Trump dispenses with trials, orders military strike on alleged Venezuelan drug-trafficking boat (Now up to 2, 3, 4...)
- News & Current Events (Articles Required)
- 1076 Replies
Yes.So does the military in interpreting this as still engaging. But this is not how you framed things. You kept framing this as a couple of people in peril and that those in peril should be saved.
No.You already qualified this as a boating accident.
No, they are still to be rescued.Or you have not detingusihed the difference between a mere civilian boating accident and terrorist putting themselves in peril because of their terrorist activity and being lawfully stopped. If they end up in peril that is completely different to a civilian boating accident.
They were hanging on a capsized boat.We don't know because during combat there are many times when the first strike does not complete the job and it has been determined that a second or third strike is needed. All the while those who survived regardless of what they are doing or if their vehicle is half destroyed are in peril.
Because they are in the act of being stopped. Just the act of stopping these evil people puts them in peril and being in peril does not mean we should not complete the job if it is deemed that this is an ongoing threat that needs to be completely stopped.
It is because the context doesn't make it right. It is never right to kill those shipwrecked.But what your doing is disregarding all that context to isolate the situation and then use this as a strawman for moral outrage.
Yes, because I don't think the fact that they are drug runners is relevant to if they deserve to be struck again.But you exclude the context and are making judgements on this.
Both Tom Cotton and Adam Smith agreed on that the boat was capsized.If killing two terrorist who are in peril because they themselves put themselves in that situation and were in peril as a result and were then despite being in peril were still trying to engage in continuing the same thing that they were being stopped for. Gathering the drugs even to be collected and then sent on their way to kill Americans.
When you add all that context and possibility because we don't know and you certainly don't know. All you have done is repeated narratives from people know don't know as the intel is only available to certain people.
The only fact needed is that their boat was incapacitated.The point is you are creating a context by dismissing all that possibility to make it a certain way that you have assumed without the facts.
And it is relevant how?No I am talking about other incidents on attacking terrorists by past administrations. There are plenty of examples of second and third strikes on terrorist targets and where survivors were in peril as part of completing the mission.
Quote me saying they were innocent or stop lying.The framing of whether it is justified or not is about whether the targets were innocents in an innocent situation or guilty and part of a situation that justified the action. Of course its relevant. You keep saying they were just a couple of innocents smuggling drugs to feed their family on the weekend.
Quote me saying they were innocent or stop lyingAssuming they were not up to anything and just innocently hanging around waiting to get resscued. You don't know that. But you keep assuming and framing things this way.
Let's take it to court and see.Hum, I am glad you said you feel this as feelings are not a good indication of what is right and wrong.
I love it how armchair soldiers can make these armchair claims. So if those in the live action in the fog or war determine that the same radioing through and gathering the poison to continue their mission was still trying to engage and they needed to stop that mission altogether. If others (feel) this is the right thing to do. Is that feeling ok like your feeling.
Quote me saying they were innocent or stop lying.Hum you keep saying they were just innocent people in the water that the military commander should not have killed.
Did I use should?By saying they "should" not be killed you are already qualifying their action as wrong.
No, you fish them up regardless.Like "should" lol. For example "Everyone that is in peril at sea, should be helped".
Thats sad. If the drug trade coming into the US is now been deemed a national secuirity issue and the Narco has been deemed terrorist does that make a difference.
Because then your claim would be "terrorist or fisherman, makes no difference to me'. The difference being if we know its just a fishermans boat capsized in an accident and the two fisherman are in the water in peril that this is a classic case of saving them. When they go to radio through or do actions we know its innocent as they are just fishermen.
I've been part of the navy yes. Helping people in peril at sea. Facing drug runners no, since that is a police, coast guard and customs matter.But when its terrorist who never play by rules and every action is about maintaining their mission and defying the law to continue to push their terror. Its a completely different situation the military are facing compared to the Coast Guard.
Have you been part of the military facing terrorists.
I don't advocate for allowing the drug boats do anything, it is the second strike I have the most problem with. Have the flow of cocaine even diminished since these strikes began?As we can see you just acknowledge that these moral complaints are your feelings or as you said IMO. So therefore this is about how people see morals and what they believe is moral. So when people protest their moral feelings that what happened was immoral. They can say what justification do you have when we feel you were completely immoral in allowing the drug boats and problem on the streets to continue and get worse killing 1,000s.
Of course. I'm certain there are many people that sadly think it is ok to blow narco-terrorists up if they are without a vessel at sea.It also means that if your moral complaint is a feeling then those who disagree have just as much right to how they feel that says it was the right then to do to save lives.
This is a false dilemma, the second strike saved no extra lives in the US or Venezuela.So either way a moral wrong is being done. Its a moral dilemma not only between different moral feelings about the situation and which way to go. But also "which way to go fullstop" as far as the ultimnate moral truth. Is it more immoral to allow 1,000s to die on the streets by not stopping the boats and all the crime and chaos that it causes not only for Americans but the Venezuelans with this sudden and firm action.
What reduced crime and the peak of the opioid epidemic had already been passed in 2023?As opposed to the slow and traditional ways which have never worked and allowed 1,000s to unnecessarily die considering lives are already being saved right now and will continue to be saved as well as all the other benefits in reducing crime ect.
No, I know that the US calls them narco-terrorists. It is still not acceptable to observe them for 40-50 minutes with them not righting their boat and then strike them again.This is a national and generational moral issue that has now been highlighted.
But your the one ussing it as a solution. As the moral thing to do. That this way is better.
But its different now. Its become a major national an dinternation issue along with immigration, crime, gangs, terrorism ect. Often all this is intertwined and thats the issue.
That as time has gone by its become more an international and national case of safety and security for the future of the US. Because the fall out is becoming bigger and the associated problems have spread and the entire system has been undermined.
Were you not just dismissing all the context of a military scenario combating terrorist to a couple of blokes fishing.
Yes, you help first and let the courts figure out culpability.You said its irrelevant as to whether it was drug smugglers (terrorists) and fishermen.
Take it up with them, not me.And now it has been assessed this this will not work as far as the organised criminal and terror activities of the Narcos. A Narco State in operation to import drugs to the US with connections to crime and terrorist groups.
Allowing illegals in allows the same kind of people who are importanting the drugs. The same mentality and organised crime and terror against the US.
Thats why I keep saying I think you need to understand the Narcos targeting in the context of the bigger safety and security issues that have been identified which shows this is all connected.
Its been the slack and soft approach to the US security and safety to begin with that has allowed all this to get out of hand. Thats why I think its crazy that some are attacking immigration officers who are actually getting these criminals and terrorrist out of the US. Its almost like they want to save the very criminals and terrorist who are killing Americans. Its insanity.
Yet people are accusing Hegseth or murder and war crimes. The usual suspects jumping the gun to create false narratives at every opportunity to get Trump and his admin. Actually some Dems were accusing Trump himself of muder. I guess that goes with Nazi and all the rest.
And other people think its even worse that these terrorist export poison to kill 1,000s and destroy the US society.A
I think I have said enough on this. I don't think its worth any more comment until more info comes out. I think we are probably more in common than we thing. JUst a different perspective of where the line is. But I think we have similar moral principles.
Upvote
0
