UK stops sharing intel with the US while crimes being committed in the Caribean

[Deadstick]

Why intercept them to have them released by the democrats when they are brought into the country. That is tantamount to bringing prisoners of war into the country to stand trial. Take them out. They'll get the message.

Why intercept them? because that is how normal law abiding Countries do things.

 

[westwall]

Why intercept them? because that is how normal law abiding Countries do things.

Oh? The Royal Navy tried to board the Bismarck?

Do tell!

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Oh? Are you a government? No?

Yes, you are indeed ridiculous.

I find it amazing that there are people moronic enough to support narco terrorists.

Are you one of them?

Deadstink is supporting Soros in his plan to wreck the West by continuing the Cold War while letting his own armies slink in under the radar

 

[Concerned American]

Why intercept them? because that is how normal law abiding Countries do things.

Not when you're dealing with terrorist combatants.

 

[multivita-man]

They've been declared terrorists. This was the inevitable response to guerilla warfare--which the cartels most definitely are waging. It is exactly how they should be handled.

No shit. But they're not, which is why the UK and at least one naval commander have said **** this!

 

[Zavulon]

As if Britain doesn't facilitate Ukronazies in commiting warcrimes, and even crimes against their own "NATO partners".

 

[Zavulon]

Not when you're dealing with terrorist combatants.

Did they wear flag of terrorist combatants? No, I believe, they didn't. Those were unarmed civilian ships and they were destroyed in high seas only because somebody decided that it is a good idea.

If you sink someone's unarmed ships, other countries will sink your ships in the high seas, too. And then world's sea trade is damaged.

 

[Zavulon]

Not when you're dealing with terrorist combatants.

No. There are only three possible legal reasons for a military ships in high seas arrest unarmed civilian ships:
1) suspicions about piracy;
2) suspicions about slave trading;
3) suspicions about illegal flag usage.

Drug transportation is not illegal according international sea laws. Otherwise Russia or China could sink American ships with MJ addicted passengers and crews.

 

[Zavulon]

The speed boats are under surveillance. There's no one in Venezuela rich enough to have that type of boat other than a narco terrorist.

Your reasoning doesn't hold water.

Next time Chinese military ship will sink US passenger ship because of their suspicions about Americans transporting MJ and cocaine.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Next time Chinese military ship will sink US passenger ship because of their suspicions about Americans transporting MJ and cocaine.

No, they wont retard that would be a war and yes designating some organization operating an armed attack on the US a terror organization is legit or did you whine when we went after ISIS?

 

[westwall]

Next time Chinese military ship will sink US passenger ship because of their suspicions about Americans transporting MJ and cocaine.

Certainly they can try. It wouldn't end well for their navy though.

 

[Zavulon]

It's generally a violation of international law to kill people who aren't combatants. If they're drug traffickers, then interdict them and prosecute them.

It is definitely a violation of international law to arrest people in high seas on a ship under a neutral flag, except very few reasons - piracy, slave-trading and illegal usage of flag.
If we all agree that transporting of drugs are internationally illegal - then Russia and China will arrest MJ-transporting US ships in high seas, too. Say nothing Arabs, who will start sinking ships with alcohol and pork.

If this is a Venezuelan ship in neutral seas, and there is no war between the USA and Venezuela, US sailors have no legal right to arrest citizens of Venezuela.

 

[Zavulon]

No, they wont retard that would be a war and yes designating some organization operating an armed attack on the US a terror organization is legit or did you whine when we went after ISIS?

There was a UN SC solution and permission to use military force against ISIS. There is no UN SC solutions about declaration of any specific Venezuelan organisation as "terroristic", nor any UN SC declaration about allowing military ships attack unarmed civilian ships (whatever they are transporting). A Chinese military ship sinking a US MJ-transporting ship in high seas would commit an act of aggression against the USA. Same way, US military ship, attacking Venezuelan civilian ship, whatever it is transporting (exept slaves), is committing an act of unprovoked aggression againt Venezuela and, what is much more important - against the freedom of the sea trade.

 

[Deadstick]

Not when you're dealing with terrorist combatants.

But you told us they were drug dealers, make your mind up.

 

[Deadstick]

There was a UN SC solution and permission to use military force against ISIS. There is no UN SC solutions about declaration of any specific Venezuelan organisation as "terroristic", nor any UN SC declaration about allowing military ships attack unarmed civilian ships (whatever they are transporting). A Chinese military ship sinking a US MJ-transporting ship in high seas would commit an act of aggression against the USA. Same way, US military ship, attacking Venezuelan civilian ship, whatever it is transporting (exept slaves), is committing an act of unprovoked aggression againt Venezuela and, what is much more important - against the freedom of the sea trade.

The US criminals don't care about the law but like to lecture everyone else about it.

 

[Zavulon]

The US criminals don't care about the law but like to lecture everyone else about it.

They are not very different from their British colleagues, are they?

 

[Deadstick]

They are not very different from their British colleagues, are they?

No different at all.

 

[Nobody911]

"Dark" justice? It can look that way. When lethal force is used without transparent evidence, legal review, or accountability, it often appears as extrajudicial or “dark” justice — especially to victims’ families, journalists, and human‑rights groups.

Independent investigations, public disclosure of legal justifications, and accountability processes are what distinguish lawful, necessary force from unlawful killings.

Publicly available information shows the U.S. government has not—at least in public—proven that everyone killed in those strikes were drug traffickers.

Why:

• Official U.S. statements often assert targets were "associated with illicit narcotics" or "designated terrorist" groups but provide little publicly releasable evidence (no consistent post‑strike seizure reports, arrests, or court records released).
• Independent reporting and international bodies (including the UN human‑rights office) say many strikes lack transparent, independently verifiable proof linking the killed individuals to trafficking.
• Some strikes have later been corroborated by evidence; others remain unverified or disputed, and in several cases journalists and rights groups report scant or contradictory facts about who was aboard.

Bottom line: The public record does not establish that all people killed were involved in drug trafficking; lack of transparent, case‑by‑case evidence is a key reason for allied concern and calls for investigation.

sources:

1. Exclusive: UK suspends some intelligence sharing with US over boat strike concerns in major break
2. 2025 United States military strikes on alleged drug traffickers - Wikipedia

 

[Zavulon]

"Dark" justice? It can look that way. When lethal force is used without transparent evidence, legal review, or accountability, it often appears as extrajudicial or “dark” justice — especially to victims’ families, journalists, and human‑rights groups.

Independent investigations, public disclosure of legal justifications, and accountability processes are what distinguish lawful, necessary force from unlawful killings.

Publicly available information shows the U.S. government has not—at least in public—proven that everyone killed in those strikes were drug traffickers.

Why:

• Official U.S. statements often assert targets were "associated with illicit narcotics" or "designated terrorist" groups but provide little publicly releasable evidence (no consistent post‑strike seizure reports, arrests, or court records released).
• Independent reporting and international bodies (including the UN human‑rights office) say many strikes lack transparent, independently verifiable proof linking the killed individuals to trafficking.
• Some strikes have later been corroborated by evidence; others remain unverified or disputed, and in several cases journalists and rights groups report scant or contradictory facts about who was aboard.

Bottom line: The public record does not establish that all people killed were involved in drug trafficking; lack of transparent, case‑by‑case evidence is a key reason for allied concern and calls for investigation.

sources:

1. Exclusive: UK suspends some intelligence sharing with US over boat strike concerns in major break
2. 2025 United States military strikes on alleged drug traffickers - Wikipedia

What would you say if, say, Saudi military ship had a US alcohol-traffiking ship arrested in the high seas in the middle of Atlantic and, after a proper investigation, had the whole crew beheaded. Wouldn't you say, that it is an act of unprovoked aggression against the USA?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

There was a UN SC solution and permission to use military force against ISIS. There is no UN SC solutions about declaration of any specific Venezuelan organisation as "terroristic", nor any UN SC declaration about allowing military ships attack unarmed civilian ships (whatever they are transporting). A Chinese military ship sinking a US MJ-transporting ship in high seas would commit an act of aggression against the USA. Same way, US military ship, attacking Venezuelan civilian ship, whatever it is transporting (exept slaves), is committing an act of unprovoked aggression againt Venezuela and, what is much more important - against the freedom of the sea trade.

wrong as usual NO country needs the UN to declare war or designate a group as a terror organization.