(12-10-2025 02:35 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(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...

From what I'm seeing, that "quote" seems to be attributed to a Facebook post.

Got a link to an actual source explaining laws on international waters?

How about a link to prove the boat(s) destroyed WERE unflagged?

Meanwhile, here's one interpretation of things...

Quote:Vessels sailing on the high seas are under the jurisdiction of the state whose flag they fly. They may only be inspected if there are well-founded suspicions of piracy, slave trafficking, or if they are stateless. In addition, the use of force is limited by the UN Charter, which allows it solely in self-defense against an armed attack, provided it is immediate, necessary, and proportionate.

In the recent case, no claim of self-defense was made, there was no Security Council resolution, and it was not demonstrated that the boat was pirate or stateless. Therefore, the legality of the action is questionable. The high seas cannot become a lawless zone where each state acts at its own discretion.

From a legal perspective, the destruction of vessels on the high seas without multilateral authorization is not permitted. Customary international law and existing treaties recognize only three exceptions: self-defense, authorization by the UN Security Council, and previously agreed multilateral operations. Even in extreme contexts, such as the fight against piracy in Somalia, specific resolutions were required to allow military action.

Without these conditions, any intervention is considered unilateral and may violate principles such as non-intervention and respect for life. In the recent case, the absence of legal justification makes the act a controversial measure with significant legal implications.

https://latinoamerica21.com/en/the-use-o...caribbean/

Again, all most of us are asking for is that a legal justification be presented to Congress. If this is all so legal, that should be easy to show, right? And asking for that in no way condones any illegal actions including drug trafficking.

Tom, where were you when Obama was drone bombing the crap out of thousands in the ME when they admittedly didn't know all of them, and regularly circled back to kill survivors, including at least one American?

NOW you want chapter and verse for what are obviously drug runners?

(12-10-2025 11:40 AM)TripleA Wrote:  Tom, where were you when Obama was drone bombing the crap out of thousands in the ME when they admittedly didn't know all of them, and regularly circled back to kill survivors, including at least one American?

NOW you want chapter and verse for what are obviously drug runners?

I bet he was nowhere to be found. He's only buttmad because it's Trump giving the orders. If a Democrat was doing this, he'd be turning the other cheek.

TDS is a mother.

If not for double standards, Dems would have no standards at all

Useless garbage wasting oxygen is all the Dems are

(12-10-2025 11:40 AM)TripleA Wrote:  Tom, where were you when Obama was drone bombing the crap out of thousands in the ME when they admittedly didn't know all of them, and regularly circled back to kill survivors, including at least one American?

NOW you want chapter and verse for what are obviously drug runners?

whataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhatabout

Dude, already covered this. Apples and oranges. Move along.

Obama was clearly on a AUMF, even though that authorization was pretty loose and should have been canned long ago, but Bush kept it around and so did Obama. Obama is also on record saying they needed to be more careful on civilian deaths and worked to reduce them. Additionally, those strikes were the subject of widespread scrutiny, including in congressional hearings.

So Commie's okay with Obama targeting Americans but not okay with Trump going after narco-terrorists. I already knew that, but it has to be said again.

TDS is. A. Mother!

(12-10-2025 12:11 PM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  So Commie's okay with Obama targeting Americans but not okay with Trump going after narco-terrorists. I already knew that, but it has to be said again.

TDS is. A. Mother!

They are just people in a tough situation trying to make a living FFS....

If the objection is using a second strike to do the job, easy solution;

Just MOAB the narco-terrorists. Turn em into that flaky sprinkle fish food you used to feed to the FunFair goldfish you won.

Play stupid games and all.

“Innocent fishermen” buzzing along with quad outboards, nary a rod holder in sight, large containers in water proof wrap and headed to known drop off sites.

Even you leftist partisan hacks can’t be this effing stupid. Go have another Marg with the wife beater human trafficker.

FFS. Really?!?

But muh fishermen!

(12-10-2025 12:24 PM)Eldonabe Wrote:  

(12-10-2025 12:11 PM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  So Commie's okay with Obama targeting Americans but not okay with Trump going after narco-terrorists. I already knew that, but it has to be said again.

TDS is. A. Mother!

They are just people in a tough situation trying to make a living FFS....

Actually, some of them may in fact be running drugs against their will. I'll admit that. But the fact remains they're doing it, and there's no excuse for it.

Don't care.

Turn them into an oil slick every time.

Cartels are starting to switch their business model to Europe. Probably a coincidence.

(12-10-2025 01:02 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  Don't care.

Turn them into an oil slick every time.

Cartels are starting to switch their business model to Europe. Probably a coincidence.

Right. That's why I said there's still no excuse for those who are being forced to take part in the drug running against their will because they always have a choice.

Leftists lose all reason when it's anything involving Trump, yet they never turned that same microscope on Obama. It's disingenuous.

I've provided 3 or 4 explanations or justifications now from various sources, and it doesn't matter. Of course, no one is changing their minds here, so it's really for those on the right to see the info.

(12-10-2025 01:12 PM)TripleA Wrote:  Leftists lose all reason when it's anything involving Trump, yet they never turned that same microscope on Obama. It's disingenuous.

I've provided 3 or 4 explanations or justifications now from various sources, and it doesn't matter. Of course, no one is changing their minds here, so it's really for those on the right to see the info.

Your "sources" are not independent bodies with any oversight responsibilities or actual deciders of legality.

Just saw a good interview with Ret. Lt. General Mark Hertling. They used to do these types of interventions with boats in international waters all the time. But instead of just blowing them up, they captured them by using gunners in helicopters. Most all were just drug runners/mules and not actual drug dealers per se. They captured all the drugs and often times got valuable intel.

Sort of curious why that isn't happening now isn't it?

Again, all I ask for is the intel/rationale provided to congress. If that satisfies Rand Paul, that satisfies me. End of story.

Lastly, it's more than comical that you want ME take Obama to task for something that Congress scrutinized, yet you swallow this from trump and drunk Pete with nary a doubt. Talk about disingenuous!

(12-10-2025 01:12 PM)TripleA Wrote:  Leftists lose all reason when it's anything involving Trump, yet they never turned that same microscope on Obama. It's disingenuous.

I've provided 3 or 4 explanations or justifications now from various sources, and it doesn't matter. Of course, no one is changing their minds here, so it's really for those on the right to see the info.

It's pretty much talking in circles. Case in point, Commie's latest post. Just a bunch of "blah blah blah ORANGE MAN BAD! REEEEEE! blah blah blah your sources are bad even though I rely on the Daily Show and Rolling Stone" bullcrap.

(12-10-2025 01:12 PM)TripleA Wrote:  Leftists lose all reason when it's anything involving Trump, yet they never turned that same microscope on Obama. It's disingenuous.

I've provided 3 or 4 explanations or justifications now from various sources, and it doesn't matter. Of course, no one is changing their minds here, so it's really for those on the right to see the info.

To the left, Dear Leaders Obama and Biden are above criticism.

(12-10-2025 11:40 AM)TripleA Wrote:  Tom, where were you when Obama was drone bombing the crap out of thousands in the ME when they admittedly didn't know all of them, and regularly circled back to kill survivors, including at least one American?

NOW you want chapter and verse for what are obviously drug runners?

‘Obviously drug runners’


Care to post substantive proof or evidence?

Or will you simply repeat and bleat conclusory and unsupported comments as above.

I’m impressed how you idiots for 6 years have clamored that conclusory rationales should always be questioned, but now magically slurp down without question stuff like quoted above. Awesome change there. Bravo. <slow clap>. Lolz.

Blah blah blah. Not worth the effort. Leftist.

EDIT: Sen Sheehy of Montana says "Nanny nanny boo boo."

Sheehy says he has seen the evidence, and they are absolutely drug runners.

(12-11-2025 08:24 AM)TripleA Wrote:  Blah blah blah. Not worth the effort. Leftist.

EDIT: Sen Sheehy of Montana says "Nanny nanny boo boo."

Sheehy says he has seen the evidence, and they are absolutely drug runners.

XACLY! ... poor ol' tanq and those 'fishermen' ... we bite different 'bait' ...

(12-11-2025 08:24 AM)TripleA Wrote:  Blah blah blah. Not worth the effort. Leftist.

EDIT: Sen Sheehy of Montana says "Nanny nanny boo boo."

Sheehy says he has seen the evidence, and they are absolutely drug runners.

Schiff said trump colluded with Russia. Therefore......