And here you go..... The difference between a first strike and a second strike is really no difference at all.

[justoffal]

I kind of predicted this.... If the entire activity is illegal which is a ludicrous claim in the first place.... then what difference does it make whether one strike or two strikes causes any lethality?

Democrats are barking up the wrong tree.
The intention IS lethality.... Anyone who thinks a guided ordinance designed to sink a speed boat from a distance is only going to destroy machinery is completely stupid and delusional.

In effect once the ordinance is launched all human life has already been virtually sacrificed. There is no expectation of survival from this kind of attack.

The rules of warfare we're not designed to coddle enemy combatants. They were designed to protect non-combatants. To have any legal footing at all they would have to prove that the president had no right to declare such a war. I don't think SCOTUS it's going to make a ruling like that.


Sen. Rand Paul says, “I think both strikes are actually illegal” #shorts - YouTube

Also has anybody seen any footage that proves there were any survivors in the first place?
Or is this just another gas light?

 

[candycorn]

I kind of predicted this.... If the entire activity is illegal which is a ludicrous claim in the first place.... then what difference does it make whether one strike or two strikes causes any lethality?

Democrats are barking up the wrong tree.
The intention IS lethality.... Anyone who thinks a guided ordinance designed to sink a speed boat from a distance is only going to destroy machinery is completely stupid and delusional.

In effect once the ordinance is launched all human life has already been virtually sacrificed. There is no expectation of survival from this kind of attack.

The rules of warfare we're not designed to coddle enemy combatants. They were designed to protect non-combatants. To have any legal footing at all they would have to prove that the president had no right to declare such a war. I don't think SCOTUS it's going to make a ruling like that.


Sen. Rand Paul says, “I think both strikes are actually illegal” #shorts - YouTube

Gee, I thought the intention was to stop drug flow into the US..... now it’s to kill people?

MAGA bloodlust knows no bounds.

 

[justoffal]

Gee, I thought the intention was to stop drug flow into the US..... now it’s to kill people?

MAGA bloodlust knows no bounds.

I think it was mentioned right from the outset that lethal force was going to be introduced.

 

[candycorn]

I think it was mentioned right from the outset that lethal force was going to be introduced.

Quote the “mentioning” or legal force please.

I suppose for a guy like you it’s jut more fun if you get to murder people along the way...

 

[martybegan]

Quote the “mentioning” or legal force please.

I suppose for a guy like you it’s jut more fun if you get to murder people along the way...

Says the guy who cheered on Kirk's shooting for having "bad" opinions.

 

[justoffal]

Gee, I thought the intention was to stop drug flow into the US..... now it’s to kill people?

MAGA bloodlust knows no bounds.

Delivering lethal drugs to the United States shore comes with the full expectation of casualties does it not?

Now here is where I differ from most others. In my opinion people who die from drug overdoses are doing society a great favor. The small percentage of those who die accidentally or unknowingly are probably no greater than people who die accidentally or unknowingly from a number of other chemical poisoning problems. If it were up to me I'd make the stuff plentiful and free. The entire problem would go away inside of a year.

 

[candycorn]

Says the guy who cheered on Kirk's shooting for having "bad" opinions.

You can’t show me where I ever did such a thing. Of course the truth has never stood in your way before now has it?

 

[TNHarley]

If the initial strikes are legal(which i question), why would the second strike be illegal? It makes no sense.
"well the survived the initial attack, so they get a "get out of death" card"

 

[candycorn]

Delivering lethal drugs to the United States shore comes with the full expectation of casualties does it not?

Except the attacks are taking place no where near American shores. So you have no leg to stand on with that bizarre statement.

Now here is where I differ from most others. In my opinion people who die from drug overdoses are doing society a great favor. The small percentage of those who die accidentally or unknowingly are probably no greater than people who die accidentally or unknowingly from a number of other chemical poisoning problems. If it were up to me I'd make the stuff plentiful and free. The entire problem would go away inside of a year.

Just when you thought MAGA had hit bottom...they start digging.

 

[justoffal]

Quote the “mentioning” or legal force please.

I suppose for a guy like you it’s jut more fun if you get to murder people along the way...

Combatant deaths are not murder. My solution to this would be to send private corporate cargo ships directly to the source and bring the stuff over in massive amounts.... This would make the speed boats obsolete. I see no reason to fight people's inclinations.....let them have whatever they want and let them have it in abundance.

That's a different issue altogether. In this instance Trump's opposition will have to prove that he has no right to use a war declaration against the speed boats. Even then I struggle to see where the jurisdiction falls.

 

[candycorn]

Combatant deaths are not murder.

Calling someone a combatant doesn’t make them a combatant so a murder of a non-combatant is, in fact a murder.

 

[martybegan]

You can’t show me where I ever did such a thing. Of course the truth has never stood in your way before now has it?

We all know it, ****-o.

 

[justoffal]

Calling someone a combatant doesn’t make them a combatant so a murder of a non-combatant is, in fact a murder.

Sure.... But that's where the argument is going to hinge. Good luck trying to prove that they are not.
Double good luck trying to prove that the president has no right to call them that. Triple good luck if you manage to do both of those things and then prove intent. This whole thing is fucked right from the beginning. Lethality in drug-related raids is a fairly common occurrence.

 

[buckeye]

Gee, I thought the intention was to stop drug flow into the US..... now it’s to kill people?

You never paid attention to what Obama said when he was using thousands of drones to kill all kinds of people, including American citizens, whom his administration deemed terrorists.

Why is that?

 

[candycorn]

We all know it, ****-o.

You don’t know shit.

 

[martybegan]

Calling someone a combatant doesn’t make them a combatant so a murder of a non-combatant is, in fact a murder.

Trump declared the Narco-syndicates terrorists and unlawful combatants. If we can Hellfire a Islamist fucktard under those rules, we can hellfire these guys.

He's using laws passed by congress.

 

[justoffal]

If the initial strikes are legal(which i question), why would the second strike be illegal? It makes no sense.
"well the survived the initial attack, so they get a "get out of death" card"

My point exactly.

 

[justoffal]

You never paid attention to what Obama said when he was using thousands of drones to kill all kinds of people, including American citizens, whom his administration deemed terrorists.

Why is that?

And Obama had every right to use that Presidential power. Nobody on the right made any stink about it that I can remember.

 

[candycorn]

Sure.... But that's where the argument is going to hinge. Good luck trying to prove that they are not.
Double good luck trying to prove that the president has no right to call them that. Triple good luck if you manage to do both of those things and then prove intent. This whole thing is fucked right from the beginning. Lethality in drug-related raids is a fairly common occurrence.

I have no doubt that our complict courts will back the blob 100%. I’d be stunned if they even cleared their throat before they agreed with him 100%

 

[Hafar1014]

I kind of predicted this.... If the entire activity is illegal which is a ludicrous claim in the first place.... then what difference does it make whether one strike or two strikes causes any lethality?

Democrats are barking up the wrong tree.
The intention IS lethality.... Anyone who thinks a guided ordinance designed to sink a speed boat from a distance is only going to destroy machinery is completely stupid and delusional.

In effect once the ordinance is launched all human life has already been virtually sacrificed. There is no expectation of survival from this kind of attack.

The rules of warfare we're not designed to coddle enemy combatants. They were designed to protect non-combatants. To have any legal footing at all they would have to prove that the president had no right to declare such a war. I don't think SCOTUS it's going to make a ruling like that.


Sen. Rand Paul says, “I think both strikes are actually illegal” #shorts - YouTube

Also has anybody seen any footage that proves there were any survivors in the first place?
Or is this just another gas light?

Paul is a libertarian an isolationist. Its legal moral and correct to kill drug dealers shipping drugs into America and the proceeds are used to fund Islamic terror.