Pete Hegseth lashes out at 'kill them all' report on boat strikes

What would a purpose built open vessel of a design commonly known and encountered as smuggling vessels, with 4 high power outboards, drums of fuel to extend range, bales of some sort in a known drug route evading interdiction at a high rate of speed
be doing?

What left-leaning poster can answer this?

1764621262042.webp


1764621335977-webp.1189530
 

Attachments

  • 1764621335977.webp
    1764621335977.webp
    82.3 KB · Views: 31
Wow. That was sad.

You didn't ask for a legal definition - you asked for -a- definition.
I supplied one. It proved my point.

Try harder.
Considering that we’re taking about LEGAL MATTERS here

Ahhh just STFU
 
What would a purpose built open vessel of a design commonly known and encountered as smuggling vessels, with 4 high power outboards, drums of fuel to extend range, bales of some sort in a known drug route evading interdiction at a high rate of speed
be doing?

What left-leaning poster can answer this?

View attachment 1189529

1764621335977-webp.1189530
No one is disputing f that it was a drug boat jackass.

Also no one has shown any evidence that it was carrying fentanyl (which was the initial justification for this mess).

Now go babble somewhere else
 
Oh, and you did not at all address this:

-You- argue the responsibility for rescuing survivors exists -during- the engagement, that to wait until the engagement is over violates the law -- that you have to take the crew off before you can follow up on a burning and un-moving target

Show the words.
Commanders and their subordinates shall take all feasible measures to protect persons in peril at sea, including survivors of damaged or disabled vessels.
This directly addresses it. Just because you don't acknowledge it doesn't mean it isn't addressed. By your own acknowledgement an claim by the way you still haven't supported the boat was "crippled and on fire" meaning that it was at least damaged and probably disabled making it NOT a valid target.
 
If the video ends up showing that there was a second dronestrike on swimmers after the boat was completely under water, I would object to that.

Those gaddam drones cost a buttload of money!

Drop some chum in the water and let nature take its course.
This was an extreme action , going against everything the military stands for. It most likely was a sad attempt to cover up a very bad mistake. Wake up already !
 
No one is disputing f that it was a drug boat jackass.

Also no one has shown any evidence that it was carrying fentanyl (which was the initial justification for this mess).

Now go babble somewhere else
So what other drugs are acceptable to smuggle into the US in your sage estimation?
 
This was an extreme action , going against everything the military stands for. It most likely was a sad attempt to cover up a very bad mistake. Wake up already !
It was a strike against a hostile foreign force speeding toward our shore.

What's to cover up?
 
15th post
Wow. That was sad.

You didn't ask for a legal definition - you asked for -a- definition.
I supplied one. It proved my point.

Try harder.
When you're contesting the definition that is used by the Geneva Convention by going to one that Wikipedia provides the only thing you're doing is that you are not doing a legal analysis but what I call turd polishing. Doesn't matter if you're providing a good argument ANY argument will do.

A guardhouse lawyer, and not a particularly good one.
 
The Venezualan Coast Guard needs to escort their drug vessels, if they want their mules rescued after being blasted.
 
So Pete throws the Admiral under the bus?

These troops better watch their asses
The admiral that was in charge? That seems far more likely than Sec of War doing it. Try thinking, or at least in your case, pretend to.
 
Everything here is speculation.
Someone gave the order.

That's not speculation.

Leavitt won't deny Hegseth gave the order and said he authorized the attacks.

Hmm, wonder who gave the order?

No I don't.
 
Back
Top Bottom