From "Trump says Hegseth denied issuing order to kill boat crew/The president also said he would not have wanted a second strike on a boat allegedly carrying drugs, which occurred after U.S. forces realized the initial attack left two survivors, as The Post reported" (WaPo)(gift link, so you can read the whole thing).
UPDATE: "Hegseth Ordered a Lethal Attack but Not the Killing of Survivors, Officials Say" (NYT): "According to five U.S. officials, who spoke separately and on the condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive matter that is under investigation, Mr. Hegseth, ahead of the Sept. 2 attack, ordered a strike that would kill the people on the boat and destroy the vessel and its purported cargo of drugs. But, each official said, Mr. Hegseth’s directive did not specifically address what should happen if a first missile turned out not to fully accomplish all of those things. And, the officials said, his order was not a response to surveillance footage showing that at least two people on the boat survived the first blast. Admiral Bradley ordered the initial missile strike and then several follow-up strikes that killed the initial survivors and sank the disabled boat. As that operation unfolded, they said, Mr. Hegseth did not give any further orders to him."
पोस्ट्स
२९३ टिप्पण्या:
293 पैकी 1 – 200 नवीन› नवीनतम»Two anonymous people with unknown access say it happened, lots of people with known access say on the record that it didn't happen.
It's the suckers and losers hoax all over again.
Anonymous sources in the WaPo? All I need to know that it probably isn't accurate. No names equals no credibility
Are we believing this story now?
Can someone translate "condition of anonymity because of the matter’s sensitivity"? It does not make sense to me in this context.
Just another fake Far-left MSM "Controversy". The Establishment and that includes the RINO Establishment Republicans like Mitch the Bitch McConnell hates Mr. Pete. So, they're out to get him. But no one cares.
Assuming for the purposes of argumentation that there really were two survivors after the first strike- yes, this is me giving an unusual amount of credit to the journolists- how much provision for survivors of U.S. military strikes do we give as a general rule? For example, a drone strikes a meeting of terrorists in Iraq or an enemy truck convoy on a road and it is noted that not all of the terrorists were killed with the first strike- how often have we not sent in a second missile to finish the job or how often do we send in personnel to provide aid to the people we just injured in the strike? The entire purpose of the strike was kill the boat crew and destroy their craft- I don't doubt that Hegseth could literally order the strike with such language- "Kill them all". Does it really matter morally that it might take two missiles to accomplish this and is it even that uncommon in such operations to finish the job?
"(WaPo)(gift link, so you can read the whole thing).
Not worth the price, to me...
They'll be resurrecting Curtis LeMay quotes to run against next week. They will pardon those who kill us, but those who kill those who kill us must be deemed murderers... unless WE'RE in charge. Of course, with the right people in charge, all is well.
Consult the WaPo for further instructions, before Amazon Black Friday deals expire!
One of their sources was probably military fantacist (ret.) John Kelly and another was probably John Brennan. It sounded right to them.
Shame on you, Althouse, for pushing the Post’s latest hoax. If the bird cage liner. cannot show drone footage of a second strike then treat this as just another lefty lie.
But, Hegseth has doubled down: “The declared intent is to stop lethal drugs, destroy narco-boats, and kill the narco-terrorists who are poisoning the American people. Every trafficker we kill is affiliated with a Designated Terrorist Organization,”
If true, this is either a war crime or flat out murder.
How about those 5000 potential threats
NO video and NO name attached to the anonymous quotes means it didn't happen. Not our rule, Lefties. It's yours. You can no longer make assertions without evidence and call it journ0lism. We're just enforcing the rules YOU made. Like prosecuting to the fullest assholes who broke the law to go after Trump. Your rules. Live with it.
Serious accusations require strong evidence, not unsubstantiated claims from anonymous sources.
So show me the evidence, WAPO.
Thanks, Freder. Right on cue...
So, it's not the killing. It's which minute it happened. One minute they all need killed with extreme prejudice, and the next minute the same people need to be protected from harm at all costs. Got to give Trump credit. He raises the moral bar for some people like nothing else can.
It's the suckers and losers hoax all over again.
Yes, which the hideous Nicole Wallace at MSMEOW also dragged out of the closet and used this holiday weekend, hoping to generate or inspire another NG shooting incident.
One cannot have enough contempt for the activist leftist lying press and even if you think you hold them in the lowest regard there is always another level down they are willing to go.
Does it really matter morally that it might take two missiles to accomplish this and is it even that uncommon in such operations to finish the job?
I'm not going to argue morality with you, because you have none. But yes, it is a war crime to kill hors de combat (declaring them "terrorists" doesn't matter) under the various international laws and the UCMJ.
Pete Hegseth morphing into Hans Gruber proves Die Hard is a Christmas movie.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-ovLWE3i6to
Freder Frederson said...If true, this is either a war crime or flat out murder.
Or, as Yancey pointed out, perfectly normal and perfectly fine. If it turns out it's not hoax, you still have to problem that you can't articulate a problem with it. Just empty moral preening from people with no moral standing.
"If true, this is either a war crime or flat out murder."
We should just add a promise of war crimes and murdering to the Presidential oath of office since every one of them has done it.
And we now know there wasn't a '2nd strike' and instead fake news.
"But, Hegseth has doubled down: “The declared intent is to stop lethal drugs, destroy narco-boats, and kill the narco-terrorists who are poisoning the American people. Every trafficker we kill is affiliated with a Designated Terrorist Organization,”
If true, this is either a war crime or flat out murder."
Then killing the enemy from a distance is always a war crime, Fredo. There is nothing wrong logically with such a position, I suppose, but you need to explicitly state that. Hegseth wasn't really doubling down since, as I wrote above, the intent was to destroy the boat and its crew- the issue raised is whether or not there were two missiles involved, the second of which was to finish the job. I doubt the veracity of the story's implied causation- that Hegseth specifically ordered a second missile from the drone- the original order was to destroy the boat and its crew and perhaps those charged with the operation carried it out as they understood the original order.
If we go back to one shot muskets, this murdering would be a lot harder. Even better would be to give the military only one shot in every engagement. If you miss, it's over.
Hegseth obviously ordered the boat to be sunk. If two smugglers decided to hold onto it, that's on them. I'd rather they were eaten by sharks.
There shall be no reporting supporting the President in the WP.
It is quite possible that TWO missiles (Rockets? We really do not know what weapons were employed) were fired in quick succession to guarantee a kill.
I note that the idiot senator from my state, Tim Kaine felt compelled to weigh in.
I don't believe a word in the WaPo.
Let us assume, Fredo, that there were two survivors in the ocean- were we obligated to go pick them up out of the water? How often have U.S. military personnel been tasked with saving those they have just been ordered to attack and kill?
Or, as Yancey pointed out, perfectly normal and perfectly fine.
Yancey is wrong, it is not "perfectly normal and perfectly fine." I would like him to post the relevant sections of the UCMJ that make such actions "perfectly normal and perfectly fine."
Excellent shooting. Now similar orders for the National Guard.
If true, this incident sounds like the moral equivalent to shoot airmen in parachutes. I know for some, it's very troubling to rap you're mind around the concept of a combatant being a legit target one minute and a potential injured POW needing rescue the next.
“And so this rises to the level of a war crime if it’s true,” Kaine said on CBS News’s “Face the Nation.”
Rep. Michael R. Turner (R-Ohio) told “Face the Nation”: “Obviously, if that occurred, that would be very serious, and I agree that that would be an illegal act.” Turner added that the White House has not provided Congress information supporting The Post’s report."
Cite the law. Kaine is a Harvard Law grad.
"Fredo, that there were two survivors in the ocean- were we obligated to go pick them up out of the water?"
This is a grey area, traditional maritime law would say yes.
The story is false. The mission left no survivors.
Yes, the U.S. Navy and Coast Guard did rescue German sailors (Kriegsmarine personnel) after sinking their ships during World War II, provided it was safe to do so without risking their own vessels or ongoing military operations.
This practice aligned with international law and naval tradition, which stipulated that shipwrecked persons should be rescued and protected as long as it was possible without serious danger. The sea was often considered a mutual enemy once combat had ceased.
"If true, this is either a war crime or flat out murder."
They're not uniformed soldiers in a command structure. From Jefferson and the Barbary Pirates to Obama's drone strikes the US has killed unlawful combatants where it finds them. I believe the term in Naval Law is "hostis humani generis". To be sure, there are objections to this formulation, but to just jump up and down screaming murder is not an argument, it's a tantrum, and when combined with the "disobey your civilian commander or face Nuremberg trials" video, it begins to look like something darker: a seditious conspiracy perpetrated by ex-CIA ghouls.
I hope the story is false. Trump is on it. I'm sure we'll get the results of the investigation and everyone will believe the conclusion.
So, we're admitting now they were smuggling drugs.
Abortion! What is it good for? Absolutely nothing... something.
"If true, this incident sounds like the moral equivalent to shoot airmen in parachutes. "
Every airman expects to be shot at in that scenario. Why?
Freder: I'm not going to argue morality with you, because you have none. But yes, it is a war crime to kill hors de combat (declaring them "terrorists" doesn't matter) under the various international laws and the UCMJ.
Citations, please?
Hypothetical: WWII, Battle of Britain. Two pilots bail out of their airplanes over England, one British, the other German. Both are hors de combat.
Is it a war crime to machine gun the British pilot in his parachute? How about the German pilot?
Details matter. If it was impractical for US forces to conduct a rescue, but there were other boats in the area that could, then the two survivors could have been returned to the activities for which their boat was targeted in the first place.
Additionally, if all the evidence of their drug running is at the bottom of the ocean, the US legal system might very well free them, whereupon they could return to drug running.
Don't put too much weight on "hors de combat", it can't carry the load you think it can.
we're admitting now they were smuggling drugs.
Progress. That said, George "Fentanyl" Floyd Syndrome aborts thousands of lives annually with respiratory suppression forcings. Baby... black lives matter.
"I would like him to post the relevant sections of the UCMJ that make such actions "perfectly normal and perfectly fine."
Which actions, Fredo? The initial strike or the second strike (if the story itself is accurate). You were in these threads before claiming the initial strikes are a war crime. What kinds of lethal strikes do you recognize as legitimate? As I pointed out above, a second strike to finish an attack is almost surely a common occurance without the need to an additional order to come down from the top of the chains of command. I wrote a hypothetical above- is it a war crime to to strike a truck convoy a second time if you haven't destroyed all the vehicles knowing that the second strike will kill those injured in the first strike, too?
I know 4 people who are currently addicted to hard drugs and I'm very close to some of their loved ones, parents, siblings, their kids, etc.
For each one of these people there's a baggie out there somewhere like a bullet with their name on it. Sooner or later they are going get the hit that kills them, but in the mean time, where there's life, there's hope.
When I hear about a drug boat being blown up, I think maybe the bullet with Kyla's name on it, or Dan's name on it, or Justin's name on it just went to the bottom of the sea and maybe because of that, next week I won't hear that one of them is dead. So I have very little sympathy for the people who are bringing the bullets. They don't care who they kill and I find that I am willing to kill them.
Why should I go to the newspaper to read wild, unsubstantiated attributions from anonymous trolls, when I can read them right here?
"To comply with a spoken order …"
Awfully convenient that it was a spoken order.
"disobey your civilian commander or face Nuremberg trials"
Most everyone here forgets the second part of this meme. That if you obey an illegal order you are just as liable as the person who gave the order.
Cite the law. Kaine is a Harvard Law grad.
Cite the law that permits the deliberate killing of hors de combat. You are a Creighton Law grad.
I DONT CARE. They are bringing in something that kills thousands, destroys families and children. They deserve no mercy. Democrats can suck it.
The same people who claim it violates Due Process not to have a trial before any illegal alien with a notice of removal can be deported are blithely declaring Hegseth guilty of a war crime on the basis of an anonymous assertion in the WaPo.
It is quite possible that TWO missiles (Rockets? We really do not know what weapons were employed) were fired in quick succession to guarantee a kill.
@Joe Bar, point of information. The boat was hit with Barack Obama’s favorite toy — a Hellfire missile. A modest-sized open boat hit with a Hellfire does not need a second strike. It may be possible that there was a secondary explosion if the boat was carrying munitions or if extra fuel was stored separately on board.
The waters are filled with sharks. There would have been no need to waste a second Hellfire on two terrorists clinging to wreckage.
So we need to start sending two or more missles each strike. Make sure the first strike is thorough.
I wrote a hypothetical above- is it a war crime to to strike a truck convoy a second time if you haven't destroyed all the vehicles knowing that the second strike will kill those injured in the first strike, too?
That is not the hypothetical you wrote. Go back and read what you wrote. I like how you are trying to backpedal though.
Aside from the legalities, which I’ve noted numerous times, nothing makes any realistic sense when it comes to preventing drugs.
The objective should be to cut off the head of the snake. We’re chasing tails and destroying evidence and killing those who could lead us to the head.
At the same time, once we catch and convict the bigger snake, the actual source, Trump wants to let them go free.
I see the purpose of blowing up the boat. I don't see any purpose in blowing up the survivors. That's why I'd be more inclined to believe the denial.......I imagine the shipping rates for drugs have increased astronomically. Who are the people who are signing up for these suicide missions?......They say we faked the moon landing. Any chance we're faking these boat demolitions in order to discourage such traffic.
"Cite the law that permits the deliberate killing of hors de combat."
Cite the the definition that makes the survivors of the first strike hors de combat? Osama Bin Laden was unarmed and could have easily been taken prisoner during Operation Neptune Spear, but the orders were to kill him on sight. Was that a war crime, Fredo? Why wasn't Osama Bin Laden hors de combat?
The story is likely false and invented for political purposes. Which is sadly working well at this point. It isn't like Democrats actually care about such things, it is staged outrage.
"Cite the law that permits the deliberate killing of hors de combat"
It's a deliberate killing of terrorists, not lawful enemy combatants. Argue that they shouldn't be designated as terrorists if you want, but stop throwing up this smoke screen of laws that don't apply.
Fredo, I assumed it was obvious there would be wounded in the second strike- if you were too stupid to understand that, its not my problem. However, what do you answer to the reformulated hypothetical? Is it ok to kill the wounded in the second strike or do we have to work harder to kill the unwounded while avoiding killing the wounded?
"In the laws of war, combatants are considered to be hors de combat (French: [ɔʁ də kɔ̃ba]; lit. 'out of combat'), and thus protected persons, when they are unable to participate in fighting. Hors de combat personnel may not be intentionally targeted. "
If two people clinging to debris at least 12 miles out are not hors de combat, please explain how anyone would be hors de combat
If anyone is moving on the boat that is moving and that boat has guns in it they are fair game.
Stop carrying drugs and guns in boats. Answer hails on the radio. Fly a country flag.
It's obvious that the people pushing this story WANT it to be true. Think about that.
It's a deliberate killing of terrorists, not lawful enemy combatants.
That doesn't matter. Please show the exception for unlawful combatants. You can't because it doesn't exist.
"Fine People Hoax II: "The Post’s claim of a “second strike” to target “survivors” is pure invention. Drone imagery showed the initial Hellfire engagement incinerating the vessel from bow to stern, with no signs of life amid the inferno. No “two men clinging to wreckage,” no improvised follow-up." -
@SecWar"
https://x.com/Rasmussen_Poll/status/1995172939231014998
Ronald J. Ward said...
Aside from the legalities, which I’ve noted numerous times, nothing makes any realistic sense when it comes to preventing drugs.
The objective should be to cut off the head of the snake. We’re chasing tails and destroying evidence and killing those who could lead us to the head.
At the same time, once we catch and convict the bigger snake, the actual source, Trump wants to let them go free.
Well, that was characteristically stupid.
The only way to stop drugs and guns from being shipped over international waters by narco gangs is to kill the people shipping drugs and guns over international waters.
If you don't want to get killed shipping guns and drugs over international waters stop shipping drugs and guns over international waters.
Of course a traitor is going to side with the foreign soldiers who are shipping drugs and guns over international waters.
"That doesn't matter. Please show the exception for unlawful combatants."
Go read the Wikipedia article on "hostis humani generis".
"The objective should be to cut off the head of the snake. We’re chasing tails and destroying evidence and killing those who could lead us to the head."
No, the objective should be to stop the flow of illegal drugs. Cutting the heads off the snake is fine as far as it goes but there will always be another head on another snake. The purpose of the boat strikes is keep the snakes from getting willing worker bees to do the smuggling itself by making the job far too dangerous to have a realistic payoff that is worth the risk of sudden death. This is, by the way, the rationale behind the execution of drug dealers in a large parts of the world.
Freder Frederson said...
"disobey your civilian commander or face Nuremberg trials"
Most everyone here forgets the second part of this meme. That if you obey an illegal order you are just as liable as the person who gave the order.
It is a good thing our military doesn't answer to international law then isn't it.
Cite the law. Kaine is a Harvard Law grad.
Cite the law that permits the deliberate killing of hors de combat. You are a Creighton Law grad.
None of these laws matter. The only thing that matters are the Rules of Engagement.
You are a fucking idiot if you think you can "convict" the president or any of the soldiers of breaking any law here.
Democrats are fucking retards.
Of course a traitor is going to side with the foreign soldiers who are shipping drugs and guns over international waters.
So now you are elevating them to "foreign soldiers"? You do realize you are reinforcing my argument.
None of these laws matter. The only thing that matters are the Rules of Engagement.
I thought you were ex-military. Did you sleep through the lectures on the UCMJ and the Geneva (and Hague, etc.) Conventions?
Yancey is wrong, it is not "perfectly normal and perfectly fine." I would like him to post the relevant sections of the UCMJ that make such actions "perfectly normal and perfectly fine."
LOL Freder is always wrong and I want HIM to cite the explicit language making this a crime.
In detail, dumbass.
When Obama was Commander-in Chief, "double taps" were standard practice.
They would do a drone strike on, say, a wedding. Then they would wait 10-15 minutes for first responders to arrive and do a second strike on the theory that many of the medics and firemen were terrorists too.
Dramatically increased the kill count.
Nobody minded when Obama did it.
I am hearing a bunch of jets sortying from next door just now.
John Henry
"Geneva conventions!" Oh my God what a rube. Hey, tell me how many violations of the Geneva conventions the OCT7 attacks were, Freder. Can you even name them all. Useful idiots gotta useful.
Where are the UCMJ cites, Freder?
One story is that the 2nd missile was to sink the still floating parts of the hull but that there were no survivors in the water. A capsized hull like that can float for days or weeks causing havoc to shipping and boating.
John Henry
Howard said...
I hope the story is false. Trump is on it. I'm sure we'll get the results of the investigation and everyone will believe the conclusion.
Why? Should they have left them for the sharks or to die on a burning sinking boat?
I haven't seen the video but in my experience people who "survive" these missile strikes are usually burning to death one way or another. All of the drone strikes we cleaned up after during the Biden years had people in various states from rare to well done.
The moral preening over this is just fucking stupid. Watching Obama voters whine and moan about people being killed by drones are just dishonest shitheads.
They should have made you fucks clean up after Barrack.
Are you overlooking the "declared war" part, Freder? Pretty sure the French quotes was about actual war, not police action, and it pays to know the difference. And if Hezbollah and ISIS are involved as they are in Venezuela, does the AUMF for Gulf War II cover it, as it did for all of Obama's adventures?
LOL Freder is always wrong and I want HIM to cite the explicit language making this a crime.
I could cite chapter and verse and you would ignore or discount it. I went through this whole nightmare when we were debating Bush's torture program. I cited the pertinent sections of the UCMJ, federal laws, and international treaties. Not one of you thought it made any difference.
Oh good grief. This is a tale spun out of thin air and anonymous sources. Why? Because the Democrats who had been encouraging military members to disobey unlawful orders were asked: "Can you give us any examples?". Oh, and per Howard further up thread, the instance of the US rescuing Uboat crews in the Atlantic was decidedly mixed. Sometimes yes, sometimes.....too bad. And not always weather or action dependent. Also, the CDC, hardly a bastion of MAGA, reports drug overdose deaths down 24% in the past 12 months. Are those lives saved of no import compared to drug trafficker's lives lost? https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2025/2025-cdc-reports-decline-in-us-drug-overdose-deaths.html
Nobody minded when Obama did it.
I did.
Freder Frederson said...
None of these laws matter. The only thing that matters are the Rules of Engagement.
I thought you were ex-military. Did you sleep through the lectures on the UCMJ and the Geneva (and Hague, etc.) Conventions?
What the fuck are you talking about? Did you learn how this works from MSNBC? You are such a retard.
We got a brief on the ROE's. They didn't site any of the bullshit you are talking about.
We had to go over legalities during training. If this happens do that. If that happens do this. You don't have time to consult a fucking law book when people are shooting at you or targets are moving from one place to another. Everything is a reaction reinforced by constant repetition.
These people all got an order from their chain of command. If Trump says kill everyone in the Caribbean that is in an unmarked boat with drugs and guns then the soldiers kill everyone in an unmarked boat where they PID drugs and guns.
That is it. No Hague. No international law. No Genevea conventions.
You traitors are all about imposing foreign laws on us and trying to get us killed. You should move to Geneva. We don't want you here.
Real war crimes are what Walz and Ellison did to MN.
The left kill Charlie Kirk - thru their lie machine/ rage machine.
The entire Democrat party is a walking talking / mob-rule/ war crime.
I could cite chapter and verse
Do it then you lying loser. Show your work for once.
Well, Hegseth has explicitly denied there was a second strike at all. Unless one of the sources can show an authentic video showing there was second missile, then the story is certainly bullshit. We will probably know within a day or two if the second strike video comes out in a leak or the story changes to, "we left two survivors to drown" rather than waste a second missile.
There is an old saying that "In Russia everthing that is not permitted by law is forbidden. In the US everything that is not forbidden by law is permitted"
Freder Frederson said...
Cite the law that permits the deliberate killing of hors de combat.
He doesn't have to. If there is no law forbidding it, it is permitted and needs no other law.
John Henry
Fredo doesn't want to cite the code because it will be used by us to counter his assertions that it was a war crime.
Do it then you lying loser. Show your work for once.
I used to show my work all the time. I don't bother anymore because you will deny the plain language of a statute.
Gee no court ever agreed with Freder that prisoners were tortured* at Gitmo so he just can't be bothered to show his work for this week's lie.
*Using exactly the same techniques approved for use on our own soldiers in training because under law it does not meet the definition of "torture," which one must do to assert that it is. Don't pull out your old bullshit arguments and think we forgot the truth.
Truth doesn't change with the weather like lefty politics does.
Fredo doesn't want to cite the code because it will be used by us to counter his assertions that it was a war crime.
I don't see any of you citing the law that says killing hors de combat is legal under any circumstance.
Don't use me as your excuse you lying loser. Show your work. I have never backed down from admitting when I'm wrong. Don't be like the little pussy lawyer Mark and run away now that you are challenged. You have more guts than that.
Also I never wrote a fucking word about whether the UCMJ applied to Gitmo. I relied on the actual courts to determine facts there. And I don't even remember your rants from 20 years ago. Why would I?
Correct we are not rushing to prove a negative for you. Duh. Did you spend all weekend drunk or something?
Freder will NOT cite the UCMJ because he cannot cite the words he claims are in there. Like Trump he just says shit without evidence. I'm still laughing about the Geneva Convention!
Achilles @ 9:42, with the realization that trying to rationalize with you would be akin to trying to teach advanced calculus to a tree frog, for those who follow your incoherence, I wasn’t siding with anyone.
My point was so simple that even you, well, never mind but my point was that these boats are small potatoes on the war on drugs and the runners have largely been depicted as poorer fish farmers down on their luck.
From much that I’ve read, the strategy should be to seize evidence and interrogate the runners- that’s how investigations work their way to the source.
And then there’s a serious question of why Trump pardons a main source once that source is behind bars.
Does Trump truly want to stop the drugs or does he want a cut?
Freder Frederson said...I don't see any of you citing the law that says killing hors de combat is legal under any circumstance.
You keep throwing around this phrase--hors de combat--as though it were a magical talisman. What evidence do you have that they were trying to surrender or were unconscious or injured to the point where they were unable to resist?
Without resorting to your personal opinion, of course. Is there video evidence of them trying to surrender?
"I don't see any of you citing the law that says killing hors de combat is legal under any circumstance."
You ignored my argument: that they were not hors de combat but hostis humani generis.
Grok can't even help bail Freder out. I got tired of waiting.
The closest thread to pull might be if the attacks are not sufficiently vetted (War Dept says they are and we know in fact the origin of all cargo on board). If there was evidence the "drug boats" were other than what is alleged, then the UCMJ might (stress might) trigger the Law of Armed Combat. But we don't know.
But over at SuperGrok, it is still thinking that one over.
At that point Grok got weird (it is heavily influenced by current events) and started applying LOAC to the hallucinations that the Left is having currently, just like Freder.
"From much that I’ve read, the strategy should be to seize evidence and interrogate the runners- that’s how investigations work their way to the source."
And then what do you do once you identified the source?
It's a waste of time arguing with someone who makes up their mind about things dependent on who they are, and not what happened.
They KNOW the source. That's why Trump advised aircraft to avoid the area. We are going to hit the land-based supply and distribution hubs for the drugs. Keep in mind that every terrorist organization is a narco-terrorist organization. That's how they finance ongoing operations. Same way we used to spray that herbicide on Columbian pot farms and coca plantations.
Run away Brave Lefties! Run away!
Capitol punishment? Perhaps.
You may remember that those dates as within Obama’s presidency.
Now let’s talk about war crimes.
If you think they were war crimes, I don't see how me agreeing with you is going to help. Because I think they were (as well as many of the things Bush II did).
Frankly Freder at 08 51 I don't care. I'm reminded of a commander in the Albigensian Heresy campaign saying, "Kill them all, let God sort them out." War is inherently a messy business. And there are no snow white virgins on those narco boats.
Yancey, If Trump truly believed Venezuela or a cartel-linked network was launching drug smuggling operations that justified retaliation, the strongest possible argument would require: Recovered evidence, document intelligence, chain-of-command verification, interrogations and debriefings, and links to the higher-ups.
That is what transforms a political claim into a national security finding.
Destroying the evidence removes that path entirely.
So if the goal is to build a public case for stronger military action against Venezuela, the current behavior undercuts that goal.
Destroying the evidence and killing potential informants isn’t just morally questionable — it’s strategically irrational.
It prevents accountability, prevents intelligence development, and prevents any administration from making a fact-based argument for further action.
Only the most gulible of the goobers would look into what’s going on and justify it.
I hope the power doesn't go to Pete's head.
I wouldn't want him going back the Fox News with this "kill everyone" mentality.
"The objective should be to cut off the head of the snake. We’re chasing tails and destroying evidence and killing those who could lead us to the head."
The head of the snake is the person who decides to buy and use illegal drugs. They know, and don’t care, what their money goes.
my dad was an NCO on a howitzer* battery during the Korean Police Action** from 1952 until 1953. He'd be given coordinates to shell..and shell he would. One thing that he Would NOT do, is check and see if the chinese there were "hors de combat". He and his crew would continue shelling until told to stop. If his shells were falling on injured chinese, that DID NOT change the fact that they were at those coordinates (assuming my dad had dialed everything in right). This is the way it has ALWAYS been in police actions
howitzer*
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howitzer#Etymology
The English word howitzer comes from the Czech word houfnice, from houf, 'crowd', and houf is in turn a borrowing from the Middle High German word Hūfe or Houfe (modern German Haufen), meaning 'crowd, throng'..
..the Hussites used short-barreled houfnice cannons to fire at short distances into crowds of infantry,
[isn't THAT interesting?]
Korean Police Action** undeclared military actions are, OF COURSE, Completely OK; *IF* they are ordered by Democrats. See LBJ, BJ Clinton, or O'Bama
What makes you think, Ronald, that we don't already have all the evidence needed? Wouldn't that explain why the boats are being targeted- we already have the intelligence necessary to sink them justifiably? At some point in your proposal an action has to be taken to stop the flow of the drugs that works better than what we have done in the past, right? So, what actions are you willing to support were you given the evidence you are requesting in this particular case? Be specific.
"disobey your civilian commander or face Nuremberg trials"
“Most everyone here forgets the second part of this meme. That if you obey an illegal order you are just as liable as the person who gave the order.”
Actually no. To start with, orders are presumptively valid. It has to be that way. Otherwise you would have a bunch of barracks lawyers deciding they were going on specific missions, if and when they were going to attack, etc. In order for the military to be effective, commanders, all the way up and down need to know that those lower in the command structure will obey the orders they are given, on a timely basis.
One supposedly legal argument I read quoted from a Navy publication addressed to “commanders”, and was being applied generally, to low level enlisted. And that was the problem - just as the CO of a ship is responsible if his ship collides with another through any negligence on the part of his sailors and officers, similarly, he is responsible if they obey his illegal orders, for the orders having been given. And to aid in his decisions, commanders at and above a certain level have JAG officers attached to their staffs, and this is one reason why.
So, it very much depends on rank/responsibilities and how illegal the order was. A NG enlisted soldier would rightfully be court marshaled for refusing to deploy under Presidential orders, even if the Supreme Court ultimately determined the President’s order to have been illegal (they won’t - it’s only activist libtard judges doing that). Contrast that with orders to kill prisoners of war, who had been been captured while wearing their country’s military uniforms (to put it inside the Geneva Convention). That not only would be an illegal order, but also one that enlistmed military should be expected to know is illegal.
Freder: In the laws of war, combatants are considered to be hors de combat (French: [ɔʁ də kɔ̃ba]; lit. 'out of combat'), and thus protected persons, when they are unable to participate in fighting. Hors de combat personnel may not be intentionally targeted. If two people clinging to debris at least 12 miles out are not hors de combat, please explain how anyone would be hors de combat.
…
I don't see any of you citing the law that says killing hors de combat is legal under any circumstance.
I already did, above.
You are not just a little wrong, you are epically wrong.
There are plenty of circumstances where killing hors de combat is completely legitimate.
Further, you forget why these "Rules of War" exist — as a matter of self protection, by encouraging the enemy to do the same. Additionally, observing those Rules makes sense when thinking about perhaps the most important principle of war: Economy of force. If an action will not further one's war aims, then don't do it.
In the present instance, the US war aim is to stop the flow of drugs via very fast boats from South America to the US. For various reasons, less violent means have not worked.
Our primary target in this campaign is not the boats, or even the drugs, but the crews. If they find the risk too great, no amount of money will be persuasive. It furthers our war aim to have them know that we will leave no survivors.
You are wrong on the "law" (as your repeated failure to cite proves), and the principles at stake.
BTW, I have extensive Geneva Convention, LOAC and ROE training. I have had to apply all of then in planning and execution.
Didn’t Trump already addressed this issue when he stated his preference between being eaten by sharks or electrocuted by a submerged electric battery?
Actually no.
Actually yes. "Just following orders" has not been a valid defense to war crimes since WWII at least.
"I don't believe a word in the WaPo." Even "a", "the", and "and".
"If true, this is either a war crime or flat out murder."
FLASH!! Rotwang's Cabana Boy indicts Barack Obama for the war crime of murder against American citizen Anwar al-Awlaki.
IDGAF about International Law. Pirates should be hanged. Or destroyed by a missile strike.
Fuck it. We never prosecuted anyone for firebombing the krauts and Japanese, then nuking the Japanese. All those guys got to live out their lives and bring up the Boomers in a high standard of living. The same Boomers that want to stick needles in the arms of these Gen Xers et seq for killing onesies and Rosie’s.
Fuck it. Give all that Boomer wealth, diplomas, houses, etc, back. It was bought with innocent German and Japanese blood. Then maybe we’ll talk. CC, JSM
If the lefty commentators here want this to be "the new rule" then we should have a simple system: we apply it to all living presidents and ex-presidents and we start from the oldest president and work our way forward.
So, you're going to try Bush and Obama for war crimes.
And you're not going to squirm and get butthurt when Obama is sentenced to a war crime in the Hague because you're super principled, right?
LOL.
Well, Yancey, seems to me if the evidence is as conclusive as you claim, presenting it to Congress should be the easiest part. Refusing to share it raises more questions than it answers.
On another note, considering the repeated silence of my mentioning Trump pardoning announcement of Juan Orlando Hernandez, after bringing over 400 tons of cocaine to our kids, that’s okay?
It gets back to the real question- is Trump serious about eliminating drugs or does he just want a cut?
Because when you really look at it outside of a Trump loyalist lens, nothing adds up.
Onesies and twosies. Muthafuckin autocorrect. CC, JSM
Ronald J. Ward said, "Yancey, If Trump truly believed..."
Stop with the goddamned mindreading lefties. You don't even know what YOU think without being told to so don't try and understand what Trump may or may not actually "believe."
You don't know. You know you don't know. And you know that we know that you know you don't know.
It makes you look even stupider than you already look, with your lousy arguments and all to do this creepy mind-misreading act. So vaudeville. Get over yourself.
Does the phrase "Barbary Pirates" mean anything to you?
The president can consult the Geneva Conventions and international law when he develops his ROEs.
Obama did that. Obama was constantly fucking around with the ROEs and they would change on us mid rotation. We would be forced to change tactics mid deployment with no training.
We had JAGs and chaplains running around looking for reasons to fire us or throw us in jail.
Obviously the goal in Iraq and Afghanistan was not to win. It was to get as many of us killed as possible.
That is why grunts overwhelmingly hate democrats.
Just name one other country that actively avoids civilian deaths with the precision and care we do. It's just never enough for you leftist barbarians. You can't help simping for murderous cartel members. It's in your blood. You are their champion!
Fortunately for Obama, Freder rescinded his indictment two seconds later on the grounds of justifiable glorification of a Democrat.
Ronald J. Ward said...
On another note, considering the repeated silence of my mentioning Trump pardoning announcement of Juan Orlando Hernandez, after bringing over 400 tons of cocaine to our kids, that’s okay?
I would deem it more than OK. Any conviction Democrats in the Biden administration got in the state of New York is suspect.
I find it probable that the CIA tried to pin all of their drug running on Hernandez so they could take out the political opposition to the socialist they were supporting.
You people are evil and dishonest and deserve no trust at all.
What makes you think, Ronald...
Whoa Yancy! He can't do that. He isn't capable of thinking. He's more a regurgitator. But mostly just tater.
Sources in the Defense Department say that Pete Hegseth ordered the second strike on the Venezuelan when he learned that there was no rum aboard.
I am not going to bother to try to find specific statements from Hegseth or Trump, mostly because I'm betting Google et all will put up roadblocks to finding them. I've seen the categorical denials that Sean Parnell has put out. I have no trouble believing commanders were ordered to keep shooting until the target boat sinks. Presumably if the boat stops because it might have been disabled by a near miss but it is not confirmed to be sinking, it is to be hit again. It sounds like the "anonymous sources" are deliberately misstating that direction as one to kill survivors.
Ronald J. Ward said...
Yancey, If Trump truly believed Venezuela or a cartel-linked network was launching drug smuggling operations that justified retaliation, the strongest possible argument would require: Recovered evidence, document intelligence, chain-of-command verification, interrogations and debriefings, and links to the higher-ups.
Your problem is Trump is not as stupid as you are.
Trump doesn’t need any of that. All Trump has to do is tell the Navy to kill any unmarked boats that are PIDd with weapons and likely drugs.
That is it. That is a legal order under Article II.
If you don’t like it then you can impeach him. And please impeach Trump for stopping drug boats in the Caribbean. I couldn’t think of anything better you traitors could do for the midterms.
Mike @ 11:15, I don’t know but it sounds like my argument hit a nerve and rather than confront it, you want it to go away.
I don’t know about the not being able to know unless someone decides for you but it seems like nobody wants to know anything about Juan Orlando Hernandez. “Just stop the goddamn misreading”. I don’t know but, ouch!
And I still don’t know why the military would want to destroy evidence and murder potential informants. I don’t know how that makes sense.
And I also really don’t know if Trump wants to stop the drugs or get in on a cut. Don’t know. But if it’s the latter, I suspect you don’t want to know. And if you did know, you’d likely still not know.
It’s kinda like the 2020 election and Mexico paying for a wall or that Anderson Cooper drinks baby blood. Someone told the gullible what to know and accordingly, that’s all they’ll ever know.
Those people, along with five others in the original report, spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the matter’s sensitivity.
Bullshit
If the claims are true, and they were a crime, then whistleblower protections would protect them after they came forward.
"And I still don’t know why the military would want to destroy evidence and murder potential informants. I don’t know how that makes sense."
It makes sense in that it raises the risk of death high enough that smugglers might stop smuggling. That is the clear intent of the strikes, as I mentioned above. Let's suppose for the sake of argument that we do stop the boats and show they are filled with illicit drug shipments. What then? Would you then be satisfied enough to sink other boats from the same sources? Or wouldn't you just retreat to the same position here- that those additional boats aren't proven to be carrying drugs and we must stop them rather than destroy them?
Would any amount of evidence convince you these strikes are legitimate uses of military force?
On the topic of Hernandez- I think the pardon was wrong- I would have taken him out to sea and let the sharks have him if that were an option. Or, perhaps even better, pardon him, send him back to Honduras and publicly thank him for informing on the cartels.
"Mexico paying for a wall"
Mexico did pay for a "wall". I suspect what Trump had planned when he said it was a heavy tax on remittances, but, in the end, Trump leaned on Mexico (possibly by threatening to tax remittances, I don't think all of those negotiations were made public, feel free to correct me), and they began stopping the flood at their southern border. Voila, Mexican "wall".
The extraterritorial killing of human beings in international waters in the manner shown here and without any evidence doesn’t get much more illegal than this.
Surprising the military commanders are not looking to their own legal vulnerability here. These are clearly not lawful orders or rules of engagement. Maybe they should ask themselves why Admiral Holsey was willing to resign his post as chief of Southern Command so recently.
Appearances are deceiving. There's a rising China and a retreating US.
Chinese global industrial standing is awesomely and broadly expanding; the US is in global retreat industrially and geopolitically. China's effective global influence is growing; America's is shrinking (in oh so many domains.) China has real export muscle; America is playing protectionist defense. China is a work horse; Trump's America is a puffed up show horse. Russia is a stunted, mostly lame donkey.
The media-curated images of personality-centric strongmen mask very real changes in the ordering of geopolitical power and the reconfiguration of the standing of the large national powers. Ultimately leaders come and go; economies remain.
Geopolitical power is dependent on rising economic power that projects itself through success in international trade, industrial leadership, and sufficient political cohesion to support the external projection of geopolitical power. Military power is a manifestation of economic power.
The centerpiece to American geopolitical power since the 1940s has been its leadership of the advanced democracies. Trump is fracturing this cohesion and its collective influence is in deep retreat. That's why the G20 and other meetings mean so little; the democracies lack unity and cohesion. Standing and prestige are missing.
The Trump gambit with Venezuela is to reduce American foreign policy to absurdity. The question that ultimately is going to arise from any ceasefire settlement in the Ukraine and the coming non-settlement towards anything resembling stability in the Middle East is how far is the American retreat from the eastern hemisphere going to be? Are the Americans really just going back to the northern quadrant of the western hemisphere? Is the Caribbean the new hill the Americans are prepared to die on?
The vivid impression one has when one looks at Washington DC is just how little is really there. It's a shadow of what it once was.
Two ghosts said it was so. What did the other five say? Will the two, if they exist, report the claim to someone other than WaPo?
"The waters are filled with sharks. There would have been no need to waste a second Hellfire on two terrorists clinging to wreckage."
I know a guy who sailed with two friends from Guerrero, MX, through the canal, and into the Caribbean, where their boat capsized. They clung to the boat all night. The next day a Korean cargo ship pulled along side, slowed down, then left. Some time on Day 2, Friend 1 said "Guys, I can't hold on any longer", and let go. They got rescued later that day, by a crew that spoke English.
So, A) I wouldn't rely on the sharks. But
B) I wouldn't waste another Hellfire, either. Those things cost a fortune.
Bich, how much evidence is ever shone to the public for any drone strike of the last 20 years? I don't recall seeing any at all but I also don't assume it doesn't exist at all.
“Sources in the Defense Department say that Pete Hegseth ordered the second strike on the Venezuelan when he learned that there was no rum aboard.”
Who exactly are these Defense Department “sources”? And how do we know that they aren’t just making the shit up? Be specific. Give us names and positions.
The problem is that we are hearing this from TDS addled Dem operatives with bylines (i.e. “Reporters”). Why wouldn’t they be lying? They lie about everything else, if it involves Trump. We have repeatedly heard about stuff that Trump said or did, which were denied by everyone actually in the room at the time.
And to answer your question- perhaps the military officers assigned this task have seen the evidence and that is why they are willing to follow these orders.
'Can someone translate "condition of anonymity because of the matter’s sensitivity"? '
Sure. That means, if they're telling the truth, they could go to military prison for a decade for this.
The more interesting questions are;
1) What is the penalty if they're not telling the truth?
2) What is the penalty if the reporter just made them up?
We need to trust anonymous sources and the journos who rely on them. Surely we all remember the pee pee tape and the Russian consulate in Miami?
My take away from the debate over this is that attacking these drug boats is arguably legal and therefore, at this point, Trump is the decider.
Killing enemies of our nation is a messy business.
The purpose of this double-tap story is to get the shooting of 2 National Guard soldiers in Washington off the front page and to provide cover for those Dems who made the ill-considered video encouraging members of the military to disobey their orders.
Nothing is impossible but given the Hellfire missiles payload it seems survivors are pretty unlikely:
The Hellfire missile payload varies depending on the variant, but it is typically a shaped charge warhead (like the 18-20 lb HEAT warhead) designed to defeat armor, or a blast fragmentation warhead for soft targets.
Payload types by Hellfire variant
AGM-114K: Uses a tandem shaped-charge warhead to defeat armored threats.
AGM-114M: Employs a blast fragmentation warhead for use against soft targets like buildings and light-armored vehicles.
AGM-114N: Features a Metal Augmented Charge (MAC) for use in enclosed structures with minimal collateral damage, often used in anti-ship roles.
AGM-114R: A multi-purpose version with a single warhead that can be used against a variety of targets, including armor, soft targets, and structures.
AGM-114R9X: A special variant that uses six pop-out blades instead of explosives to kill a specific target with a kinetic impact, a tactic used to minimize collateral damage.
Even assuming there were survivors, it is unlikely that ship based rescue of survivors would be feasible before they died from blast overpressure injuries
WaPo, leftists are infamous for braying handmade tales following religious principle. Show us the fetus or abort with prejudice. That said, all's fair in lust and abortion? black lives matter.
Here is what Hegseth has to say about the matter;
"As usual, the fake news is delivering more fabricated, inflammatory, and derogatory reporting to discredit our incredible warriors fighting to protect the homeland."
I will point out that Hegseth is our first Secretary of War to have had prior experience as a "journalist". He has seen the meat ground up and shoved into the entrails.
Taking Root
More on double taps, murder, rape, torture, hearsay evidence , and drug and human trafficking, probably.
Two points no one seems to have made yet:
1. Several people on Twitter say that the reporter and the publication who say that they have two inside sources for the Hegseth story have previously reported nasty things about Trump that were proven to be entirely false, and that they do not deserve the benefit of the doubt in this case, in fact should have been drummed out of the journalism business for their previous lies. I don't follow journalism enough to confirm, but that sounds quite plausible.
2. About the pardoned Honduran president. Yancey Ward (11:41am) says we should "pardon him, send him back to Honduras and publicly thank him for informing on the cartels". The very fact that he's been pardoned suggests that he has in fact been singing like a canary, that he did not volunteer to help the cartels, but was forced to do so by threats of death or torture against himself or his loved ones, and that his evidence has been helping us "cut off the head of the snake", as Ronald J. Ward claims to want us to do (9:31am). If so, the pardon is entirely justified.
Lee Kuan Yew talks to Charlie Rose about the death penalty for drug smugglers in Singapore.
https://x.com/i/status/1995169322604335339
RJ Ward (11:14): “Because when you really look at it outside of a Trump loyalist lens ….” Psychological projection by a card carrying member of the hero-worshipping, “personality politics cult” that gave us: Kerry, Obama, Biden, Harris, Bernie, Hillary, AOC and The Squad, Newsom, Mamdani, et al.
"To comply with a spoken order from Hegseth to kill everyone, the Special Operations commander overseeing the mission ordered a second strike that killed the two survivors, according to two people with direct knowledge of the operation."
"To comply with a spoken order from Democrat leadership, the WaPo ordered a fabricated news story accusing Hegseth of wrongdoing, according to two people with direct knowledge of the operation."
Anybody can be a journalist these days, see how easy it is?
“ Chinese global industrial standing is awesomely and broadly expanding; the US is in global retreat industrially and geopolitically. China's effective global influence is growing; America's is shrinking (in oh so many domains.) China has real export muscle; America is playing protectionist defense. China is a work horse; Trump's America is a puffed up show horse. Russia is a stunted, mostly lame donkey.”
So 2024, or maybe 2020. Venezuela had, essentially four international geopolitical Allies: China, Russia, Cuba, and Iran. They recently asked for help against the US. Crickets. Cuba is a basket case, worse off than Venezuela, and probably no jets newer than 1960. Iran has their own problems now, with their nuclear program in shambles and their surrogates abandoning them wholesale. Russia has a, well, Ukrainian problem. And no planes or tanks to spare.
Which leaves China. Collapsing demographics (population expected to half by 2060 or so), as is their middle class. Their economy is export driven, but no one trusts their electronics, and American tariffs are digging in - hard. It’s one thing when an economy loses thousands of middle class jobs, or maybe even a million or so. Something else entirely, when upwards of 100 million people lose their middle class jobs. They have nowhere to go. Certainly not back to the rice paddies they came from. And much of their wealth is tied up in unfinished, unlivable, falling apart, high rise condos and the like.
Meanwhile, their neighbors are starting to kick back. S. Koreans last weekend just arrested a bunch of their “fishermen” and seized or sank their boats. Japan is now conducting naval operations on the other side of Taiwan. Philippines are talking about following suit. And conquering Taiwan, itself, is their acknowledged primary goal. So, when Venezuela asked the Chinese a week or so ago for military aide, maybe a warplane or two, the Chinese response was, as I said above, crickets.
☕️ TAKING ROOT ☙ Monday, December 1, 2025 ☙ C&C NEWS 🦠 https://share.google/o5mqMwzGQHtK1KXRg
Hayden: yes, Red China is far from a work horse. More like an old race nag being jazzed up with ketamine for one more purse. CC, JSM
Bruce IDK from what idiot your quote about "expanding China" came from but they obviously haven't seen today's announcement of shrinking output at Big Red along with other bad Chinese financial news.
Meanwhile we're over here breaking records for Black Friday and seeing consumer spending take off like a rocket with a "unexpectedly" huge jobs bump in Q3. The super recovery we experienced in Trump 1 is currently exploding just in time for Trump 2 to go into the midterms with good news for consumers.
Thank you Bob Boyd for a succinct summary:
The purpose of this double-tap story is to get the shooting of 2 National Guard soldiers in Washington off the front page and to provide cover for those Dems who made the ill-considered video encouraging members of the military to disobey their orders.
It is exactly so and for that very reason. Media is just an ongoing psy-op for democrats 24/7/365 now. They don't even pretend to do "news" anymore.
There are very understandable reasons for an order to "Take no prisoners."
Who does this "according to two people with direct knowledge of the operation who spoke on the condition of anonymity" nonsense fool, aside from idiots and Democrats?
Fredo… stop proving “what everybody says” is true.
Unlike the strikes mentioned above under obama, we have the actual video of the craft involved they all went bloey
We've been told for some time that China is going to dominate the world economy, first during Trump 1, now during Trump 2, as a prelude to criticizing sanctions, mostly. But with all this partisan touting aside, and demographics asserting themselves, China is starting to look like the fastest horse in the glue factory. Hard to reconcile it.
The story from a Venezuelan drug-smuggling vessel raises a central issue that seems to be missing from much of the public commentary: it is already illegal for a service member to follow an illegal command.
Both US and international law are unequivocal. The Uniform Code of Military Justice, the Geneva Conventions and the Department of Defense Law of Armed Conflict all make clear that combatants may not kill unarmed survivors, nor execute those who are hors de combat. Equally, servicemen and women are not only permitted but obliged to refuse an unlawful order. This is not a partisan point but a foundational principle of military ethics since Nuremberg.
That senators of both parties now acknowledge that such an order — if verified — could constitute a war crime is important. But equally important is the troubling suggestion, voiced by some, that it would be improper for personnel to question superior instructions. The very framework of lawful military conduct rests on the opposite premise. Blind obedience is not a virtue when legality is uncertain; restraint is.
As congressional committees launch inquiries, the essential question is not merely whether the order was given, or by whom, but whether the chain of command reinforced its legal obligations. A military force that cannot refuse unlawful directives is a danger not only to its enemies but to the laws and values it claims to defend.
So we are talking second hand hearsay vs actual video evidence
@ Bruce Hayden: I would add to that — US power in the 20th century was built on oil. China is betting on disrupting this power structure by electrifying the global economy. Which is good news for the planet, but less good for the current order of things. The great irony however is that this shift will hit Russia even worse.
Dominating the industrial infrastructure for the production and distribution.of an era's dominant energy supply guarantees top tier geopolitical leadership during that era. America under Trump is flunking this fundamental strategic calculation -- badly.
Congress is investigating. I imagine the DOD OIG will as well. If there was a second strike there will be a video. The facts should come out.
Captain McCallister isn't really a captain,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-A30JFi7RH0
Recall ncis went after senior chief gallagher for acts his chief witness against him had actually done
Actually jag one of the real heroes of the war on terror
First it was Antifa doesn’t exist because there’s no paperwork on them now it’s recover the evidence to establish a case. Ward is a child playing with the adults at Althouse. It gets hard to read these threads with all the phony selective moral preening.
Big Mike, Achilles, and Fritz, and maybe Bob Boyd too have all stated the obvious: Nobody is surviving the first missile strike. There are enough videos of actual strikes on narco boats that show them completely obliterated and engulfed in flames. If by some miracle some one or even two humans survived the impact and conflagration, there ain't no way they are swimming to shore from 10 or 15 miles out in the ocean. A second missile would be completely unnecessary and the guys doing the killing know that.
Secondly, the libtard Democrat Party press has covered themselves in lies and bullshit for over ten years since Trump announced his candidacy. Only a Democrat Party cumbucket would believe anything reported by the known and documented liars of the Democrat Party media.
As others above have also stated, this is just more squid ink from the floundering propagandists of the Democrat Party to divert attention from other news bad for the (D)espicable Party.
This whole Fake News story is just the flotsam that Democrat Party members are clinging to after all their previous lies and scandals get blown up from under them.
There have been numerous false charges made against Trump and his supporters in the past. Some have clearly been disproven and some are impossible to disprove. As a credibility test, I would ask those who think Hegseth gave a double tap order whether they believe Trump raped a woman in a changing room. This will establish the amount of evidence needed to prove a charge against Trump and his officials. Incidentally, do you also think Hiss is innocent?
The White House is throwing the Navy under the bus. Too bad that they weren’t reminded sooner that they can refuse to follow illegal orders.
“White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said on Monday that the order for a second strike came from US Navy Admiral Frank Bradley and not Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.”
https://news.bgov.com/bloomberg-government-news/white-house-confirms-second-strike-on-alleged-drug-boat
This is how the West was won. Kill them before they kill you.
Another 20% issue for the Dems.
This is the new Russia, Russia, Russia hoax.
Trump is the new Lt. William Calley.
Impeachment coming unless the GOP holds the House.
According to The Hill; “White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt confirmed on Monday that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth authorized the second strike on an alleged drug boat in the Caribbean in September following a bombshell Washington Post report in which he ordered the military “kill everybody.”
Leavitt told reporters at the White House press briefing that Hegseth authorized Adm. Frank Bradley to carry out the second strike, which reportedly killed two people who were hanging onto the burning vessell after an initial strike.”
So, for some here, can we move from the “he didn’t do it” phase to the “okay maybe he did it but…” phase?
Not that long ago Kak (aka The Man in the Room) was serving up this bilge with respect to Germany.
So for hours now commenters on the right have been saying it’s a “fake story”. It didn’t take long for the White House to admit it did happen, but it was the Admiral’s fault. Commenters will still be insisting Hegseth is innocent and will throw the blame onto Admiral and the Navy. It’s heartbreaking the Admiral didn’t refuse the order from Hegseth.
Reading comprehension is not your strong suit. Do you distribute medicine this way
Grok claims Chuck (RJW) is a liar. When I asked if Chuck's claim was accurate, here's what it said:
No, The Hill did not report that White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt confirmed the full story from the Washington Post—specifically, that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth issued a verbal order to "kill everybody" on the suspected drug boat, leading to a second strike that killed two survivors. Instead, The Hill's coverage aligns with Leavitt's prepared statement during her December 1, 2025, briefing, where she confirmed Hegseth authorized the overall operation but explicitly attributed the decision for the second strike (which targeted the survivors) to Admiral Frank Bradley, acting within his authority.
thehill.com
This appears to be a case of selective reading or misinformation in the source you're referencing, as Leavitt's remarks were a pointed denial of Hegseth's direct involvement in the survivor-killing order, not an affirmation.
“Reading comprehension is not your strong suit. Do you distribute medicine this way”
Thinking isn’t your strong suit, you’re good at parroting right wing talking points along with your almost indecipherable comments filled with spelling errors.
First, they publish hearsay from Diverse anonymous sources. Then, come the diverse impeachments, indictments, convictions and trillion dollar libel suits. Abort, sequester, seek sanctuary.
Quotation marks spell out the subject matter
See, even Igna is calling Chuck a liar.
Too late RJW. You already shirt your pants.
Fly little monkey! Fly!
Freder: Actually yes. "Just following orders" has not been a valid defense to war crimes since WWII at least.
RJW: And I still don’t know why the military would want to destroy evidence and murder potential informants. I don’t know how that makes sense.
Kak: The extraterritorial killing of human beings in international waters in the manner shown here and without any evidence doesn’t get much more illegal than this.
…
Both US and international law are unequivocal. The Uniform Code of Military Justice, the Geneva Conventions and the Department of Defense Law of Armed Conflict all make clear that combatants may not kill unarmed survivors, nor execute those who are hors de combat.
You are all wrong. I covered the territory above, but apparently you don't RATWD.
The goal of this war is to stop the flow of drugs as described in the WSJ article (gift link) I cited above.
Therefore, each of the targets in this war consist of three things: the boats, the drugs in the boats, and the crews manning the boats. Destroying the targets advances us towards the war's goal.
The ROE could well include something to the effect of: … continue the engagement until the target is completely destroyed.
Including, by definition, the crew.
There is absolutely nothing illegal about it, and it is to our advantage if our adversaries are well aware there will be no survivors. It is a legitimate war aim to kill as many of the crews as possible. The fact that a few may survive the first shot is relevant only to those who haven't, or can't, think this through.
You need to stop applying legalisms to what is inherently extra-legal. You need to stop mis-attributing to the UCMJ, GC, and LOAC things they do not say to a situation in which they don't apply.
“Multiple sources report that Hegseth issued a broader verbal directive earlier in the operation to ensure “”everyone must be killed” on the vessel to eliminate the threat, which Bradley then interpreted and executed by ordering the second strike on the two survivors clinging to the wreckage after the initial missile hit failed to kill all 11 people aboard.
This distinction is key: Hegseth’s instruction set the mission parameters for a “no survivors” lethal outcome as part of the Trump administration’s “Operation Southern Spear” against narco-traffickers, but Bradley—then commanding the Joint Special Operations Command from Fort Bragg, North Carolina—made the real-time call during the live drone feed. The second strike, carried out by SEAL Team 6, killed the survivors while they were in the water, raising serious legal concerns under international human rights law (outside of armed conflict) and even the laws of armed conflict if applicable, as it targeted shipwrecked individuals hors de combat (out of combat). Experts from Just Security and others have called it potentially unlawful, akin to a “no quarter” order, and some military officials, including the former SOUTHCOM commander Adm. Alvin Holsey, reportedly objected and retired over the campaign.”
Grok
https://t.co/mIYjfFvyVv
He has to roll around in it
If there is an enemy of america she will side with it hamas sun cartel al queda
Goetz, I never claimed The Hill said that “White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt confirmed the full story from the Washington Post—specifically, that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth issued a verbal order to "kill everybody" on the suspected drug boat, leading to a second strike that killed two survivors”.
This seems to be a consistent angle for the Gulibles to create their own proof- to not scrutinize my quotes but to scrutinize how they want to interpret my quotes and thus, conclude I’m wrong or dishonest.
The rabbit hole logic is an amazing sight to behold.
https://thehill.com/homenews/5628447-defense-secretary-authorizes-drug-boat-strike/
Igna
removed her post where she calls Chuck (RJW) a liar. She rarely understands the stuff she posts, so when the point she was making was explained to her, she panicked and erased the evidence.
High-larious
“…removed her post where she calls Chuck (RJW) a liar.”
Nope, you are the liar. I never called RJW a liar. I asked Grok to clarify and that’s what I got. Too bad it didn’t agree with your narrative.
They dont know what they are talking about, film at eleven
Except when she openly lies to cover up charlie kirks murderer i dont care that heather richardson lied to you about it
Narciso has a running conversation…with himself, lol.
Keep spinning Chuck/Igna.
Very entertaining.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा
Please use the comments forum to respond to the post. Don't fight with each other. Be substantive... or interesting... or funny. Comments should go up immediately... unless you're commenting on a post older than 2 days. Then you have to wait for us to moderate you through. It's also possible to get shunted into spam by the machine. We try to keep an eye on that and release the miscaught good stuff. We do delete some comments, but not for viewpoint... for bad faith.