Drug boat
Yesterday President Trump intensified his war on drugs by destroying a boat carrying drugs out of the rogue state of Venezuela. The US Navy has also deployed a few warships to the region. One of the first things that the Trump administration did was to classify drug cartels as "Terrorist groups." \
The President indicated that the fast boat was operated by 11 Tren de Aragua narco-terrorists. Drug cartels in the region have been linked to the Maduro regime:
Maduro has been a thorn in the side of the US and a threat to other nations in the region.
This marks the first time the US has launched a strike against the cartels.
https://youtu.be/BcBThqotzCY?list=RDNSFh-vTrYoO2c
You need to cite in the main body of the article where your quote came from. It is not enough to put it in the quotation area. You need to use the Seed URL area too, or put it as the first line of the article. [ph]
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Who is online
88 visitors
"MEXICO CITY (Reuters) -U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio will meet with Mexican leaders on Wednesday during his first trip to the country since taking office, as the Trump administration pursues a sweeping crackdown on illegal immigration and drug cartels and seeks to counter China's influence in Latin America."
US Secretary Rubio visits Mexico amid crackdown on cartels
The drug boat
soon will be making another run
The drug boat
Promises Yayo for everyone …
What happened to comments/thread #2?
I thought it might be over the top.
2 accomplishments.
And yet another leftist judge ruled that fellow gang members cannot be deported to Venezuela.
I would really, truly like to know the motivation behind most on the left wanting criminals and illegals (the same) stay in this country.
I would advise Trump to say he has a change of mind and wants to keep illegals and criminals (the same) in the country so maybe they will vote for Republican for letting them stay.
Guaranteed those same leftists would demand their deportation IMMEDIATELY.
So send them to N. Korea or China. It's not like this clown judge has jurisdiction.
Stupidity.
Deport them to LA or San Francisco.
Send them to the Ukrainian front.
And count it as US support to Ukraine.
No. Keep sending them to Bikini Bottom.
Hope that the intel was good.
For those of us that have conducted drug ops in the Navy in the Caribbean, that boat is known as a "go fast", a typical boat used by drug runners to get drugs quickly across the sea to drop off points.
The intel was right on.
Used to chase those bad boys in the southern Florida area in the CG's little "Fast Boat" the Scarab.
Because we would never bomb anyone based on faulty intel.
Can you show any evidence that go fasts are used for anything else other than drug running.
I can tell you from experience that every go fast we came across during my time with drug interdictions, not one was doing something other than drug running.
It is a well know precedent to those of us that have lived through it, not so much for those armchair lawyers that have no clue.
You forgot the "\s" mark.
How many of those CG 'fast boats' do we have in service? From what I read, we have three Navy destroyers down there and I saw a story yesterday about a Navy missile cruiser heading thru the Panama Canal but I haven't seen any additional info on where it went after leaving the Canal zone. I believe the top speed for a US Navy destroyer is around 35mph which isn't fast enough to catch a 'go fast' boat.
So unless the boat stops itself, how is the Navy supposed to get the boat to stop? Somehow I don't think saying 'pretty please' is going to get much results.
Yeah, sometimes I hope that obvious sarcasm is well…obvious.
CG has 58 Fast Response Boats (super quick 42 footers) in service as of 5/1/25.
Thanks. Too bad they don't have any down with those destroyers as I would have liked the people in the boat arrested, tried and shown on every TV along with any drugs found in the boat. I don't doubt that this was a drug trafficking situation but it would have been nice IMO to have some faces to put to the public (especially in Venezuela).
But if the only way to stop the boat and prevent any drugs in it from reaching the US, then sinking it is an acceptable option.
So you're concerned about the health and safety of 11 Tren de Aragua narco-terrorists?
Well, history shows that yes, they are concerned about that.
You can ask Van Hollen for confirmation.
He probably doesnt have much faith in the word of Trump and his administration. Some people blindly take the word of a pathological liar and his submissive lackeys.
Are you familiar with the little boy who cried wolf ?
Thinking people call them Liberals or the Left.
No, Greg.
While calling them gang members and saying they were narcotraffickers is all well and good, but generally one would do the legal thing of calling on the boat to stop, boarding and arresting the people and impounding the drugs, if one was sure that the drugs were bound for the US.
Without knowing that, it could be construed as just illegally blowing up a boat in international waters and killing 11 people.
I’d ask you to prove that claim, but all the evidence is on the bottom of the ocean. Convenient.
Because drug traffickers are good at obeying law enforcement.
And they always stop when law enforcement tells them to s/
Ignoring that this act was technically illegal under international law is a hallmark of somebody who is arbitrary and capricious by design.
The ends do not justify the means, and just because one may be the largest bully on the block does not mean that the actions that one takes are legal and justified.
The problem is that they don't stop and waited to be boarded.
They should be treated just like those Somali pirates off the east coast of Africa.....blow them out of the water
Why are you trying to justify the actions of a known terrorist organization?
You know, I looked and looked and looked and didn't see anything to back up that claim.
Of course they do. It stopped drugs from entering the country and sent a clear message to those who want to continue to try to bring drugs into the country. Just because YOU don't like it, really means nothing to me. I'm all for that shot being taken and the "occupants" of that boat now living in Bikini Bottom.
And give up their drugs and weapons when told to.
I am not. If one cannot discern the difference between abiding by established norms and defending a terrorist group, I believe that it would be fruitless to continue to engage in conversation.
Whose "territorial integrity or political independence" was threatened? This was a "go fast" boat carrying drugs and drug traffickers in international waters moving toward the United States.
Even Becker stated: "The fact that US officials describe the individuals killed by the US strike as narco-terrorists does not transform them into lawful military targets," he said. "The US is not engaged in an armed conflict with Venezuela or the Tren de Aragua criminal organization."
Eliminates his pitiful argument that Article 2(4) of the UN charter was violated as territorial integrity or political independence of Venezuela was not violated.
Even the mere idea of using the UN as a reference is laughable.
I am truly sorry that you lack the comprehension to follow along with a simple conversation. To wit, the section you quote goes against your hypotheses, yet you somehow cannot understand that.
If that is really going to be your argument, then this discussion is over because you present evidence which buttresses my point and not yours.
I have a whole lot more evidence, which but came from a quick online search, but I thought that it would be enough, as it appears to have been.
Get some!
Don’t go in the water.
Such a mighty basement mop warrior y'all have down there ... /s
Allegedly. I wasn’t aware drug running carried the death penalty.
Was the Coast Guard busy? I mean, I know we’ve had some budget cuts. Were we all out of ships?
Seriously, is there some reason this boat couldn’t have simply been stopped, and the people on board arrested?
We’re just blowing up boats on the ocean, now. Because our liar of a president said they were criminals. And again, committing a crime for which we do not have the death penalty.
Maybe think twice before booking your next cruise.
Would you be OK if they got through and dropped off hundreds of pounds of fentanyl or other drugs that could kill thousands of Americans, or are you more concerned about protecting drug runners?
No. I hate the drugs and the drug cartels. Is there some reason we can’t put criminals in jail?
Would you be ok if our military and police just started shooting anyone they thought might be committing a crime?
I’m concerned with doing the right things, morally and legally. Part of that code involves not murdering people you could simply arrest.
Like many things this administration does this was a performative gesture. In the same category as masked anonymous ICE agents putting people into unmarked cars, sending migrants to Latin American prisons or foreign countries on the other side of the world, and putting the military on the streets of Los Angeles. Its all part of the same approach.
“Its all part of the same approach.”
Damn any laws, damn any consequences, damn any morality. Damned wrong.
Well.......Democrats had no problem killing an unarmed female on Jan 6th.for Trespassing!
omg that's stupid. You know it's bs.
What part do you find stupid, an unarmed female killed for trespassing or that Democrats supported it. If you feel it is 'BS" please explain why.
Here's a very long list of unarmed Americans killed, many for simple trespass, some for simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time, that many conservatives have no problem with.
List of unarmed African Americans killed by law enforcement officers in the United States - Wikipedia
And none of these guys had illegally stormed into a federal building in an attempt to install their losing candidate as some sort of dictator. Seems like the problem conservatives have with Babbit is that she wasn't black or male enough to gun down unarmed.
If Babbit's killing was justified why wasn't there 1,000's killed that day.
Ashley Babbitt had a knife in her pocket when she went through the window, but did not have it in her hand. In other words she was armed that day.
I believe the capital police should have opened fire on any trespasser who had broken into the capital and wasn't immediately following police commands. Perhaps that would have sent a stronger message to the insurrectionists. As it is, if conservatives lose another election I don't see why they wouldn't just storm the capital again since they got away with it the first time.
Yep.
Unfortunately for a number of reasons, none of them good, the traitors of Jan6th have been allowed to recast the events of the day (they were "tourists" or mere "protesters".) Our mass media could not have failed us more if they tried.
did you miss the part where this happened in international waters?
The boat was stopped. Death made the necessary arrests. Are you actually arguing for the safe passage of drugs and violent gang members?
It does look like it, doesn't it?
What a stupid comment.
You know very well that Tacos! was not arguing for the alleged drugs or the alleged gang members to have safe passage to anywhere.
There are procedures and international laws that apply, both of which were ignored.
You're fighting for International Law?
I don't believe that for a second.
Taco's and Thomas's statement still holds no matter what you believe.
Narco-terrorists and the cartels that employ them don't adhere to or obey international laws and procedures.
I have no control over what you or anyone else believes.
In general, I think that International Law should be followed, as well as the Constitution and the various rights guaranteed by the same. None of that was done, because the administration desires to rule by fear, as evidenced by the multiple unconstitutional and illegal actions that it has taken in the US and abroad.
One may think that all of these actions are justified because they go against those whom one has been conditioned into believing are ones enemies, but as soon as we start treating each other as enemies, the Rule of Law ceases to apply and we get instead the arbitrary and capricious whims of whomever is in power.
That's one opinion.
Yet his "argument" is just that.
I'm surely not going to lose any sleep over it.
Yes, and it happens to be mine.
Only if one cannot comprehend English.
Personal integrity and faithfulness to the Rule of Law, gotta love it.
Two wrongs...
That’s the important part? Ok, then how about the Navy? Or you could just wait until they approach the US coast. We can’t track a boat? It’s not like they were on land and could go run and hide in a building or a cave.
No, it was destroyed and the people on board are dead.
No. I’m arguing for their arrest and trial. The United States used to stand for that.
How do you know they were violent gang members? Trump tell you that? He also told you Haitians eat people’s cats and dogs.
And even if they were violent gang members, they should still be locked up, if possible. That’s our law.
You think the Army or Marines have artillery pieces with that kind of range? Come on use common sense.
Yeah, no. Don't let that shit get close.
We did. How do you think it was hit.
And the down part of that would be what?
The United States used to stand for not giving a shit about terrorists getting killed. We are going back to that.
They were in international waters. Which of our laws applied?
We have a president whose words can rarely if ever be taken at face value. The ramifications of this are endless.
The ones that keep liberal feeling from getting hurt?
What ramifications do you expect?
I said "Navy" and you go to "Army or Marines." I mean if you have that much trouble understanding plain words, I guess we can't communicate.
Why not? Is it radioactive? Explosive?
Yeah. All the more reason why they could have just been arrested.
We just murdered someone, for starters.
Do you know what terrorism is? These guys were supposed to be smuggling drugs. That's different from terrorism.
The laws that govern how we behave. But you know, if you have no problem killing someone who may or may not be a criminal and never having to prove who they were, what they were doing, or why it was necessary to kill them, just say so.
Now read the rest of the sentence. Although, the childish cherry picking is kind of expected.
you're actually advocating brining it into the US?
Better solution was decided upon.
Yeah, I don't care about drug traffickers or gangs like that.
Fought if for over 20 years.
That's a matter of opinion.
To Donald Trump and Pete Hegseth terrorism is whatever they say it is.
Nope. Your deflective BS remains deflective BS.
Dishonest straw man. Again.
How do you know that's who was on the boat? Second time I've asked.
It doesn't show.
No, it's a fact. But if you want to prove me wrong by either showing legal or dictionary links that provide the same definitions for "terrorism" and "drug smuggling," be my guest. But we already know you aren't going to.
Next up, bombs will get dropped on Democrats. Because at this point, why wouldn't they?
Hegseth was asked about this incident today and he bragged about sending 11 "terrorists" to "the bottom" .
Right after they drop a bomb on a migrant boat.
Wanna see that link - please.
And, what is your issue with that?
Amazing how that worked for Barry and Joey - but we didn't see you yelping then.
These guys were supposed to be smuggling drugs. That's different from terrorism.
Gotta see the definition for that.
Gotta see that answer.
But, I betcha we won't.
Howse 'bout showing us some of those "procedures and international laws" that were ignored.
If ya harp them - produce them - ya think?
Seriously??? The CG has a total of 41K manning - to cover the entire globe as regulated by U.S. and International law.
Hell, that's less than the Chicago and NYC police departments - COMBINED.
It's awesome to see that some of our liberal friends have found some integrity and defending the rule of law, too bad they didn't have the same integrity when former Presidents were murdering Americans without due process. It's good to see that President trump is having a positive effect on some.
Yep, partisan politics at it's finest. I don't remember hearing the left speak out against the drone strikes by Obama. Considering he justified it by invoking the principle of self-defense, asserting that the strikes were necessary to prevent imminent attacks and by noting the reduced risk to American lives and lower levels of collateral damage when compared to other military options.
It was ok then but not now? hmmmm
Interesting how the liberal left is whining that those drug runners were not given the chance to surrender and recieve due process. The thing is we have zero idea whether the order of "Heave to and prepare to be boarded." was given or not according to international maritime law. My personal feeling is that it was was given and the smugglers chose to cut and run for it making themselves easy targets and thus giving up any rights(?) to due process if any.