neither happened. The drug boats were not stopped and the drug problem got worse on the streets. A double wrong. So if the stopping of the drug boats saves 1,000 lives is that good.
Its an ethical dilemma. If people want to complain about the wrong of killing terrorist who are poisoning 1,000s of people systemically through the allowance of druhgs flowing into the nation at unrecedented levels.
Then people can complain about the moral wrong of not doing anything and the actions that the Dems contributed to making the problem much worse. Thus being responsible for those deaths.
Why, interdiction is still on the table.
Thats unreal. Its too late and in situations like terrorism there is no stopping them. For evey one you stop 10 replace them. Its like saying that if we tell Hamas very sternly or place a sanction on them that they will happily stop.
Its funny how those complaining suddenly now appeal to interdiction when they never bothers for years.
Interdiction. Saves the same number of people in the US with out killing the smugglers.
Thats like we keep pouring water into a bucket with a hole in it. The entire system is broken and it doesn't work. The softly, softly approach that was taken in the name of interdiction is what caused the problem. Now it time for tougher measures to stop it before it completely undermines things.
What I find telling is that the people who are calling for all these moral hoops to jump through are the ones who made the problem and now they want to be the moral police.
Then, the second strike should have been against boat number two.
Oh I see so let the terrorist call for help and wait until the backup comes and then engage. Hum I am glad you are not leading the miliary.
Did it 2024 vs 2023? The numbers of drug deaths was reduced in 2024 vs 2023, if I remember correctly.
I did not realise they were taking drug boats out back then. Whatever they did it sure did not work because they kept coming and increasing. Its funny as this is the same government who let in 20 million unchecked people who are now causing much chaos.
Booh for the Democrats! Ok?
I have nothing against the Dems and want them to be at their best to make for a good and health democracy. But they are not at their best in recent years and have become radicalised. Maybe thats a sign of the times and identity politics. .
Poor old Barak.
No, that in itself doesn't make it right to kill them, IMO. If they were still speeding towards their destination, ok.
You don't know the intell. It may be that they have tracked all the intell and know exactly what processes they were dealing with and how these drug were making their way to the US. You don't know and yet you are claiming to know like you are one of the agents lol.
Did you watch the video I linked? They were never in a position to carry on.
That video is just the media release version. They also have the classified versions which will have all sorts of intell and angles ect.
Were they hitting an already stricken boat again? Why is this an equivalent situation?
Go back and look at the terror hits by Biden and Obama on buildings and vehicles. They often had two and three strikes at the same targets. This is playing general from an armchair and applying one rule to some and not others.