8 ms·
How can they do this? Why is the world tolerating it? Would it be as acceptable for China to start doing this?
by AlecSchueler 1y ago
How can they do this? Why is the world tolerating it? Would it be as acceptable for China to start doing this?
- terminalshort 1y agoBecause they are drug traffickers and nobody likes them. The argument against the strikes is based on principle alone, and matters of principle count for nothing in geopolitics. Other countries aren't complaining too loudly because they are happy that the traffickers are getting killed, and even happier that someone else is doing it for them. China does worse things daily and nobody makes much of a fuss.
- cma 1y agoTrump pardoned the operator of the largest opiates by mail operator in world history on his first or second day in office (Ross Ulbricht). I'm pretty sure they're doing this just to start war with Venezuela from some mix of Venezuela nationalizing their oil in the past and wanting to undo that, Venezuela lobby and intersection of with the rightwing Cuban lobby/Rubio's ties to that. Democracy probably as low concern, given our relation with Saudi Arabia and the Emirates. The history of Rubio introducing the Venezuela Temporary Protected Status and Asylum Assistance Act of 2018 in Trump's first term, leading to large parts of the "immigration crisis" under Biden, and then Rubio going along with rescinding the status is pretty crazy. We played a big part in their economic crisis, offered asylum to many people driven to flee not just politically but largely from that crisis, then rescinded status to hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans and began deporting to concentration camps based in some cases on tattoos, now the extrajudicial killings, and it's looking like big potential for a war of aggression.
- terminalshort 1y agoYou aren't getting it. Basically every country on earth hates the cartels and wants them dead. They aren't going to complain when somebody is making that happen, and they don't much care how it's done as long as it isn't happening on their soil. And they care even less that the people doing it aren't saints themselves because nobody is. Nobody is going to stick their neck out for a cartel.
- jonway 1y agoInterdict the vessels! Why resort to madness and slaughter?
- terminalshort 1y agoI can think of few people on earth who deserve madness and slaughter more than the cartels.
- jonway 1y agoWe're powerwalking towards regime change wars over cocaine. It strikes me as completely absurd to employ our significant military power to destroy tiny vessels at sea instead of targeting operations and finances. It seems just as amoral and egregious to make a show of such wanton and asymmetric destruction. I have a number of questions about this like: - Is our military intelligence now being used to conduct international police work and enforce international or domestic law? - Should we expect our police mandate to extend to foreign countries? - Are these military operations undermining existing narcotics operations and international cooperation with DEA? - When these civilians dissolve back into the population, will we chase them there with cruise missiles and drone strikes? - If the cartels load a brick onto FedEx freight, will we destroy the aircraft? Why not just blow it up? - Does it matter who is captaining the vessels, if the cartels (as ruthless as they are, and I am on board with this sentiment 100%) force/threaten/coerce a person to mule for them, how would this victim convert to a valid military target? - This is whataboutism or close enough, but it is more than reasonable: Didn't our previous interventions in these exact regions train thousands of elite paramilitary operators who would later become the very mercenaries and thugs running the show today? (School of the Americas, Los Zetas) - Why does it feel like we are replaying 2 or 3 of our worst policy blunders since the 1980's and/or are we actually just cleaning up the blowback?
- queenkjuul 1y agoReally? I can think of lots
- throwway120385 1y ago
- jcattle 1y ago> The argument against the strikes is based on principle alone So you're alright with the sitting president in the US now being able to kill civil citizens in international waters without declaring a war? Without having to go through congress? Just by saying: "Ah this is a terrorist organization. And these people must be part of that terrorist organization"
- terminalshort 1y agoWhat do you mean "now"? It's been this way since the Patriot Act.
- eru 1y agoSince long before that. The US hasn't declared war in a long time, but they have spied on, tortured, killed, maimed etc foreign civilians all the time.
- tialaramex 1y agoAnd their own. Remember as well as deliberately executing its own citizens abroad the US also still just tortures some of its own citizens to death for ordinary crimes which they may or may not have actually committed. Basically it's a third world country with more extremely wealthy people than you'd otherwise expect, it's eerily like several Arab countries, but with slightly more democracy, at least for now.
- hitarpetar 1y agofully agree with you but this language > basically it's a third world country is imprecise and misleading. torturing your own citizens to death is a first world specialty, see for example the troubles in northern Ireland
- tialaramex 1y agoI was thinking of the extreme poverty and poor working conditions which are widespread in the US, but sure, the history of UK intervention in the Troubles isn't exactly a story of benevolence. No examples of torturing people to death came to mind though, are you thinking of some? The Five Techniques are torture, which is why they were banned before I was born, but the intent wasn't to torture people to death as I understand it - it's like "Enhanced Interrogation" in that you can tell idiots you're doing it to get information even though you're actually just a sadist. Even idiots understand that dead people can't tell you anything.
- wao0uuno 1y agoIt's always the same "but uhhh China is even worse" argument but no proof to back it up. It's also completely invalid to justify an immoral action by comparing it to something even worse: "Yeah we genocided some palestinians but hitler was even worse so it's ok".
- terminalshort 1y agoYes, of course there is no proof. It's all US lies. Stop calling our reeducation centers prisons!
- jjav 1y ago> Because they are drug traffickers and nobody likes them. So far zero proof of that, but plenty of proof that this administration lies about everything. So, the probabilities suggest these are lies too and they're just murdering random fishermen.
- Rover222 1y agoSo you really believe they are just murdering random fisherman for fun?
- dragonwriter 1y ago> So you really believe they are just murdering random fisherman for fun? I believe they are murdering geographically-selected fisherman and painting them as traffickers targeting the US (even though this is implausible for multiple reasons) as propaganda to manifest justifying “escalation” in a war they have been claiming even before they started those publicized murders was being actively fought between Venezuela in the US as a pretext for bypassing due process and moving toward direct executive fiat and militarization of civilian life within the US, starting with the invocation of the Alien Enemies Act on March 15.
- ungreased0675 1y agoFishermen do not use semi-submersibles or speedboats with four outboard engines. Would you agree with that?
- AlecSchueler 1y agoI didn't ask about China doing "worse things daily," I asked about China blowing up vessels in international waters and amassing a naval fleet off the coast of another country. If I understand correctly you are saying the world would be fine with that as long as they claimed the vessels belonged to a drugs cartel?
- terminalshort 1y agoIf you traffic drugs to China the CCP will do things to you that are very much worse than the comparatively humane quick death in an airstrike. > amassing a naval fleet off the coast of another country Surely you are joking about this part, right?
- mcv 1y agoSo would you say it's fine if China claims that some boats in the South China Sea are drug traffickers and blows them up without any evidence? Shouldn't there be some evidence at least that this is the case? Maybe capture the boat and show the drugs, instead of just blowing up any chance of evidence?
- iamnothere 1y ago> So would you say it's fine if China claims that some boats in the South China Sea are drug traffickers and blows them up without any evidence? People making those arguments probably would say it is fine, in the abstract, then when it actually happened they would loudly complain that it was a violation of some treaty or another nation’s sovereignty. Cartels are not some unique exception to the rule of law any more than human traffickers, terrorists, or other bad guys. But the rule of law doesn’t really matter anymore. The legalism of the 20th century is stone dead. In time we will have to relearn the lessons that first brought us there, hopefully without too many needless deaths along the way.
- IncreasePosts 1y agoDivulging your means and methods is a surefire way of getting the cartels to adjust their operating procedure to avoid detection. If they're being watched via satellites, they'll move their ports. If their cell phones have been hacked and are leaking info, they'll start using different devices. If there's a human source giving the info, he'll be hunted down. It's not like this is the first time when the US has withheld evidence for certain actions it took. That doesn't mean the evidence isn't there. This is generally a problem with judging government behavior due to the information asymmetry
- Paradigma11 1y agoExplain to me in what scenario it would make sense to put 7 people on a small speed boat and fill up the rest with drugs to transport them from one Caribbean location to another.
- terminalshort 1y ago1. It's a day that ends in Y 2. You like to make money
- AnimalMuppet 1y agoActual evidence for "fill up the rest with drugs" is missing (or at least not publicly presented).
- parsimo2010 1y agoExplain to me in what scenario innocent people loaded the boats up like the ones shown in the video below just to do what? Dodge tarriffs? A boat like that full of cocaine is worth enough money to be worth the trip. A boat like that full of coffee beans is not worth enough. And that isn't a fishing boat, a tour boat, or any recreational yacht. https://youtu.be/a2CQbRUEeWY?si=pPS_97LqIgCdLWix https://youtu.be/a2CQbRUEeWY?si=pPS_97LqIgCdLWix
- anthk 1y agoEverywhere. Here it's just another day in Spain raiding Morocco drug boats trying to get themselves into Algeciras.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- AlecSchueler 1y agoRaiding drug boats coming into Spain, blowing up alleged drug boats in international waters? Is there any difference?
- inkcapmushroom 1y ago
- mcphage 1y ago> Because they are drug traffickers Are they? How do you know?
- queenkjuul 1y agoWhat's China doing that's worse? What evidence is there that these are actually drug traffickers?
- Rover222 1y agoI mean, China has committed an ACTUAL genocide.
- elzbardico 1y agoThis is neocon propaganda that only simpletons believe.
- soiltype 1y agoAnd yet, the arguments against the narrative of Uighur genocide seem to exclusively be childish insults. Seriously, I see comments just like this all the time when someone mentions Uighur genocide, of which there is some evidence, and never an actual refutation. Are simpletons those who believe evidence might indicate truth, or those who let themselves be browbeaten by tribalism into believing otherwise? I wouldn't even ask if I thought you were just a CCP bot but your post history suggests you're not.
- t-3 1y agoIf the Chinese are committing genocide against the Uighurs, the US is also committing genocide against its black population, which it imprisons and kills at much higher rates. I'm willing to accept that both are committing active genocide but few China-haters seem to be.
- immibis 1y agoYes, it is.
- elzbardico 1y agoNo, the burden of proof is on the proponents of this.
- KaiserPro 1y ago> Because they are drug traffickers and nobody likes them. I mean thats what the US is saying, but proof is elusive. > The argument against the strikes is based on principle alone, No, law, and the US's own rules of engaguement. Fucking about in international waters, and sinking civilian boats with no warning, proof or attempt to detain is going to cause issues when it happens to the USA. > Other countries aren't complaining too loudly because they are happy that the traffickers are getting killed They are not complaining because the USA is run by a capricious child who will cause economic harm if his ego is attacked. > China does worse things daily and nobody makes much of a fuss. You might not be looking at it, but those who live near are making a huge fucking fuss. TLDR: just wait till someone does it to the USA.
- Rover222 1y ago[flagged]
- potato3732842 1y agoSurely all the Venezuelan cops who are getting paid to turn a blind eye like them. IDK how many of those guys there are and how much pull they have with the government....
- mothballed 1y agoThey don't. The people paying them and the schleps on the drug boats are two different people. They're putting their worthless peasants on the boats; Venezuela is chalk full of them so blowing up a few here and there makes no difference in the incoming bribe money nor to the drug trafficking organizations. No one cares that they are dead. Not their employers, not the Venezuelan government, not the police who can now exploit the families of the dead even more, nor the Americans bombing them. They are mere expendable flesh in a game of politics, a token blood offering to the kings and princes of prohibition.
- potato3732842 1y agoMy point is that even if the government would rather not have a drug trade fueled competing government within it's borders (which is what the cartels basically are) there's a whole bunch of people in the pickaxe business that would rather the gold rush remain profitable which potentially constrains the government's ability to solve the problem itself.
- mothballed 1y agoIf I were the police looking to sell the most "pickaxes" I'd be thinking more about how I could take bribes from traffickers and also sell out the traffickers (or just selected patsies with the blessing of the cartels) to the US authorities at the same time. They may be able to sell even more pickaxes than before.
- potato3732842 1y agoNot just the police. They're just providing "pay me to F-off". There's guys building boats, guys driving trucks, etc, etc. It's a part of the overall economy and everyone who gets a cut, and every local government who themselves get a cut has a huge incentive to not kick that industry out.
- rurp 1y agoHow do you know they are drug traffickers? This administration doesn't exactly have a track record of honesty, competence, and acting in good faith.
- lazide 1y agoDoes it actually matter? So far, no one with a government who is both willing and able to make a fuss about it has been involved. This is what realpolitik is.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago> Does it actually matter? Yes. The precedent being established would let e.g. China or Russia pot a yacht on the high seas for reasons which only work under their own laws.
- lazide 1y agoWhat makes you think they wouldn’t already, if they had a reason? [https://cepa.org/article/bombs-on-board-the-strange-streak-of-russian-ship-explosions/ https://cepa.org/article/bombs-on-board-the-strange-streak-o...]
- toomim 1y agoI've spotted a partisan perspective.
- FridayoLeary 1y ago[flagged]
- lingrush4 1y agoYou being unable to trust the government is not evidence of wrongdoing. The military has never had to share its intelligence with civilians and it's not going to start now just to ease your mind. Literally nobody is demanding Ukraine prove its targets are actually part of the Russian military before striking them.
- AngryData 1y agoOh no, the absolutely horrible cocaine which is safer than alcohol. Would you be okay with bombing some guys house that was growing marijuana? Or gunning down people in fancy cars that are suspected to contain drugs?
- naIak 1y ago[flagged]
- justacrow 1y agoWhat is the evidence that these are drug traffickers? Are they convicted anywhere? Should the police in the US be able to execute anyone they claim are trafficking drugs or committing other crimes?
- eru 1y agoNo, no, people in the US are protected by The Constitution. Killing foreigners is fine, though.
- 3D30497420 1y ago..."alleged" drug traffickers. These are summary executions. The US shouldn't be committing summary executions in international waters anymore than they should be doing so on US soil. The reason no other country is doing anything about it is because, well, what would they do? Submit a complaint to the ICC? And for what benefit to themselves?
- queenkjuul 1y agoIt's tolerated because the US is the most powerful country in the world. Lots of things we do wouldn't be accepted from any other country (invading countries unprovoked, funding and arming genocides, staging coups and rigging elections, assassinating foreign leaders, the list goes on and on)
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago> Would it be as acceptable for China to start doing this? Xi’s China has been ramming vessels in the South China Sea for a while now [1]. In 2019, “a Philippine fishing boat anchored in Reed Bank in the South China Sea, sank after it was rammed by a Chinese vessel,” its crew surviving because they were “later rescued by a Vietnamese fishing vessel” [2]. (“In July 2016, the Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague ruled on a claim brought against China by the Philippines under UNCLOS, ruling in favor of the Philippines on almost every count. While China is a signatory to the treaty establishing the tribunal, it refuses to accept the court’s authority” [3].) Russia, meanwhile, conducts extrajudicial atrocities in Africa through Wagner [4]. The simple answer is the great powers are broadly and consistently rejecting the notion of international law. [1] https://www.reuters.com/world/china/philippines-accuses-china-ramming-vessel-near-disputed-island-tensions-soar-2025-10-12/ https://www.reuters.com/world/china/philippines-accuses-chin... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Reed_Bank_incident#:~:text=The%202019,by%20a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Reed_Bank_incident#:~:tex... [3] https://www.cfr.org/global-conflict-tracker/conflict/territorial-disputes-south-china-sea https://www.cfr.org/global-conflict-tracker/conflict/territo... [4] https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/03/28/mali-army-wagner-group-atrocities-against-civilians https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/03/28/mali-army-wagner-group-a...
- AlecSchueler 1y agoEverything you're linking to is being done through proxies and officially denied. A fishing vessel ramming another on alleged behalf of the Chinese government is materially quite different to openly sending drones to blow multiple ships up.
- bragr 1y agoThis was last month: >The Philippine coastguard, in a statement, said a Chinese coastguard ship “fired its water cannon” at the BRP Datu Pagbuaya, a vessel belonging to Manila’s fisheries bureau, at 9:15am (01:15 GMT) on Sunday. >Minutes later, the same vessel “deliberately rammed” the stern of the Philippine fisheries bureau vessel, causing “minor” damage to the boat. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/10/12/philippines-accuses-china-of-ramming-damaging-vessel-in-south-china-sea https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/10/12/philippines-accuse...
- amelius 1y agoPretty sure the world would do little. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-22278037 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-22278037