(12-08-2025 05:22 PM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  lol "Innocent fishermen." Right. And I'm a 17-year-old girl named Stephanie. (I'm not, by the way. lol)

My last girlfriend was named Stephanie. *wink* *wink*

(12-08-2025 05:24 PM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  

(12-08-2025 05:22 PM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  lol "Innocent fishermen." Right. And I'm a 17-year-old girl named Stephanie. (I'm not, by the way. lol)

My last girlfriend was named Stephanie. *wink* *wink*

Hey Tom. YOU are the one who brought up the injecting drugs bit, not me.

I said this:

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

Your reply:

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

That was your defense as to why we shouldn't attack them. Damn, you're as dishonest as Tanq.

(12-04-2025 04:25 PM)Roxie Wrote:  

(12-04-2025 04:07 PM)TripleA Wrote:  Also, David Shedd, a former Obama defense official, said yesterday, per WaPo, that they did double taps on drone strikes "all the time."

So...just one more thing in a long line where Obama did it without comment from the peanut gallery, but let Trump do it, and they raise holy hell.

So you agree it's wrong. Good job.

FIFY, some grammar Nazi you turned out to be.

This thread lasted a lot longer than I thought it would. I can't wait to read the rest.

(12-04-2025 05:00 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  

(12-04-2025 04:14 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-04-2025 04:07 PM)TripleA Wrote:  Also, David Shedd, a former Obama defense official, said yesterday, per WaPo, that they did double taps on drone strikes "all the time."

So...just one more thing in a long line where Obama did it without comment from the peanut gallery, but let Trump do it, and they raise holy hell.

To be honest, I see you are now making the issue 'double taps'. That isnt the issue. Maybe try the Geneva Convention provisions for the proper standard. Or just mindlessly translate that to something else.

Or just use your new definition as another WHADABOUT. Cool cool.

The Geneva Convention does not apply for this situation. I could be wrong but look it up.

Did we declare war on someone?

(12-04-2025 05:17 PM)maximus Wrote:  

(12-04-2025 03:41 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  I believe Roxie is Mensa

Funny I just posted about that being a sock account.

Its obvious, look at the date it was created. Just prior to the election because they knew they'd just troll around after the curbstomping


Sent from my SM-S928U using Tapatalk

Is that from your phone?

(12-04-2025 05:49 PM)maximus Wrote:  Bwhahahaha

Sent from my SM-S928U using Tapatalk

(12-05-2025 08:16 AM)VA49er Wrote:  Do as many strikes as it takes, imo.

And one more for good measure for all I care. The day I care about some foreign POS trying to run drugs for China to the mainland is the day I quit breathing.

Screw you, you want to stay alive? Don't get in boats laden with drugs that can kill us and try to deliver them. Screw you.

(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.

BOH, I know what that one means.

(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.

Haven't you, haven't any of you, learned by now that commietommie will land on the wrong side of every single issue he chimes in on (thinking that we care what he thinks)?

Of course he will. It deserves calling out now and then.

Meanwhile...

Quote:Stateless (unflagged) vessels in international waters can face force, including disabling fire, as they lack national protections and are treated similarly to pirates, allowing states broad jurisdiction for law enforcement against illicit activities like drug trafficking...

(12-09-2025 12:18 AM)TripleA Wrote:  Of course he will. It deserves calling out now and then.

Meanwhile...

Quote:Stateless (unflagged) vessels in international waters can face force, including disabling fire, as they lack national protections and are treated similarly to pirates, allowing states broad jurisdiction for law enforcement against illicit activities like drug trafficking...

I am waiting with bated breath for the loons to respond to that nugget.

(12-08-2025 10:39 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(12-05-2025 08:16 AM)VA49er Wrote:  Do as many strikes as it takes, imo.

And one more for good measure for all I care. The day I care about some foreign POS trying to run drugs for China to the mainland is the day I quit breathing.

Screw you, you want to stay alive? Don't get in boats laden with drugs that can kill us and try to deliver them. Screw you.

This all day.... +3

(12-08-2025 05:22 PM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  lol "Innocent fishermen." Right. And I'm a 17-year-old girl named Stephanie. (I'm not, by the way. lol)

You have to remember these are the same people that can't define what a woman is. It's a bit of a stretch to think they have the mental capacity to discern between a drug smuggler and and "innocent fishermen."

(12-09-2025 08:19 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(12-09-2025 12:18 AM)TripleA Wrote:  Of course he will. It deserves calling out now and then.

Meanwhile...

Quote:Stateless (unflagged) vessels in international waters can face force, including disabling fire, as they lack national protections and are treated similarly to pirates, allowing states broad jurisdiction for law enforcement against illicit activities like drug trafficking...

I am waiting with bated breath for the loons to respond to that nugget.

but Tanq was so sure........

(12-09-2025 12:18 AM)TripleA Wrote:  Of course he will. It deserves calling out now and then.

Meanwhile...

Quote:Stateless (unflagged) vessels in international waters can face force, including disabling fire, as they lack national protections and are treated similarly to pirates, allowing states broad jurisdiction for law enforcement against illicit activities like drug trafficking...

Maybe CommieTom is really Walz in disguise...and thus a retard

(12-09-2025 10:26 AM)olliebaba Wrote:  

(12-09-2025 12:18 AM)TripleA Wrote:  Of course he will. It deserves calling out now and then.

Meanwhile...

Quote:Stateless (unflagged) vessels in international waters can face force, including disabling fire, as they lack national protections and are treated similarly to pirates, allowing states broad jurisdiction for law enforcement against illicit activities like drug trafficking...

Maybe CommieTom is really Walz in disguise...and thus a retard

To be fair - he doesn't have to be Waltz to be retarded.... Tommibois was posting retarded long before any discussion of Waltz ever started here.

(12-09-2025 10:26 AM)olliebaba Wrote:  

(12-09-2025 12:18 AM)TripleA Wrote:  Of course he will. It deserves calling out now and then.

Meanwhile...

Quote:Stateless (unflagged) vessels in international waters can face force, including disabling fire, as they lack national protections and are treated similarly to pirates, allowing states broad jurisdiction for law enforcement against illicit activities like drug trafficking...

Maybe CommieTom is really Walz in disguise...and thus a retard

Even Walz is not THAT stupid.

(12-09-2025 08:19 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(12-09-2025 12:18 AM)TripleA Wrote:  Of course he will. It deserves calling out now and then.

Meanwhile...

Quote:Stateless (unflagged) vessels in international waters can face force, including disabling fire, as they lack national protections and are treated similarly to pirates, allowing states broad jurisdiction for law enforcement against illicit activities like drug trafficking...

I am waiting with bated breath for the loons to respond to that nugget.

Still waiting almost 2 days later...