0-125

(12-05-2025 09:14 AM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  0-125

It's over 200 by now.

0-225

I also want to say this. Had several meetings with ADM Bradley down in Tampa over the past few years when he was the Commander of JSOC. He's now the four star over all of SOCOM. Not only is he a gentlemen, he is an honorable man proven by his three decades of exemplary service as a Navy seal and then up the leadership ranks. Historically very well respected on both sides of the aisle. The hit jobs against him and trying to paint this as something that its not is sadly indicative of just how unhinged the left and it's media enablers have become.

(12-05-2025 09:22 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  The hit jobs against [ADM Bradley] and trying to paint this as something that it’s not is sadly indicative of just how unhinged the left and its media enablers have become.

If the dice had rolled differently, the Trump-haters might’ve praised Bradley as an American hero. But right now, their mission in life is to destroy Trump no matter what, and if Bradley’s reputation gets in the way, they honestly don’t GAF at all.

(12-05-2025 09:22 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  I also want to say this. Had several meetings with ADM Bradley down in Tampa over the past few years when he was the Commander of JSOC. He's now the four star over all of SOCOM. Not only is he a gentlemen, he is an honorable man proven by his three decades of exemplary service as a Navy seal and then up the leadership ranks. Historically very well respected on both sides of the aisle. The hit jobs against him and trying to paint this as something that its not is sadly indicative of just how unhinged the left and it's media enablers have become.

Sane people dont buy the hit job, so there is that

I finally found an actual expert on this subject who just did an interview on the drug boat strikes, in general. I mentioned this guy once before, David Shedd, former Obama Defense Intel Chief.

Concerning the boat strikes in question in this thread, 4 missiles being fired at the same target in a period of 2 hours, he said a few minutes ago that if you look back on history post 2001, and look at the authorization of military force, the AUMF as it's known, applicable to terrorists in terms of their designation, and subject to extremist groups such as AQ and ISIS as targets, and people would be running from the first strike, there would be a second strike or more, as necessary.

Admiral Bradley, who made the call and testified before a House Subcommittee this week, the boat appeared to be potentially functional after the first strike, and those still alive were trying to right the boat and were attempting to contact other people.

So he decided to take the second strike, with real-time legal JAGs (one or more) there advising him in the command center. Shedd said he had no issue with the call, and it was proper that they already have the DOJ's legal opinion as to striking these 20+ boats.

Shedd said, in his opinion, the two survivors were attempting to restore their vessel to continue their trafficking, and it really comes down to if they are designated as terrorists who present a clear and imminent danger to the national security of the United States, so his answer is clearly yes. And that really is the bottom line of dealing with this network of drug traffickers, and that it does fall under the AUMF.

Period, end of story.

(12-04-2025 03:21 PM)Roxie Wrote:  

(12-04-2025 03:16 PM)gdunn Wrote:  

(12-04-2025 03:09 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-04-2025 03:06 PM)gdunn Wrote:  

(12-04-2025 11:03 AM)Roxie Wrote:  They are called narco terrorists to justify murder.

So you're for people bringing drugs into this country.. Cool cool.

False assumption there dunn.

The day you and your ilk stop charactering the right for things, I'll stop. Til then stay in your lane.

*characterizing *till

Banned... I spell that one right, log into your real account and let me know punkin.

(12-05-2025 09:38 AM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  

..

Sent from my SM-S928U using Tapatalk

(12-05-2025 03:34 PM)maximus Wrote:  

(12-05-2025 09:38 AM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  

..

Sent from my SM-S928U using Tapatalk

Have to remember this is coming from the same people that can't define what a woman is, so.............

(12-05-2025 03:09 PM)gdunn Wrote:  

(12-04-2025 03:21 PM)Roxie Wrote:  

(12-04-2025 03:16 PM)gdunn Wrote:  

(12-04-2025 03:09 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-04-2025 03:06 PM)gdunn Wrote:  So you're for people bringing drugs into this country.. Cool cool.

False assumption there dunn.

The day you and your ilk stop charactering the right for things, I'll stop. Til then stay in your lane.

*characterizing *till

Banned... I spell that one right, log into your real account and let me know punkin.

Now that I think about it, I haven't seen the Fat Commie Bastard today either.

(12-05-2025 03:04 PM)TripleA Wrote:  I finally found an actual expert on this subject who just did an interview on the drug boat strikes, in general. I mentioned this guy once before, David Shedd, former Obama Defense Intel Chief.

Concerning the boat strikes in question in this thread, 4 missiles being fired at the same target in a period of 2 hours, he said a few minutes ago that if you look back on history post 2001, and look at the authorization of military force, the AUMF as it's known, applicable to terrorists in terms of their designation, and subject to extremist groups such as AQ and ISIS as targets, and people would be running from the first strike, there would be a second strike or more, as necessary.

Admiral Bradley, who made the call and testified before a House Subcommittee this week, the boat appeared to be potentially functional after the first strike, and those still alive were trying to right the boat and were attempting to contact other people.

So he decided to take the second strike, with real-time legal JAGs (one or more) there advising him in the command center. Shedd said he had no issue with the call, and it was proper that they already have the DOJ's legal opinion as to striking these 20+ boats.

Shedd said, in his opinion, the two survivors were attempting to restore their vessel to continue their trafficking, and it really comes down to if they are designated as terrorists who present a clear and imminent danger to the national security of the United States, so his answer is clearly yes. And that really is the bottom line of dealing with this network of drug traffickers, and that it does fall under the AUMF.

Period, end of story.

Don’t agree with him that the AUMF offers the cover for these strikes just like I don’t the ones in Africa. None of those people have anything to do with 9/11 as outlined in the AUMF. But I also don’t believe it’s necessary either due to the threat posed to the US. So either way, the strikes are legitimate.

(12-05-2025 03:04 PM)TripleA Wrote:  I finally found an actual expert on this subject who just did an interview on the drug boat strikes, in general. I mentioned this guy once before, David Shedd, former Obama Defense Intel Chief.

Concerning the boat strikes in question in this thread, 4 missiles being fired at the same target in a period of 2 hours, he said a few minutes ago that if you look back on history post 2001, and look at the authorization of military force, the AUMF as it's known, applicable to terrorists in terms of their designation, and subject to extremist groups such as AQ and ISIS as targets, and people would be running from the first strike, there would be a second strike or more, as necessary.

Admiral Bradley, who made the call and testified before a House Subcommittee this week, the boat appeared to be potentially functional after the first strike, and those still alive were trying to right the boat and were attempting to contact other people.

So he decided to take the second strike, with real-time legal JAGs (one or more) there advising him in the command center. Shedd said he had no issue with the call, and it was proper that they already have the DOJ's legal opinion as to striking these 20+ boats.

Shedd said, in his opinion, the two survivors were attempting to restore their vessel to continue their trafficking, and it really comes down to if they are designated as terrorists who present a clear and imminent danger to the national security of the United States, so his answer is clearly yes. And that really is the bottom line of dealing with this network of drug traffickers, and that it does fall under the AUMF.

Period, end of story.

How does a small boat, likely 1,500 nautical miles from the USA, that was reportedly going to Suriname, pose a clear and imminent danger to our national security...not to mention the HUGE stretch of equating a drug runner to a "terrorist" sans any actual evidence?

The answer is clearly no.

Period, end of story.

(12-08-2025 10:40 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-05-2025 03:04 PM)TripleA Wrote:  I finally found an actual expert on this subject who just did an interview on the drug boat strikes, in general. I mentioned this guy once before, David Shedd, former Obama Defense Intel Chief.

Concerning the boat strikes in question in this thread, 4 missiles being fired at the same target in a period of 2 hours, he said a few minutes ago that if you look back on history post 2001, and look at the authorization of military force, the AUMF as it's known, applicable to terrorists in terms of their designation, and subject to extremist groups such as AQ and ISIS as targets, and people would be running from the first strike, there would be a second strike or more, as necessary.

Admiral Bradley, who made the call and testified before a House Subcommittee this week, the boat appeared to be potentially functional after the first strike, and those still alive were trying to right the boat and were attempting to contact other people.

So he decided to take the second strike, with real-time legal JAGs (one or more) there advising him in the command center. Shedd said he had no issue with the call, and it was proper that they already have the DOJ's legal opinion as to striking these 20+ boats.

Shedd said, in his opinion, the two survivors were attempting to restore their vessel to continue their trafficking, and it really comes down to if they are designated as terrorists who present a clear and imminent danger to the national security of the United States, so his answer is clearly yes. And that really is the bottom line of dealing with this network of drug traffickers, and that it does fall under the AUMF.

Period, end of story.

How does a small boat, likely 1,500 nautical miles from the USA, that was reportedly going to Suriname, pose a clear and imminent danger to our national security...not to mention the HUGE stretch of equating a drug runner to a "terrorist" sans any actual evidence?

The answer is clearly no.

Period, end of story.

You apparently missed the part where they run a series of ports throughout the Caribbean, and the drugs can go any one of many routes, but the majority goes to the US, not to Suriname, so they are all going to get the same treatment.

Did you forget all the trucks that Obama blew up in the Mideast, and the many times they circled back in for additional strikes, regardless of where the dang terrorists were going?

And if you don't think a drug runner running drugs that kill thousands of Americans yearly is a terrorist, especially since all the cartels have been designated as terrorist orgs, well, I can't help you.

P.S. What in hell are you doing defending drug runners? Good grief.

0-213

(12-08-2025 11:53 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(12-08-2025 10:40 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-05-2025 03:04 PM)TripleA Wrote:  I finally found an actual expert on this subject who just did an interview on the drug boat strikes, in general. I mentioned this guy once before, David Shedd, former Obama Defense Intel Chief.

Concerning the boat strikes in question in this thread, 4 missiles being fired at the same target in a period of 2 hours, he said a few minutes ago that if you look back on history post 2001, and look at the authorization of military force, the AUMF as it's known, applicable to terrorists in terms of their designation, and subject to extremist groups such as AQ and ISIS as targets, and people would be running from the first strike, there would be a second strike or more, as necessary.

Admiral Bradley, who made the call and testified before a House Subcommittee this week, the boat appeared to be potentially functional after the first strike, and those still alive were trying to right the boat and were attempting to contact other people.

So he decided to take the second strike, with real-time legal JAGs (one or more) there advising him in the command center. Shedd said he had no issue with the call, and it was proper that they already have the DOJ's legal opinion as to striking these 20+ boats.

Shedd said, in his opinion, the two survivors were attempting to restore their vessel to continue their trafficking, and it really comes down to if they are designated as terrorists who present a clear and imminent danger to the national security of the United States, so his answer is clearly yes. And that really is the bottom line of dealing with this network of drug traffickers, and that it does fall under the AUMF.

Period, end of story.

How does a small boat, likely 1,500 nautical miles from the USA, that was reportedly going to Suriname, pose a clear and imminent danger to our national security...not to mention the HUGE stretch of equating a drug runner to a "terrorist" sans any actual evidence?

The answer is clearly no.

Period, end of story.

You apparently missed the part where they run a series of ports throughout the Caribbean, and the drugs can go any one of many routes, but the majority goes to the US, not to Suriname, so they are all going to get the same treatment.

Did you forget all the trucks that Obama blew up in the Mideast, and the many times they circled back in for additional strikes, regardless of where the dang terrorists were going?

And if you don't think a drug runner running drugs that kill thousands of Americans yearly is a terrorist, especially since all the cartels have been designated as terrorist orgs, well, I can't help you.

P.S. What in hell are you doing defending drug runners? Good grief.

He's a leftist shill. You know why he's defending them. Of course, I'm not surprised he cars more for drug runners than his fellow Americans. Typical leftist.

(12-08-2025 10:40 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-05-2025 03:04 PM)TripleA Wrote:  I finally found an actual expert on this subject who just did an interview on the drug boat strikes, in general. I mentioned this guy once before, David Shedd, former Obama Defense Intel Chief.

Concerning the boat strikes in question in this thread, 4 missiles being fired at the same target in a period of 2 hours, he said a few minutes ago that if you look back on history post 2001, and look at the authorization of military force, the AUMF as it's known, applicable to terrorists in terms of their designation, and subject to extremist groups such as AQ and ISIS as targets, and people would be running from the first strike, there would be a second strike or more, as necessary.

Admiral Bradley, who made the call and testified before a House Subcommittee this week, the boat appeared to be potentially functional after the first strike, and those still alive were trying to right the boat and were attempting to contact other people.

So he decided to take the second strike, with real-time legal JAGs (one or more) there advising him in the command center. Shedd said he had no issue with the call, and it was proper that they already have the DOJ's legal opinion as to striking these 20+ boats.

Shedd said, in his opinion, the two survivors were attempting to restore their vessel to continue their trafficking, and it really comes down to if they are designated as terrorists who present a clear and imminent danger to the national security of the United States, so his answer is clearly yes. And that really is the bottom line of dealing with this network of drug traffickers, and that it does fall under the AUMF.

Period, end of story.

How does a small boat, likely 1,500 nautical miles from the USA, that was reportedly going to Suriname, pose a clear and imminent danger to our national security...not to mention the HUGE stretch of equating a drug runner to a "terrorist" sans any actual evidence?

The answer is clearly no.

Period, end of story.

Ill pay to fly you to one of those ports, if you can talk your way onto one of those "fishing boats" and prove they are "fishing" instead of transporting drugs, ill pay for an all expense paid trip for a week to anywhere in the Caribbean.

Must video the entire thing.

You in?



Sent from my SM-S928U using Tapatalk