@Sidewalker
Yup.
Started by Misterio
Yup.
You have responded to not a single word of any of that, opting to instead vapidly tell me I’m just repeating what I’m told.
I said that the general in charge of the military operations confirmed there was no order to kill the survivors. So, your wet dream of seeing Trump behind bars will never become real.
Trafficking drugs to the US does not meet any reasonable definition of the word terrorist. That’s a heavy label that requires evidentiary support, this administration has yet to offer a drop of it.
Are you a lawyer or something of that sort? I wouldn't dare to analize this from a legal perspective because I'm not a lawyer but from a prosaic point of view I can say that those who help criminals ARE ALSO CRIMINALS.
Trump like all his other policy wants to stop all imports and have the product made in America that includes drugs.
I said that the general in charge of the military operations confirmed there was no order to kill the survivors.
Right, the latest story is that the cocaine floating in the water was the threat they were trying to eliminate, and those pesky survivors tragically got in the way of it.
Ok.
So, your wet dream of seeing Trump behind bars will never become real.
Was never part of this conversation. Stay with me.
from a prosaic point of view I can say that those who help criminals ARE ALSO CRIMINALS.
Correct, and that’s why we have law enforcement agencies… to enforce laws, aka to address criminality. The military exists to protect us from enemy combatants, to which criminality does not cover.
This is really basic stuff.
Correct, and that’s why we have law enforcement agencies… to enforce laws, aka to address criminality. The military exists to protect us from enemy combatants, to which criminality does not cover.
It's the same sht, just replace criminals with terrorists, and police with military, or whatever the US use for that.
The general in charge already explained what happened, but if I were an American, I wouldn't worry about it since the US always do whatever the fk they want. Of course, you only complain when Trump is in the government, but if a Democrat were the president, you'd be full of praise for him.
Was never part of this conversation. Stay with me.
I has a lot to do with the conversation because your hatred against Trump make you biased.
It's the same sht
No, it’s not, but thank you for clarifying the issue. You do not know the difference between the purpose of military vs law enforcement, or between a criminal vs a terrorist. You might want to try Google or ChatGPT. They can help you with that.
The general in charge already explained what happened
Ever since this saga began they have provided multiple evolving and even conflicting accounts of what happened, so I don’t know why you think them providing an explanation means case closed. So far Pete Hegseth has both said he wasn’t in the room, and that he was. He said he left the room after the first strike because the boat was clearly down, and that he witnessed it first hand and those survivors were definitely a threat. They’ve told us the survivors were a threat because they were radioing backup, and also that the strike was purely to finish destroying the drugs. So sorry, no, this isn’t case closed just because NewsMax told you so.
you only complain when Trump is in the government, but if a Democrat were the president, you'd be full of praise for him.
Baseless and therefore meaningless. But you typed words, so congrats.
I has a lot to do with the conversation because your hatred against Trump make you biased.
You haven’t made a single rational argument this entire conversation, all you’ve done is dismissed every argument I’ve made as the product of bias without even an attempt to explain how or why.
You really need to look in the mirror, the projection is astounding.
Smuggling drugs into America when there are no Trump tariffs on drugs puts America at a great disadvantage. Whenever America is in trouble it calls on the military to help. This was no exception.
No, it’s not, but thank you for clarifying the issue. You do not know the difference between the purpose of military vs law enforcement, or between a criminal vs a terrorist. You might want to try Google or ChatGPT. They can help you with that.
So, for you those who help drug traffickers are not drug traffickers but humble poor sailors. Right?
Get out of here, bald man.
Baseless and therefore meaningless. But you typed words, so congrats.
It's not meaningless. You can't call out a known communist to make an informed unbiased report about Cuba, for example.
We can't take your arguments seriously because you already have a bias against Trump. You loathe the orange man.
You haven’t made a single rational argument this entire conversation, all you’ve done is dismissed every argument I’ve made as the product of bias without even an attempt to explain how or why.
Do you think that what you've just typed is true only because you say it?
I repeat once again because you seem to be a bit slow to understand. The Secretary of War didn't order any attack on the survivors, let alone Trump. Does it need to be investigated? Of course, but don't judge beforehand when you don't know all the facts.
Though, what is important to know so far is that Trump didn't order the second attack otherwise that would be used against him by the Democrats.
There were two strikes on the tiny boat. It was not necessary unless it was intended to kill all survivors. And that was the order from Hegseth to kill everyone.
So, for you those who help drug traffickers are not drug traffickers but humble poor sailors. Right?
No genius. what I just explained is that those who help drug traffickers are criminals, and criminals are subject to law enforcement, not a military strike.
Do you understand the difference between how we deal with criminals vs how we deal with enemy combatants? Yes or No?
We can't take your arguments seriously because you already have a bias against Trump. You loathe the orange man.
Arguments have nothing to do with the individual. They’re made up of premises and logic, and from those things two a conclusion is derived. Your inability to see that and instead think the validity of someone’s argument depends on whose fingers are typing them is yet another perfect demonstration of the projection at play here. You can’t assess arguments for their soundness, so you think others cannot either.
Have you never heard of a devils advocate debate? Pretend that’s what this is. Pretend I am a Trump nut licker who is testing you to see if you can refute dumb left wing talking points. Go on, show us what you got.
Do you think that what you've just typed is true only because you say it?
I think it’s true because I have eyes and can read. If what I just said was not true all you have to do is provide one example of a rational refutation you have provided of anything I’ve said. And no, calling me bald man is not a refutation.
I repeat once again because you seem to be a bit slow to understand. The Secretary of War didn't order any attack on the survivors, let alone Trump.
I’m clearly not the slow one here. Let me repeat once again; the criticism isn’t that the secretary of defense ordered the strike, it’s that the administration’s account is not trustworthy due to being a silly explanation in its own, being one of multiple different accounts offered, and coming from the most pathological lying administration we’ve ever seen.
Do you understand the difference between “X didn’t happen” and “X is highly suspicious”?
don't judge beforehand when you don't know all the facts.
Coming from the guy proclaiming to know what happened and pushing back against me for saying we don’t. Wow.
Though, what is important to know so far is that Trump didn't order the second attack
This isn’t what we’re talking about, no one is even accusing him of that. Once again, you cannot stay focused on the conversation because you’re so busy focusing on Trump when no one else is, only to then accuse me of being biased to the point I can’t see straight.
Seriously bro, look in the mirror.
No genius. what I just explained is that those who help drug traffickers are criminals, and criminals are subject to law enforcement, not a military strike.
Do you understand the difference between how we deal with criminals vs how we deal with enemy combatants? Yes or No?
I'm not sure if you are not paying attention or you are simply dodging my arguments in order to "win". I remind you that this is a forum where all the posters put forth their arguments for consideration, though you don't give a sht about our arguments.
I said that Venezuela set up a plan to send drugs to the US in order to undermine their society. I also said that behind this plan is Cuba, a communist country. Furthermore, Russia and Hezbollah (the armed wing of Iran) also participate in these actions to weaken the US. So, it's not about "poor sailors" that are helping drug traffickers, it's a whole international organization that uses, among other things, the drug trafficking as a weapon against the US. This is the main argument that Trump uses to consider those muthafuckers as terrorists.
Have you never heard of a devils advocate debate? Pretend that’s what this is. Pretend I am a Trump nut licker who is testing you to see if you can refute dumb left wing talking points. Go on, show us what you got.
I think I know what your problem is. Look, I'm not here wasting my fkn time just to defeat someone. As I said, this is a forum, and what we do here is to interchange ideas in order to find the truth. I'm not here to win anything, this is not a contest. If you want to test your argumentative abilities why don't you just go to the debate section and stop wasting my precious time?
Let me repeat once again; the criticism isn’t that the secretary of defense ordered the strike, it’s that the administration’s account is not trustworthy due to being a silly explanation in its own, being one of multiple different accounts offered, and coming from the most pathological lying administration we’ve ever seen.
As I said, I'm not a lawyer to make a full analysis of something that I barely understand. HOWEVER, my commonsense tells me that a president of the most powerful nation in the world might have a lot of legal advisers behind that tell him what he can do or not. Maybe you should try first to understand Trump's plan for the US and Latin America, so I suggest you to read a recent document the US government released about this matter.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/2025-National-Security-Strategy.pdf
Trump will keep waging wars until he gets the Nobel Peace prize.
I'm not sure if you are not paying attention or you are simply dodging my arguments in order to "win".
I responded directly to the central question of your OP, you have ignored every substantive point I’ve made since.
Yet another example of your projection.
This is the main argument that Trump uses to consider those muthafuckers as terrorists.
Baseless conspiracy theories are not arguments. Provide evidence to support it, then we can have a rational dialog.
As I said, this is a forum, and what we do here is to interchange ideas in order to find the truth.
The way we go about discovering the truth is to begin with facts and then apply logic to see where those facts lead. The opposite of that, such as hand waiving arguments away on the basis of “you just hate Trump” is all you’ve done in this conversion.
my commonsense tells me that a president of the most powerful nation in the world might have a lot of legal advisers behind that tell him what he can do or not.
So in other words, you have no thoughts of your own and instead just believe whatever the administration tells you, because they “must” have lawyers keeping everything in order.
Never mind that Trump is systemically staffing his administration with sycophants whose only qualification for the job is their willingness to kiss Trump’s ass.
Never mind the pathological lying that comes out of this administration every single day.
Never mind the utter contempt for the rule of law and for checks and balances this president has demonstrated every day in office (not to forget of course January 6th).
Never mind the common sense test that tells anyone with an IQ above room temperature that these strikes are blatantly illegal. No, smuggling drugs does not make you an enemy combatant. You do not need to be a lawyer to know that.
But tell me more about my own bias and how that clouds my ability to see straight here.
It seems that Democrats can't deal with Trump being in charge of the US now.
But let's concur with just one thing, Trump is the result of what Democrats have been doing so far to the US. They have deployed bit by bit the progressivism in the US, the political correcteness, the wokeness, and Americans were just getting fed up with this because they were suffering the consequences and they decided to choose an extreme choice, because you need extreme solutions for extreme problems.
So, to me it's really pathetic that a Democratic affiliate comes here to say that Trump is destroying the US when they were the ones who started to destroy it first.
The democrats did not elect Trump, the Republicans did. Now Trump is asking the republicans to rig the elections.