- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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: Bunky's mostly peaceful fishermen
Posted on 12/10/25 at 8:11 am to cajunangelle
Posted on 12/10/25 at 8:11 am to cajunangelle
Not gonna lie I do kinda want one of those boats 
0
Posted on 12/10/25 at 8:18 am to SDVTiger
quote:
They are drug dealers.
We need an explanation of why you clowns are defending them.
This is like lefties with troons
Right...and the J6 protestors were "insurrectionists." Bite me, you pea-brained moron.
I'm not defending drug runners ferrying drugs to Trinidad and Tobago. Our government is constrained by laws...it's not designed to run on a "trust me" basis irrespective of how much we like and trust a particular president.
Posted on 12/10/25 at 8:20 am to IvoryBillMatt
quote:
Right...and the J6 protestors were "insurrectionists." Bite me, you pea-brained moron.
What a terrible comparison and a nice melt in one
quote:
I'm not defending drug runners f
Its exactly what you are doing. Everyone is calling you out on it
Posted on 12/10/25 at 8:23 am to cajunangelle
Posted on 12/10/25 at 8:29 am to Bamadiver
quote:
Under UNCLOS such a vessel may be stopped, boarded, searched and seized.
Yes
quote:
They may also be fired upon.
Lethal force can only be used in actual self defense consistent with the UN Charter. The interdiction of these boats is a law enforcement matter, not a military one. Of course the military can assist law enforcement to interdict drug boats but blowing them out of the water without any military hostility is unlawful.
Posted on 12/10/25 at 8:31 am to IvoryBillMatt
Both are UN-based so sanctions would follow from the member states. Section 7, articles 223-233 cover this. Under UNCLOS the boarding nation is not required to risk their own assets to do so meaning that use of force can extend to not only the vessel but also its occupants and contents. War crimes only occur within the context of International Humanitarian Law. Enforcing maritime action against a stateless vessel is a law enforcement action, not an armed conflict.
Posted on 12/10/25 at 8:35 am to Decatur
quote:Yes and no. Outright sinking is not allowed under UNCLOS, however UNCLOSS grants proportionality in response. If the vessel flees, attacks or refuses lawful commands, sinking is permissable. This happens around the world, it just doesn't show up on the news.
Lethal force can only be used in actual self defense consistent with the UN Charter. The interdiction of these boats is a law enforcement matter, not a military one. Of course the military can assist law enforcement to interdict drug boats but blowing them out of the water without any military hostility is unlawful.
Edit: Fixed last sentence.
This post was edited on 12/10/25 at 8:37 am
Posted on 12/10/25 at 8:39 am to Bamadiver
quote:
Outright sinking is not allowed under UNCLOS,
We agree.
Posted on 12/10/25 at 8:40 am to SDVTiger
quote:
Its exactly what you are doing. Everyone is calling you out on it
I'm asking, if this is a war, why aren't we prosecuting it like one? How is that a defense of drug dealers?
Just publish the legal memo.
Posted on 12/10/25 at 8:44 am to Bamadiver
quote:
Enforcing maritime action against a stateless vessel is a law enforcement action, not an armed conflict.
Thanks so much Diver. That's really all my questioning was trying to determine.
Is this a criminal matter or are we "at war"?
Posted on 12/10/25 at 8:49 am to ronricks
quote:
Say Trump ordered all those docked 'fishing' boats destroyed. Who exactly is going to declare 'war' on the United States? What nation(s) are going to to form as allies and attempt to either invade or wage war against the United States?
Didn’t say that would happen. I correctly stated what it would be and why we don’t.
If you do something like that, you better have your ducks in a row ahead of time to know you won’t face any kind of sanctions from other nations from which it would matter.
Posted on 12/10/25 at 8:51 am to Bamadiver
quote:
Because when they are in international waters NOT flying a national flag, under UNCLOS (rule they have no soverign protection. Under UNCLOS such a vessel may be stopped, boarded, searched and seized. They may also be fired upon. Sinking a stateless vessel is not prohibited. IMO's (International Maritime Organization) use of force guidance for maritime interdiction allows for lethal force and that authorization is specific to narcotics trafficking, piracy and other illegal activities.
That’s the difference in a nutshell.
Posted on 12/10/25 at 8:54 am to IvoryBillMatt
quote:
We weren't at war with Syria, Iran, Libya, etc. when we entered their airspace to take out targets which we considered a threat.
Take that up with Bush, Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Biden.
If as much attention was paid to “We came, we saw, he died. *cackle cackle cackle*”
Posted on 12/10/25 at 8:54 am to IvoryBillMatt
Did you just suggest we blow the ship up in port near hundreds of other ships and crew as opposed to the middle of the ocean around no one?
Posted on 12/10/25 at 8:54 am to cajunangelle
Has anybody identified this port based on the mountains in the background? Is that the Pacific and not Venezuela?
Posted on 12/10/25 at 8:57 am to IvoryBillMatt
Did you just double down on stupid and ask for collateral damage like the Houthi leaders who weren’t on a boat in the middle of the ocean? Lol awesome
Posted on 12/10/25 at 8:58 am to IvoryBillMatt
quote:
I'm asking, if this is a war, why aren't we prosecuting it like one? How is that a defense of drug dealers?
You have yet to define the opposition in this current “war”.
As opposed to your analogy of destroying the boats in port in sovereign territory.
Posted on 12/10/25 at 9:02 am to Rip Torn
quote:
Did you just suggest we blow the ship up in port near hundreds of other ships and crew as opposed to the middle of the ocean around no one?
Yes. If we are at war, why not take out several boats of the enemy and cripple it's distribution operation.
If we are fighting a crime, then we cannot do that.
So, which is it? Are we at war or are we stopping crimes? Just release the memo.
Posted on 12/10/25 at 9:04 am to IvoryBillMatt
quote:
I'm asking, if this is a war, why aren't we prosecuting it like one?
We are blwoing them up safely. Imagine your tears if we blew them up at the docks
quote:
How is that a defense of drug dealers?
You keep claiming we are executing innocent ppl. You are mentally ill
quote:
Just publish the legal memo.
What memo are you babbling about. Even if its released you will cry
Posted on 12/10/25 at 9:05 am to IvoryBillMatt
Your argument is nonsensical and the problem with you people is your obsession over the process not the results. You are essentially arguing that you would rather have collateral damage and innocent lives lost over a legal memo. You possess zero pragmatic thinking skills but you have that in common with SFP. This country is full of useless lawyers and politicians
Page 3 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News