- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Bunk, yesterday we took out another boat full of "fishermen"
Posted on 10/22/25 at 6:19 pm to SoFla Tideroller
Posted on 10/22/25 at 6:19 pm to SoFla Tideroller
quote:
Have they been designated a terrorist organization?
What independent evidence is there that any of these boats were run by a particular "terrorist organization."
The designation itself doesn't authorize lethal action. From Chat GPT:
1. What a terror-organization designation actually does
When the U.S. designates a group as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA § 219), several consequences follow:
It becomes a crime to knowingly provide “material support” to that organization.
The group’s assets in U.S. jurisdiction can be frozen.
Members can be denied visas or deported.
?? But the designation does not create a standing authorization for lethal force. It is a law-enforcement and financial-sanctions tool, not a war authorization.
---
?? 2. Legal authority for lethal action
Under U.S. law, lethal force outside of U.S. territory generally requires one of these justifications:
1. Congressional authorization — such as an Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF).
2. Inherent self-defense — if the U.S. or U.S. personnel are under imminent threat of death or serious injury.
3. Consent of the foreign government — for example, joint operations with Mexico under a bilateral agreement.
Without one of those, killing a foreign national in another country (even a cartel member) would violate both U.S. law and international law, including the U.N. Charter and customary law prohibiting the use of force in another state’s territory.
This post was edited on 10/22/25 at 7:13 pm
Posted on 10/22/25 at 6:25 pm to hogcard1964
quote:
What "hasn't worked before"?
Supply side drug/alcohol warfare.
We've paid these countries billions over time to take out the drug fields and here we are, because demand is the driver of the drug trade.
quote:
Between 2002 and 2019, American taxpayers spent at least $9 billion to eliminate or transform the poppy fields that produced almost all of the world’s heroin — but instead ended up tripling that production, quadrupling the acreage covered by the deadly flowers, and intensifying the insurgency that plagued the country.
LINK
Posted on 10/22/25 at 6:29 pm to Bunk Moreland
quote:
This is interesting.
Behind a pay wall. Is Trump claiming that the fact that the executions happen in international waters means that they aren't illegal...but that it would be different if we had to violate the sovereignty of another country?
FWIW, I'm not pro-drugrunners. I'm against using our military to kill people based solely on the Executive Branch deciding that they are guilty of some crime without ANY oversight.
Posted on 10/22/25 at 6:29 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
We've paid these countries billions over time to take out the drug fields and here we are, because demand is the driver of the drug trade.
The demand is created by addicts. In order to create addicts you must first have a supply. Cut off the supply and no new addicts are created. Simple economics baw.
This post was edited on 10/22/25 at 6:31 pm
Posted on 10/22/25 at 6:30 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
Between 2002 and 2019, American taxpayers spent at least $9 billion to eliminate or transform the poppy fields that produced almost all of the world’s heroin
Plot twist: that $9B actually went to NGO’s to fund the democrats
Posted on 10/22/25 at 6:31 pm to Warboo
quote:
The demand is created by addicts. In order to create addicts you must first have a supply.
There will always be a supply because the money is more than enough for people to take risks.
We went from heroin to oxy to fentanyl. End fentanyl today and youll have a new drug tomorrow.
Posted on 10/22/25 at 6:31 pm to Tigergreg
quote:
Is the family promised money?
Family likely is threatened
Posted on 10/22/25 at 6:33 pm to SCLibertarian
quote:
Because this isn't about drugs and overdoses. It's about overthrowing Maduro. If it were about drugs and overdoses, we should be droning half of Mexico right now. Our government is using an issue that nobody can reasonably oppose as a false front to try and overthrow an antagonistic regime.
This! MAYBE overthrowing Maduro would be seen as a good thing by most Americans (I don't think we should meddle...plus it's illegal).
It's the lying about our true reasons for this radical new, illegal policy that's annoying...and disappointing. On the other hand, it proves Trump isn't a king, because the Administration still thinks it has to justify the executions to the American people.
This post was edited on 10/22/25 at 6:59 pm
Posted on 10/22/25 at 6:38 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
There will always be a supply because the money is more than enough for people to take risks. We went from heroin to oxy to fentanyl. End fentanyl today and youll have a new drug tomorrow.
You are right Roger. Let’s do nothing. It is the cheapest way out, right! Macro laws of economics says we cannot do anything about it. So we will do like Oprah, drugs for you, and you,…drugs for everyone!!!
Posted on 10/22/25 at 6:42 pm to Warboo
quote:
You are right Roger. Let’s do nothing
Ive said what I wanted a dozen times, I guess one more cant hurt.
Attack demand, its the only way to "win" the war on drugs.
Posted on 10/22/25 at 6:47 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
Attack demand, its the only way to "win" the war on drugs.
How Roger? Tell me your plan. Also, why not attack the supply also? Tell me why that is bad. Do not throw economic for dummies jargon into this.
Posted on 10/22/25 at 6:48 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Suspicion of a crime? So here's the thing ... one mistake, and the whole plan ends in catastrophe for the DJT admin
Tigah...do you think drug running is just a crime (as I do) or it's an act of war?
With this m.o. (blow the boat to smithereens
...disclose it afterwards), I doubt any mistakes would be discovered.
Posted on 10/22/25 at 6:49 pm to Bunk Moreland
quote:
and SecDef
I may never again support a SecDef.
Posted on 10/22/25 at 6:51 pm to Warboo
quote:
How Roger? Tell me your plan.
The only countries who have made a dent in the drug trade did so by imposing severe penalties for possession and use. Japan, S Korea and Singapore for example.
I would legalize if the govt would stop supporting addicts through non profits and such.
This post was edited on 10/22/25 at 7:00 pm
Posted on 10/22/25 at 6:52 pm to TrueTiger
quote:
I may never again support a SecDef.
Me either! I will support the secretary of war 100% though!!
Posted on 10/22/25 at 6:57 pm to IvoryBillMatt
quote:
I am just speculating that this new policy is centered around dominating northern South America rather than about stopping drugs
Bingo!! You are correct sir!!! I don't always agrwith you, but your 100% correct on this!!! IMHO
Anyone not asking what must be Trumps bigger motivation are simple minded sheep. Fools. Total fools.
Also, take into consideration the 40 billion we're helping Argentina with and the previous attention to the Panama Canal. Biden’s incompetence allowed the Chinese and those Islamic savages to continue strengthening their presence in our hemisphere.
Trump is so far ahead of everyone else, they are stuck on MUH drug smugglers!
The US doesn't deserve such a great leader, but I'm glad we have him!
Posted on 10/22/25 at 6:58 pm to dcbl
quote:
that’s cute; when have we ever tried stopping drug trafficking with force?
All the fricking time
Posted on 10/22/25 at 6:58 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
quote:
How Roger? Tell me your plan.
The only countries who have made a dent in the drug trade did so by imposing severe penalties for possession and use. Japan, S Korea and Singapore for example
Smh.... Roger, just shut up! You make sense only your yourself. At your age, you should have a better ability to see the bigger picture.
Popular
Back to top


1




