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

[Mac-7]

Don’t hide your bigotry.

Blanket statements about immigrants who “hate America” are meaningless.

They reflect your fear and prejudice, and your willingness to believe these white resentment tropes, and nothing else.

Like the man says, if the shoe fits, wear it

 

[martybegan]

Cite them.

Do your own homework. I've pointed this out in other threads.

 

[justoffal]

You're a ******* moron.

Countries cannot bomb boats in international waters.

Yes, you DUMB ASS.

When the boat gets close enough to a countries territorial waters then that country can seize the boat, it contents and inhabitants.

You described yours, perfectly.

In other words you got nothing....

Handling it outside of the United States territorial Waters is a smart move...
It keeps the cartel bribed judges and politicians out of the picture.

The only hope the Democrats have at this point is to try to invalidate the declaration of war
Because if you can't do that there's no way you're going to get anything else done with this issue.

I don't think SCOTUS is going to take that privilege away from the office of the president.

.

 

[dblack]

Been making this point since the beginning.

It was illegal to hit the boat the 2nd time because there were survivors from the initial strike?
Abject nonsense.

Dems always get upset by the "bad look" stuff. And, to be fair, MAGA seems to get off on the "bad look" stuff.

But the real question is whether these attacks are acceptable legally and ethically in the first place. And any questions regarding ethics generally come back to the golden rule. Would we be OK with other countries making similar ad hoc attacks on American suspects?

For the sake of argument, let's say there were groups of Americans traveling to Europe to help Ukraine fend off the Russians. (This may, in fact, be happening - but here I'm just interested in the hypothetical)

Now, if Putin caught wind of this and ordered his ships to shoot down the planes, or boats or whatever, that these groups were using to get to Ukraine, killing all aboard. How would that sit with you? He didn't declare war on the US, didn't present evidence to the UN or go through any formal process - just kill the suspected combatants in international waters.

I'm sure most of you will insist "it's different when we do it", but I don't really see how.

 

[Concerned American]

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?

If my memory serves, the idea isn't necessarily fatalities, but instead disruption. Dead, good. Severely injured, good (takes the combatant off the battlefield and costs the enemy money to rehabilitate), damaged or destroyed equipment and materiel, good.

 

[Bitterhook]

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"

Some folks are just pissed off we didn't let them take a little longer to drown as a result of the initial strike.

 

[DGS49]

The basic point is this: If a ship is sunk and its crew is swimming around, YOU CANNOT KILL THEM! This was true during WWII and remains the case. You don't have to rescue them (you won't be punished if you do), and they may be doomed anyway, but you can't kill them. That is considered a war crime.

If the second shots were intended to sink the boat because of its cargo, that is fair game, but shooting to kill the struggling "sailors" is verboten.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

In other words you got nothing....

WTF?

Handling it outside of the United States territorial Waters is a smart move...
It keeps the cartel bribed judges and politicians out of the picture.

There are none, retard.

Besides.....................

Judicial Divisions​

| International Criminal Court
https://www.icc-cpi.int › about › judicial-divisions
The ICC's 18 judges are elected by the Assembly of States Parties for their qualifications, impartiality and integrity, and serve 9-year, non-renewable terms.

The only hope the Democrats have at this point is to try to invalidate the declaration of war
Because if you can't do that there's no way you're going to get anything else done with this issue.

What declaration of war?

I don't think SCOTUS is going to take that privilege away from the office of the president.

.

Because they are candy ass traitors, like your dear leader.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

So?

They were Muslims in war zones.

RWNJ's wonder why they were shot or killed.

Thanks for proving my point of hollow liberal words.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

Thanks for proving my point of hollow liberal words.

Traveling to a war zone, entitles you?

 

[Hafar1014]

There is no US law that allows for the United States Armed Forcess to indiscriminately blow up unidentified people in unidentified boats in international waters.

Your claim is transparently false. Flagrantly false.

Congress never authorized these strikes either. That is another Trumpster lie going around this morning.

Drug dealers transporting drugs are a legitime target

 

[M14 Shooter]

The basic point is this: If a ship is sunk...

The boat had not yet been sunk.

 

[leftwinger]

Read headline only + first lines.

Yawning much? STAIN & cheese blow.

ABC Shatters Democrat “Double-Tap Hoax” — New Report Confirms Narco-Traffickers Climbed Back Onto Vessel to Recover DRUGS, Forcing Second Strike | The Gateway Pundit | by Jim Hᴏft

In a devastating blow to Democrats and the media-manufactured “double-tap war crime” narrative, ABC News has now confirmed what the Pentagon already knew: the two alleged survivors of the cartel-linked cocaine boat were NOT surrendering, shipwrecked victims, they climbed back onto the vessel...

www.thegatewaypundit.com

Its all over Stain. Justification given. We got em' dis time failed again.//

 

[justoffal]

If my memory serves, the idea isn't necessarily fatalities, but instead disruption. Dead, good. Severely injured, good (takes the combatant off the battlefield and costs the enemy money to rehabilitate), damaged or destroyed equipment and materiel, good.

I just don't buy the humanitarian angle from these guys. It rings hollow. Once they find out that the guy who gave the order wasn't even Hegseth ... They will suddenly not give a shit about anything that happens in the Caribbean.

 

[Bitterhook]

Read headline only + first lines.

Yawning much? STAIN & cheese blow.

ABC Shatters Democrat “Double-Tap Hoax” — New Report Confirms Narco-Traffickers Climbed Back Onto Vessel to Recover DRUGS, Forcing Second Strike | The Gateway Pundit | by Jim Hᴏft

In a devastating blow to Democrats and the media-manufactured “double-tap war crime” narrative, ABC News has now confirmed what the Pentagon already knew: the two alleged survivors of the cartel-linked cocaine boat were NOT surrendering, shipwrecked victims, they climbed back onto the vessel...

www.thegatewaypundit.com

The tagline in the video says it all with, "Fishermen' Tried To Save The Coke".
I guess they had been catching those cocaine fish all day.

 

[TimFitz]

They have been declared part of terrorist organizations, same reason we are able to Hellfire ISIS and their friends.

Congress passed laws allowing the Executive to make such declarations, which is all that is needed.

Not so, in either case.

 

[TimFitz]

You cannot refute the truth, so you dodge.
But the truth it remains.

Yes it does. And it’s not on your side.

indiscriminately blowing up boats in open waters and pretending that this is fighting drug smugglers in an imaginary “war” is not legal, moral, and not authorized by anyone other than the clown dictator.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Yes it does. And it’s not on your side.

All you do is lie.

indiscriminately blowing up boats in open waters and pretending that this is fighting drug smugglers in an imaginary “war” is not legal, moral, and not authorized by anyone other than the clown dictator.

See? Lies.
Nothing but lies.
All you do is lie.

 

[meaner gene]

Been making this point since the beginning.

It was illegal to hit the boat the 2nd time because there were survivors from the initial strike?
Abject nonsense.

I'm glad you aren't involved in armed combat.
That means no quarter, no white flags, no surrender.
That all combatants once in the fight, remain in the fight.
In essence,in your view, it's O.K. to shoot prisoners of war.

 

[Concerned American]

indiscriminately blowing up boats in open waters and pretending that this is fighting drug smugglers in an imaginary “war” is not legal, moral, and not authorized by anyone other than the clown dictator.

Indiscriminately? You're deluded. Nothing indiscriminate about it at all. They KNOW that these fast boats are laden with drugs before they leave port. Like most ignorant democrats, you'll grasp at any straw.