Reply to US blows up boat said to be carrying drugs

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "US blows up boat said to be carrying drugs"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Did Trump have concrete, 100% proof that this boat was smuggling drugs?

It's amazing how US citizens just believe everything they hear and are OK with killings when it's done to foreigners.[/quote]

This. I guess everyone is okay with summary executions and war crimes now. It starts with brown people. Eventually they will come for you too. [/quote]

Drug smuggling is bad. NArcoterrorism is bad. Pretty sure blowing up ships from sovereign countries and imposing the death penalty on them is also pretty, pretty bad.[/quote]

Democrats don’t like it. Most sane people are fine with it. [/quote]
Magas are such concrete thinkers.  We killed bad guys (which do we have proof? How has proof been established these were drug lords?), therefore ok.  Who cares about the means to the end, right? Silly Democrats.  Insisting people follow due process, abide by laws.  You know what I don’t get though? We use all these resources to blow a ship up that far away, but then cut deals the Mexican cartel peeps by giving them refuse in the US.  Or Trump pardoning the Silk Road dude.  Do those drug dealers don’t count?  How do your little MAGA brains explain away all the inconsistencies? [/quote]

Don't keep throwing up vague due process and abide by laws claims.  The law has been meticuously followed.

You don't know how to attack it, so you keep giving vague catch phrases.  The cartels have been designated as a terrorist group.  So FAFO.[/quote]
Couldn’t address the part about the inconsistencies?  Let’s say your boy Trump’s goal is to tackle the people bringing drugs into the US.  Why the aforementioned inconsistencies? 
And yes, I would love for you to teach me about how the law was so meticulously followed.   [/quote]

It's a warning. Don't f'n do it or you will die. This was done very publicly.

F you democrats running it up 700 layers of bureaucracy to slow the solution down.

A Federal District Judge says _______________________________________________ .

F your Federal District Judges.  International waters.  Vesting clause.  Done.[/quote]

Where is there any evidence that they were terrorists?

Where is there any evidence that they were cartel members?

Where is there any evidence that they were drug runners?

Where is there any evidence that they were human traffickers?

REAL evidence, not "bcuz Trump sez so?"

Unless you can answer that you have absolutely NOTHING to say about "the law was followed."

In this magical world of yours, what's to stop people from shooting MAGAs in the head and saying "they were criminals and the law was followed?"[/quote]

This is none. It was murder. What is the statue of limitation on murder? The drunk should be worried.[/quote]

Tren de Aragua is a terrorist group. This is no different from when we droned ISIS. And it's actually more justified because the drugs were en route to the US. [/quote]

But there was no proof of that.  This is no different than the Canadians clang in a drone strike on a US craft.[/quote]

There must have been some proof. Otherwise they'd have blown up more than just that one ship. [/quote]

There was no proof. And now, every American pleasure boater is subject to being bombed in international waters without question or repurcussion. Thanks Donald.

[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics