(12-08-2025 12:10 PM)maximus Wrote:  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

He wouldn't drive five hours from Michigan to Springfield, Ohio, to either prove or disprove the whole Haitians are eating cats and dogs thing last year. He's definitely not going to take you up on this either.

I still don't understand why you guys care what that pos Tom has to say about anything.

(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.

So, not clear nor imminent. Thanks for confirming.

And apples are still not oranges as you continually conflate these actions to global terrorism in the middle east handled under a AUMF from Congress that more than one president used, not just Obama.

Lastly, dumb***, nobody is defending any drug runner. Get a new talking point and drop the logical fallacy. Good grief indeed.

Trump will continue to dispose of drug running gangsters. Period. And it’s all legal.

And you losers will keep wining like the wusses that you are. Hahahaha. And it’s great!!!!

(12-08-2025 12:51 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(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.

So, not clear nor imminent. Thanks for confirming.

And apples are still not oranges as you continually conflate these actions to global terrorism in the middle east handled under a AUMF from Congress that more than one president used, not just Obama.

Lastly, dumb***, nobody is defending any drug runner. Get a new talking point and drop the logical fallacy. Good grief indeed.

It doesn't matter where they're headed, dipstick. Enough of it is coming here. The great majority. You really want to argue that?

And it has been pointed out multiple times that what they are doing is legal.

And yes, if you're not supporting what we're doing, then you sure as hell are defending the drug runners.

(12-08-2025 12:46 PM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  I still don't understand why you guys care what that pos Tom has to say about anything.

I don't generally address him directly, but if he jumps in and responds to something I said, I reserve the right to volley back, thanks.

(12-08-2025 01:53 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(12-08-2025 12:46 PM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  I still don't understand why you guys care what that pos Tom has to say about anything.

I don't generally address him directly, but if he jumps in and responds to something I said, I reserve the right to volley back, thanks.

In my case, I was just responding to maximus' offer to Fat Commie Bastard, reminding him that I told the guy he should go to Springfield, Ohio, and corroborate one way or the other whether or not Haitian immigrants were in fact eating cats and dogs, like Trump said, because he was much closer to it than I was. (Which is true; otherwise, I would've done it myself.) He complained about having to drive five hours just to do so.

(12-08-2025 01:53 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(12-08-2025 12:46 PM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  I still don't understand why you guys care what that pos Tom has to say about anything.

I don't generally address him directly, but if he jumps in and responds to something I said, I reserve the right to volley back, thanks.

I like to try to shovel a hole in a lake, too. Whatever scratches the futility itch.

Just please stop quoting his posts since its derails the ignore function many of us enjoy. He'll know you are responding to him without his quote.

(12-08-2025 02:22 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(12-08-2025 01:53 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(12-08-2025 12:46 PM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  I still don't understand why you guys care what that pos Tom has to say about anything.

I don't generally address him directly, but if he jumps in and responds to something I said, I reserve the right to volley back, thanks.

I like to try to shovel a hole in a lake, too. Whatever scratches the futility itch.

Just please stop quoting his posts since its derails the ignore function many of us enjoy. He'll know you are responding to him without his quote.

I do that most of the time, with Tanq, too. Sometimes I'm just in a hurry and forget. I also know how to type "Tom."

It’s all really simple. Trump solves problem. Libs lose their hive mind.

(12-08-2025 01:51 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(12-08-2025 12:51 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(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.

So, not clear nor imminent. Thanks for confirming.

And apples are still not oranges as you continually conflate these actions to global terrorism in the middle east handled under a AUMF from Congress that more than one president used, not just Obama.

Lastly, dumb***, nobody is defending any drug runner. Get a new talking point and drop the logical fallacy. Good grief indeed.

It doesn't matter where they're headed, dipstick. Enough of it is coming here. The great majority. You really want to argue that?

And it has been pointed out multiple times that what they are doing is legal.

And yes, if you're not supporting what we're doing, then you sure as hell are defending the drug runners.

Guess I missed the part where those guys in the boats were injecting the drugs into Americans.

If you gave a **** about sufferers of substance use disorder you'd be lobbying for cheap/free and accessible treatment of it.

And no, it's not been "pointed out" anywhere to Congress or in any court of law that what they're doing is "legal."

So if they are not injecting the drugs in the victims themselves, we should let them go?

And don't try to deflect to something that wasn't discussed. You do that a lot. What I give a sh!t about has nothing to do with what we are specifically debating.

And nowhere did I say they pointed it out specifically to Congress or a court. But they clearly explained why their JAGs deemed it legal. Go look it up yourself.

(12-08-2025 02:40 PM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  It’s all really simple. Trump solves problem. Libs lose their hive mind.

I'll go one step further. Trump simply does something, and leftists lose their minds.

(12-08-2025 02:40 PM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  It’s all really simple. Trump solves problem. Libs lose their hive mind.

I know you do. It's not your problem. It's the problem of people who don't want to see his silliness. He just wants attention.

(12-08-2025 03:43 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(12-08-2025 02:40 PM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  It’s all really simple. Trump solves problem. Libs lose their hive mind.

I know you do. It's not your problem. It's the problem of people who don't want to see his silliness. He just wants attention.

Exactly

(12-08-2025 03:28 PM)TripleA Wrote:  So if they are not injecting the drugs in the victims themselves, we should let them go?

And don't try to deflect to something that wasn't discussed. You do that a lot. What I give a sh!t about has nothing to do with what we are specifically debating.

And nowhere did I say they pointed it out specifically to Congress or a court. But they clearly explained why their JAGs deemed it legal. Go look it up yourself.

A G A I N with the moronic logical fallacies. Geez, you're incapable of even the slightest critical thinking.

Dude, their JAG's are NOT the final decider of legality.

(12-08-2025 03:43 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(12-08-2025 02:40 PM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  It’s all really simple. Trump solves problem. Libs lose their hive mind.

I know you do. It's not your problem. It's the problem of people who don't want to see his silliness. He just wants attention.

Well, that and special treatment from the mods.

(12-08-2025 04:07 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-08-2025 03:28 PM)TripleA Wrote:  So if they are not injecting the drugs in the victims themselves, we should let them go?

And don't try to deflect to something that wasn't discussed. You do that a lot. What I give a sh!t about has nothing to do with what we are specifically debating.

And nowhere did I say they pointed it out specifically to Congress or a court. But they clearly explained why their JAGs deemed it legal. Go look it up yourself.

A G A I N with the moronic logical fallacies. Geez, you're incapable of even the slightest critical thinking.

Dude, their JAG's are NOT the final decider of legality.

Which logical fallacies? Youve been throwing that out lately, so name them.

(12-08-2025 04:24 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(12-08-2025 04:07 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-08-2025 03:28 PM)TripleA Wrote:  So if they are not injecting the drugs in the victims themselves, we should let them go?

And don't try to deflect to something that wasn't discussed. You do that a lot. What I give a sh!t about has nothing to do with what we are specifically debating.

And nowhere did I say they pointed it out specifically to Congress or a court. But they clearly explained why their JAGs deemed it legal. Go look it up yourself.

A G A I N with the moronic logical fallacies. Geez, you're incapable of even the slightest critical thinking.

Dude, their JAG's are NOT the final decider of legality.

Which logical fallacies? Youve been throwing that out lately, so name them.

Bolded.

And to lard ass,

lol "Innocent fishermen." Right. And I'm a 17-year-old girl named Stephanie. (I'm not, by the way. lol)