4 ms·

> Brown people hold up, I'm a "brown person." Those people were trafficking drugs (as evidenced by the pallets of cocaine that fell out of their absurdly over

by xvector 9mo ago

> Brown people hold up, I'm a "brown person." Those people were trafficking drugs (as evidenced by the pallets of cocaine that fell out of their absurdly overpowered "fishing boat.") I don't really care about extrajudicial killings of drug traffickers, as someone that has been impacted by them.

rayiner 9mo ago
[flagged]
- hypeatei 9mo ago
  1) there's no evidence that they were trafficking drugs, and especially fentanyl (which the orange is on a crusade about) 2) if that's true, how do you feel about him pardoning one of the biggest drug traffickers ever[0]? 0: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/29/nyregion/honduras-hernandez-drug-trafficking.html https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/29/nyregion/honduras-hernand...
  - rayiner 9mo ago
    What does “there is no evidence” mean in this context? Does the government typically provide public “evidence” to support military actions?
    - hypeatei 9mo ago
      No evidence, as in, it was just Hegseth saying they were "narco terrorists" and using that as justification for military force. Whether or not it's typical for the government to provide it, I don't know, but the public certainly demands it because killing foreign nationals in fishing boats doesn't pass the smell test. If they were confident about their "narco terrorist" statement, why not arrest them and put it on trial? We're obviously very capable at stopping boats because we seized an oil tanker recently. Also, you didn't acknowledge the pardon.
      - rayiner 9mo ago
        > No evidence, as in, it was just Hegseth saying they were "narco terrorists" and using that as justification for military force Isn’t that the way it always is? Was there a PowerPoint presentation citing evidence every time Bush and Obama blew up a wedding in Afghanistan?
        hypeatei 9mo ago
        > Was there a PowerPoint presentation citing evidence every time Bush and Obama blew up a wedding Does it matter? I personally didn't support those actions and would condemn them just as harshly as these ones. You're doing the "But what about Obama?!" meme. A large part of Trump's 2024 campaign was about "peace" which turned out to be a complete lie. Will you admit that Trump lied or are you going to deflect to Obama again? You again failed to acknowledge the pardon of a drug trafficker, btw.
        xvector 9mo ago
        Saying the government shouldn't carry out extrajudicial executions of terrorists without providing a trial in domestic court is just very sheltered/naive. It's simply not what the real world demands.
        hypeatei 9mo ago
        Killing fisherman as a pretext to regime change is not what the "real world demands", but okay at least you're admitting it was all a lie. EDIT: the drugs narrative was a lie too. Trump just admitted that it was about extracting oil in his speech. Now we're running the country until him and his buddies can strike a d—sorry, figure out a "transition" plan.
        rayiner 9mo ago
        > You're doing the "But what about Obama?!" I’m not. My point is that the ordinary rule accepted by most people, especially the mass media, is that the government doesn’t provide public evidence for military actions. So when the New York Times complains that “there is no evidence” here it seems like special pleading.
andrepd 9mo ago
5000 years of civilisation and a sizeable chunk of the population of first-world countries still doesn't understand why law and courts are better than "just kill people who are le bad". Let's not even talk about the killing of shipwrecked people who are hors de combat according to the Geneva Convention. Even the Nazis during unrestricted submarine warfare had the decency of not murdering shipwrecked crews and passengers. We are truly in a wretched time when nothing matters anymore.
munksbeer 9mo ago
Out of all the many years of fighting a war on drugs, what difference is this going to make? Some lackeys (forced potentially) get blown up, the barons find some more, or use different methods, and 40 years later we're still fighting the war on drugs. People love drugs. They really want to get hold of them. Someone is going to keep supplying drugs, no matter how many lackeys you blow up.
dstroot 9mo ago
It’s ~1,000 miles from the US to Venezuela. Have you ever been on a fishing boat? Especially an “overpowered” one? Guess how much fuel they burn? It’s very unlikely a boat has enough fuel to make it to the US, and if it did it would need fuel to get back. Where are they getting the fuel for these drug runs?
- xvector 9mo ago
  You can read about the logistics from countless sources. For most boats, it's not a straight shot to the US, they often refuel from boats at sea or utilize refueling points in Central America; or perform a handoff in Puerto Rico or the Dominican Republic. They don't "need the fuel to get back," the boats are scuttled on arrival. The value of the boats and fuel is a rounding error compared to the value of the drugs.

by xvector 9mo ago

rayiner 9mo ago

[flagged]

hypeatei 9mo ago
1) there's no evidence that they were trafficking drugs, and especially fentanyl (which the orange is on a crusade about) 2) if that's true, how do you feel about him pardoning one of the biggest drug traffickers ever[0]? 0: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/29/nyregion/honduras-hernandez-drug-trafficking.html https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/29/nyregion/honduras-hernand...
- rayiner 9mo ago
  What does “there is no evidence” mean in this context? Does the government typically provide public “evidence” to support military actions?
  - hypeatei 9mo ago
    No evidence, as in, it was just Hegseth saying they were "narco terrorists" and using that as justification for military force. Whether or not it's typical for the government to provide it, I don't know, but the public certainly demands it because killing foreign nationals in fishing boats doesn't pass the smell test. If they were confident about their "narco terrorist" statement, why not arrest them and put it on trial? We're obviously very capable at stopping boats because we seized an oil tanker recently. Also, you didn't acknowledge the pardon.
    - rayiner 9mo ago
      > No evidence, as in, it was just Hegseth saying they were "narco terrorists" and using that as justification for military force Isn’t that the way it always is? Was there a PowerPoint presentation citing evidence every time Bush and Obama blew up a wedding in Afghanistan?
      - hypeatei 9mo ago
        > Was there a PowerPoint presentation citing evidence every time Bush and Obama blew up a wedding Does it matter? I personally didn't support those actions and would condemn them just as harshly as these ones. You're doing the "But what about Obama?!" meme. A large part of Trump's 2024 campaign was about "peace" which turned out to be a complete lie. Will you admit that Trump lied or are you going to deflect to Obama again? You again failed to acknowledge the pardon of a drug trafficker, btw.
        xvector 9mo ago
        Saying the government shouldn't carry out extrajudicial executions of terrorists without providing a trial in domestic court is just very sheltered/naive. It's simply not what the real world demands.
        hypeatei 9mo ago
        Killing fisherman as a pretext to regime change is not what the "real world demands", but okay at least you're admitting it was all a lie. EDIT: the drugs narrative was a lie too. Trump just admitted that it was about extracting oil in his speech. Now we're running the country until him and his buddies can strike a d—sorry, figure out a "transition" plan.
        rayiner 9mo ago
        > You're doing the "But what about Obama?!" I’m not. My point is that the ordinary rule accepted by most people, especially the mass media, is that the government doesn’t provide public evidence for military actions. So when the New York Times complains that “there is no evidence” here it seems like special pleading.

andrepd 9mo ago

5000 years of civilisation and a sizeable chunk of the population of first-world countries still doesn't understand why law and courts are better than "just kill people who are le bad". Let's not even talk about the killing of shipwrecked people who are hors de combat according to the Geneva Convention. Even the Nazis during unrestricted submarine warfare had the decency of not murdering shipwrecked crews and passengers. We are truly in a wretched time when nothing matters anymore.

munksbeer 9mo ago

Out of all the many years of fighting a war on drugs, what difference is this going to make? Some lackeys (forced potentially) get blown up, the barons find some more, or use different methods, and 40 years later we're still fighting the war on drugs. People love drugs. They really want to get hold of them. Someone is going to keep supplying drugs, no matter how many lackeys you blow up.

dstroot 9mo ago

It’s ~1,000 miles from the US to Venezuela. Have you ever been on a fishing boat? Especially an “overpowered” one? Guess how much fuel they burn? It’s very unlikely a boat has enough fuel to make it to the US, and if it did it would need fuel to get back. Where are they getting the fuel for these drug runs?

xvector 9mo ago
You can read about the logistics from countless sources. For most boats, it's not a straight shot to the US, they often refuel from boats at sea or utilize refueling points in Central America; or perform a handoff in Puerto Rico or the Dominican Republic. They don't "need the fuel to get back," the boats are scuttled on arrival. The value of the boats and fuel is a rounding error compared to the value of the drugs.