It is a war crime.

Period.

Now our lawless president is ordering our service members to carry out illegal orders. And our tax dollars are paying for the weapons and everyone in the chain of command.

The VP tweeted that he does not “give a sh*” if the intervention was considered a war crime.

When is Congress going to provide oversight?

It really does not matter whose murder you all applaud.

I refuse to be proud of the US becoming a lawless nation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

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.

Democrats don’t like it. Most sane people are fine with it.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?"

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

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.

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

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

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

Something tells me our catamaran cruises in the USVIs are gonna be just fine.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unbelievably based. We should absolutely be droning the crap out of ships, trucks, carrying drugs. Trump should have mentioned this in his campaign. It's probably quite a popular approach.

We should drone the crap out of child trafficking rings based on Epstein Island.

We should drone the crap out of health insurance CEO fraudsters who are killing people and very day.

We should drone the crap you invaded the Capitol to overthrow an election, and their co-conspirators

Do you really believe insurance execs are the same as murderous gang members trafficking drugs? I know some people have issues with insurance companies but most people don't. My insurance company has spent hundreds of thousands on me to save my life. Why should we kill their executives? That's completely indefensible.

But drug trafficking is a death sentence eligible crime in much of the world. And TdA is a drug running terrorist organization, so well within the parameters for extrajudicial assassination.

Epstein island has been sold.

Re the Capitol rioters, it might be over the line to kill people for trespassing. But if you offer up the BLM folks for a similar fate, I'm willing to consider.

DP Healthcare execs kill more people vs non state sanction drug organizations. Look at Purdue Pharma and OxyContin. Why shouldn’t drug companies and healthcare insurance executives and employees be summarily executed just like those alleged “gang” members on that boat? They are doing the same thing as those people you killed on the boat. The majority of people in this country would cheer if Trump bombed the limousines of healthcare, hedge funds, drug companies CEO’s.

Though in this case Trump killed the equivalent of a bunch of fedex drivers. Though there is no proof these guys were even involved in drugs.

What are you talking about? They don't kill anyone. The vast majority of claims are approved. You just want to force us into a single payer healthcare system through terrorism.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

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.

Democrats don’t like it. Most sane people are fine with it.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?"

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

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.

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

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

What’s proof then? Because their whole story doesn’t make any sense. Why would there be 11 people on a small boat if they are trying fit drugs on it? How was this small boat supposed to make it 1400 miles over open ocean to the US when a boat that small can only hold enough fuel for 250 or so miles?

I haven't looked into it. But they chose this boat out of thousands. If you give me an alternative hypothesis for why they bombed this boat, I will consider it. The normal leftist line is that racism is the root cause of all government action. This doesn't fit, because basically everyone on boats in that region would be black or brown. Yet only this boat was struck. So racism can't be the answer. And that's the only answer the left ever has.

NP. There is no confirmed, independently verified evidence that the boat was definitely carrying narcotics. If you believe the official explanation given by the Trump administration, you are not exercising your critical thinking skills. They lie routinely.

I will give you a number alternative hypotheses. None of them involve racism.

1. The administration is continuing to try to find ways to appear tough on crime ahead of the elections.

2. The bombing was an attempt to destabilize the Maduro regime and effect regime change.

3. The boat may have been mistaken for a legitimate threat based on bad or incomplete intelligence.

4. The administration is testing legal boundaries as it expands its power. This may be a test to see how much it can get away with in the region.

And none of them are good reasons for executing humans without due process.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

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.

Democrats don’t like it. Most sane people are fine with it.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?"

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

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.

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

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

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

The Wall Street Journal is skeptical of the reasons given for the attack. While their opinion pieces are biased, their news articles are usually well written and balanced. This is a news article.

The administration provided no proof of the identity of the individuals on the boat, and whether or not the boat was in fact carrying drugs. In fact, they couldn’t agree amongst themselves on where the boat was headed.

“Trump administration officials have offered conflicting accounts of the episode. On Tuesday, Rubio said the drugs the vessel was carrying “were probably headed to Trinidad or some other country in the Caribbean” and could “contribute to the instability these countries are facing,” differing from Trump’s statement that the vessel was “heading to the United States.” On Wednesday, Rubio suggested that the shipment was “eventually” headed to the U.S.”

https://apple.news/AqSMiUv8MSyqQXNrE_ulYuQ

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unbelievably based. We should absolutely be droning the crap out of ships, trucks, carrying drugs. Trump should have mentioned this in his campaign. It's probably quite a popular approach.

We should drone the crap out of child trafficking rings based on Epstein Island.

We should drone the crap out of health insurance CEO fraudsters who are killing people and very day.

We should drone the crap you invaded the Capitol to overthrow an election, and their co-conspirators

Do you really believe insurance execs are the same as murderous gang members trafficking drugs? I know some people have issues with insurance companies but most people don't. My insurance company has spent hundreds of thousands on me to save my life. Why should we kill their executives? That's completely indefensible.

But drug trafficking is a death sentence eligible crime in much of the world. And TdA is a drug running terrorist organization, so well within the parameters for extrajudicial assassination.

Epstein island has been sold.

Re the Capitol rioters, it might be over the line to kill people for trespassing. But if you offer up the BLM folks for a similar fate, I'm willing to consider.

DP Healthcare execs kill more people vs non state sanction drug organizations. Look at Purdue Pharma and OxyContin. Why shouldn’t drug companies and healthcare insurance executives and employees be summarily executed just like those alleged “gang” members on that boat? They are doing the same thing as those people you killed on the boat. The majority of people in this country would cheer if Trump bombed the limousines of healthcare, hedge funds, drug companies CEO’s.

Though in this case Trump killed the equivalent of a bunch of fedex drivers. Though there is no proof these guys were even involved in drugs.

If Trump is so concerned about drugs, why was Ross Ulbricht pardoned? Oh yeah, he’s a rich white guy.

Ross Ulbricht, who created the Silk Road dark web marketplace and was serving a life sentence for drug distribution, has embarked on a strange and unexpected comeback after President Trump pardoned him in January.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/07/technology/ross-ulbricht-silk-road-comeback.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

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.

Democrats don’t like it. Most sane people are fine with it.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?"

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

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.

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

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

What’s proof then? Because their whole story doesn’t make any sense. Why would there be 11 people on a small boat if they are trying fit drugs on it? How was this small boat supposed to make it 1400 miles over open ocean to the US when a boat that small can only hold enough fuel for 250 or so miles?

I haven't looked into it. But they chose this boat out of thousands. If you give me an alternative hypothesis for why they bombed this boat, I will consider it. The normal leftist line is that racism is the root cause of all government action. This doesn't fit, because basically everyone on boats in that region would be black or brown. Yet only this boat was struck. So racism can't be the answer. And that's the only answer the left ever has.

NP. There is no confirmed, independently verified evidence that the boat was definitely carrying narcotics. If you believe the official explanation given by the Trump administration, you are not exercising your critical thinking skills. They lie routinely.

I will give you a number alternative hypotheses. None of them involve racism.

1. The administration is continuing to try to find ways to appear tough on crime ahead of the elections.

2. The bombing was an attempt to destabilize the Maduro regime and effect regime change.

3. The boat may have been mistaken for a legitimate threat based on bad or incomplete intelligence.

4. The administration is testing legal boundaries as it expands its power. This may be a test to see how much it can get away with in the region.

Those are all decent hypotheses. And I agree that there is likely more to the story than drugs. I'm legitimately surprised you offered a non-race-based hypothesis, ones that are reasonable and sensible. Well done.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

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.

Democrats don’t like it. Most sane people are fine with it.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?"

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

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.

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

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

What’s proof then? Because their whole story doesn’t make any sense. Why would there be 11 people on a small boat if they are trying fit drugs on it? How was this small boat supposed to make it 1400 miles over open ocean to the US when a boat that small can only hold enough fuel for 250 or so miles?

I haven't looked into it. But they chose this boat out of thousands. If you give me an alternative hypothesis for why they bombed this boat, I will consider it. The normal leftist line is that racism is the root cause of all government action. This doesn't fit, because basically everyone on boats in that region would be black or brown. Yet only this boat was struck. So racism can't be the answer. And that's the only answer the left ever has.

NP. There is no confirmed, independently verified evidence that the boat was definitely carrying narcotics. If you believe the official explanation given by the Trump administration, you are not exercising your critical thinking skills. They lie routinely.

I will give you a number alternative hypotheses. None of them involve racism.

1. The administration is continuing to try to find ways to appear tough on crime ahead of the elections.

2. The bombing was an attempt to destabilize the Maduro regime and effect regime change.

3. The boat may have been mistaken for a legitimate threat based on bad or incomplete intelligence.

4. The administration is testing legal boundaries as it expands its power. This may be a test to see how much it can get away with in the region.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

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.

Democrats don’t like it. Most sane people are fine with it.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?"

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

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.

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

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

What’s proof then? Because their whole story doesn’t make any sense. Why would there be 11 people on a small boat if they are trying fit drugs on it? How was this small boat supposed to make it 1400 miles over open ocean to the US when a boat that small can only hold enough fuel for 250 or so miles?

I haven't looked into it. But they chose this boat out of thousands. If you give me an alternative hypothesis for why they bombed this boat, I will consider it. The normal leftist line is that racism is the root cause of all government action. This doesn't fit, because basically everyone on boats in that region would be black or brown. Yet only this boat was struck. So racism can't be the answer. And that's the only answer the left ever has.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

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.

Democrats don’t like it. Most sane people are fine with it.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?"

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

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.

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

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

What’s proof then? Because their whole story doesn’t make any sense. Why would there be 11 people on a small boat if they are trying fit drugs on it? How was this small boat supposed to make it 1400 miles over open ocean to the US when a boat that small can only hold enough fuel for 250 or so miles?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

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.

Democrats don’t like it. Most sane people are fine with it.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?"

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

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.

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

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

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unbelievably based. We should absolutely be droning the crap out of ships, trucks, carrying drugs. Trump should have mentioned this in his campaign. It's probably quite a popular approach.

We should drone the crap out of child trafficking rings based on Epstein Island.

We should drone the crap out of health insurance CEO fraudsters who are killing people and very day.

We should drone the crap you invaded the Capitol to overthrow an election, and their co-conspirators

Do you really believe insurance execs are the same as murderous gang members trafficking drugs? I know some people have issues with insurance companies but most people don't. My insurance company has spent hundreds of thousands on me to save my life. Why should we kill their executives? That's completely indefensible.

But drug trafficking is a death sentence eligible crime in much of the world. And TdA is a drug running terrorist organization, so well within the parameters for extrajudicial assassination.

Epstein island has been sold.

Re the Capitol rioters, it might be over the line to kill people for trespassing. But if you offer up the BLM folks for a similar fate, I'm willing to consider.