5 ms·

Is there any proof that any of the Venezuelan boats were drug dealers? Any proof in court, ideally?

by harrisi 1y ago

enraged_camel 1y ago
There is not.
nailer 1y ago
Submarines generally aren’t fishing.
- nilamo 1y ago
  And we're ok with murdering dozens of people that might maybe have some kind of drugs on them? In peacetime? Without evidence? Outside of our own territory/water? We're lucky Venezuela hasn't attacked us back yet.
  - The_President 1y ago
    Your doubt in US intelligence and military capability shows. Venezuela attacking US assets would result in swift, almost instantaneous elimination of the threat. The speed boats hauling ass in international waters are known smugglers on known routes using customized craft only drug smugglers use. Policy of vaporizing these boats with weapons is both a) fairly effortless target practice for our military and b) puts major financial strain on that drug cartel operation.
    - nilamo 1y ago
      Yes, I doubt. The US intelligence has invented intelligence plenty of times in the past, and I absolutely do not trust that particular shadow branch of ICE. Even if what they say is true, destroying boats with people on them without proof is wild.
      - The_President 1y ago
        The intel is correct, as fentanyl is currently considered an extreme top priority threat to eliminate by the government (due to this being on ongoing operation, information given will be limited.) If this were some false flag or CIA op they'd just stage the boats getting blown up rather than destroy random innocent boaters. There's enough chain of command between the missile and the brass that this action would be executed correctly and with precision.
    - Psillisp 1y ago
      [flagged]
  - lunias 1y ago
    > We're lucky Venezuela hasn't attacked us back yet. Do you actually think this is a possibility? How do you see that playing out?
    - nilamo 1y ago
      "Today's defensive action we have taken demonstrates the first step to discourage these unmarked foreign terrorist attacks against our civilians. It is our duty to protect our people, which we will continue to do against the rising numbers of offensive boats assaulting us." I imagine sooner or later, they will stop our black ops boats from shooting people.
      - ASalazarMX 1y ago
        Dictators, like Maduro (and wannabe dictators), are notoriously coward. They won't risk their life against an enemy that will certainly bomb them from afar, but they would happily risk their whole country if that kept them safe. Hell, even Trump wouldn't be that bold if he didn't know Venezuela has no will, or means, of putting him at risk.
        echoangle 1y ago
        I think you would have said the same thing about Leopoldo Galtieri before the Falkland war.
        ASalazarMX 1y ago
        According to his Wikipedia page, his downfall was the loss of the capital island of the Falkland islands. He was a true military dictator, abuses and all, but he might have understood that losing the Malvinas would be the end of his regime. In that case, going against UK in an unwinnable war was a way to preserve his regime, as long as no bombings were made targeting him, so he could still protect his life. UK is not as ruthless in war as, say, USA or Israel, IMO that was a calculated risk to prolong the end.
  - nailer 1y ago
    > Without evidence? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45693880 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45693880
    - nilamo 1y ago
      True. Sometimes they hunt for the Titanic. Do you also assume all black SUVs with tinted windows are drug smugglers? Because it's the same level of evidence. ie: it isn't.
  - lobsterthief 1y ago
    And even if they were smuggling drugs, what if there were children on board? Do they deserve to die because of the crimes of their parents? What if they kidnapped someone and forced them to pilot the boat? Does that person deserve to die? Imagine the US instead pulling the ship over and shooting every person, regardless of age or guilt, in the head—and then leaving. This is no different.

Is there any proof that any of the Venezuelan boats were drug dealers? Any proof in court, ideally?

enraged_camel 1y ago

There is not.

nailer 1y ago

Submarines generally aren’t fishing.

nilamo 1y ago
And we're ok with murdering dozens of people that might maybe have some kind of drugs on them? In peacetime? Without evidence? Outside of our own territory/water? We're lucky Venezuela hasn't attacked us back yet.
- The_President 1y ago
  Your doubt in US intelligence and military capability shows. Venezuela attacking US assets would result in swift, almost instantaneous elimination of the threat. The speed boats hauling ass in international waters are known smugglers on known routes using customized craft only drug smugglers use. Policy of vaporizing these boats with weapons is both a) fairly effortless target practice for our military and b) puts major financial strain on that drug cartel operation.
  - nilamo 1y ago
    Yes, I doubt. The US intelligence has invented intelligence plenty of times in the past, and I absolutely do not trust that particular shadow branch of ICE. Even if what they say is true, destroying boats with people on them without proof is wild.
    - The_President 1y ago
      The intel is correct, as fentanyl is currently considered an extreme top priority threat to eliminate by the government (due to this being on ongoing operation, information given will be limited.) If this were some false flag or CIA op they'd just stage the boats getting blown up rather than destroy random innocent boaters. There's enough chain of command between the missile and the brass that this action would be executed correctly and with precision.
  - Psillisp 1y ago
    [flagged]
- lunias 1y ago
  > We're lucky Venezuela hasn't attacked us back yet. Do you actually think this is a possibility? How do you see that playing out?
  - nilamo 1y ago
    "Today's defensive action we have taken demonstrates the first step to discourage these unmarked foreign terrorist attacks against our civilians. It is our duty to protect our people, which we will continue to do against the rising numbers of offensive boats assaulting us." I imagine sooner or later, they will stop our black ops boats from shooting people.
    - ASalazarMX 1y ago
      Dictators, like Maduro (and wannabe dictators), are notoriously coward. They won't risk their life against an enemy that will certainly bomb them from afar, but they would happily risk their whole country if that kept them safe. Hell, even Trump wouldn't be that bold if he didn't know Venezuela has no will, or means, of putting him at risk.
      - echoangle 1y ago
        I think you would have said the same thing about Leopoldo Galtieri before the Falkland war.
        ASalazarMX 1y ago
        According to his Wikipedia page, his downfall was the loss of the capital island of the Falkland islands. He was a true military dictator, abuses and all, but he might have understood that losing the Malvinas would be the end of his regime. In that case, going against UK in an unwinnable war was a way to preserve his regime, as long as no bombings were made targeting him, so he could still protect his life. UK is not as ruthless in war as, say, USA or Israel, IMO that was a calculated risk to prolong the end.
- nailer 1y ago
  > Without evidence? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45693880 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45693880
  - nilamo 1y ago
    True. Sometimes they hunt for the Titanic. Do you also assume all black SUVs with tinted windows are drug smugglers? Because it's the same level of evidence. ie: it isn't.
- lobsterthief 1y ago
  And even if they were smuggling drugs, what if there were children on board? Do they deserve to die because of the crimes of their parents? What if they kidnapped someone and forced them to pilot the boat? Does that person deserve to die? Imagine the US instead pulling the ship over and shooting every person, regardless of age or guilt, in the head—and then leaving. This is no different.