Trump Calls Refusal to Execute Illegal Orders Treason

[John Stone]

13 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

You should read up on Kent State if you think they were just shot for protesting. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings

These unarmed protestors had pelted the NG, police and firemen with rocks. They set buildings on fire and they aggressively pursued the NG when they retreated. 

Given the multitude of warnings (verbal and physical) and their persistent-aggressive attacks, I would have shot. And, as the court found, I would have been justified. 

OK, nuff said - I get ur picture. 

[Nationalist]

7 hours ago, robosmith said:

Thanks for demonstrating once again that you KNOW NOTHING about US law. LMAO

If you did, you would know that Texas can't charge Comey with a crime supposedly committed in DC. 

Or maybe you're just desperately jumping through hoops after being caught with your pants down, AGAIN. LMAO

Actually..."Federal law typically allows prosecutors to bring a new indictment after a case is dismissed even despite the statute of limitations, saying prosecutors can bring new charges within “six calendar months” of the date the indictment was dismissed, or 60 days after the appeals process ends"

 

 

[robosmith]

10 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Actually..."Federal law typically allows prosecutors to bring a new indictment after a case is dismissed even despite the statute of limitations, saying prosecutors can bring new charges within “six calendar months” of the date the indictment was dismissed, or 60 days after the appeals process ends"

Actually Halligan being disqualified means she FAILED to file any indictment in time. No better than the paper you wipe your butt with. LMAO

Quote

This section does not permit the filing of a new indictment or information where the reason for the dismissal was the failure to file the indictment or information within the period prescribed by the applicable statute of limitations,

And nobody can go back in time to beat the original statute of limitations.

[BeaverFever]

On 11/25/2025 at 1:27 PM, User said:

So, the cat is out of the bag. You do want the military to mutiny against Trump, based on your dubious political motivations.

 

 

It’s not mutiny if the orders are illegal 

[BeaverFever]

On 11/25/2025 at 2:00 PM, Deluge said:

BeaverFever thinks Americans use mind control to force drug dealers into cooking their shit up and bringing it to the US so Americans can kill themselves snorting their products. 

Beaverfever thinks criminals are the victims. 

Beaverfever blames Americans for everything. It's why he wants to help illegal aliens wipe this country off the map. 

Beaverfever is just as big of a scumbag as criminals are. 

It’s really hard to kill yourself snorting cocaine, just ask Don Jr he’s snorted more than his share.  
 

Just because I oppose ordering extrajudicial killings of people ACCUSED of illegal acts doesn’t mean I support the acts they’re accused of.   Also the claim that they were headed to the US is objectively false considering they are thousands of miles from US shores and in tiny boat that couldn’t possibly travel that far. 
 

As usual the only scumbag here is the racist white trash POS known as Deluge. 

On 11/25/2025 at 3:03 PM, Legato said:

"Unarmed" "non-combatants". Your "clear" is as opaque as an active clay pit in a monsoon.

Those are facts. You must not know what those words mean. 

[BeaverFever]

As if anyone needs any more proof that Trump’s kill orders are not about Drugs or protecting Americans .  Explain how peasants who “allegedly” move small amounts of drugs thousands of miles away from US shores must be killed on sight with “leave no survivors” type orders….But Dug kingpins who DEFINITELY smuggled HUNDREDS OF TONS of it into USA get a PARDON after only 1 year in jail ?

He must’ve been able to make that half-million “club membership” payment to The Trump family bribe club 

 

Trump says he will pardon ex-Honduras president convicted of drug trafficking

US President Donald Trump has said that he will pardon the ex-president of Honduras, Juan Orlando Hernández, who was convicted of drug trafficking charges in a US court last year. 

Trump made the announcement in a Truth Social post on Friday, congratulating the former president on the pardon, saying he was "treated very harshly and unfairly".

Hernández was found guilty in March 2024 of conspiring to import cocaine into the US, and of possessing machine guns. He was sentenced to 45 years in prison.

In the same post, Trump also said he supported conservative candidate Tito Asfura in the upcoming general election in the Central American country on Sunday. 

Hernández, a member of the National Party who served as Honduras's president from 2014 to 2022, was extradited to the United States in April 2022 to stand trial for running a violent drug trafficking conspiracy and helping to traffic hundreds of tons of cocaine to the US.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1kpm0rvxepo.amp

Edited November 29, 2025 by BeaverFever

[User]

43 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

It’s not mutiny if the orders are illegal 

What orders?

[robosmith]

6 minutes ago, User said:

What orders?

ANY ILLEGAL orders. such as violations of US treaty obligations under the Geneva Conventions.

Quote

Attacking civilian shipping in international waters is illegal under the Geneva Conventions, as civilian vessels and their crews are protected from attack during armed conflict. Merchant ships are considered civilian objects, and their crews are civilian personnel who cannot be lawful targets. Violating this rule constitutes a war crime, and precautions must be taken to avoid harming civilian vessels, even when attacking a legitimate military target at sea. 

 

Protection for civilian ships

• Civilian status: Civilian ships, like merchant vessels, and their crews are protected under Geneva Convention IV and Additional Protocol I, as well as customary international humanitarian law.
• Principle of Distinction: This fundamental principle requires parties to a conflict to always distinguish between combatants and civilians, and between military objectives and civilian objects.
• No direct targeting: Direct attacks on civilian objects, including civilian ships, are prohibited.
• Humanitarian aid: The protection extends to humanitarian vessels, and attacking or seizing them in international waters is illegal and unacceptable. 

 

Exceptions and considerations

• Military objectives: Vessels can be targeted if they become a military objective, for example, if they are used for military purposes or are engaged in activities that support the enemy's war effort.
• Breaching exemption: A civilian vessel can be attacked if it fails to obey lawful orders to stop or move, or if it becomes a legitimate military target.
• Proportionality and precautions: Even when a legitimate military target is attacked, all feasible precautions must be taken to avoid civilian harm. The attack must also not be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated. 

 

Consequences of violation

• War crime: Attacking civilian shipping is a clear violation of international humanitarian law and is considered a war crime.
• Legal action: Individuals who order or carry out such attacks may face investigation and prosecution before the International Criminal Court (ICC) or other judicial bodies

 

[User]

19 minutes ago, robosmith said:

ANY ILLEGAL orders. such as violations of US treaty obligations under the Geneva Conventions.

Did you even bother to read your source?

These are military targets as they are declared enemy combatants. They are not just some random civilian vessel. 

 

[BeaverFever]

6 hours ago, User said:

What orders?

Survivors on ‘narco boat’ targeted by Trump order were blown apart after Hegseth verbal command to ‘kill everybody’: Report
 

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth reportedly gave a verbal order to leave no survivors behind as Donald Trump’s administration launched the first of more than a dozen attacks on alleged drug-running boats that have killed more than 80 people over the last three months.

On September 2, U.S. military personnel fired a missile striking a vessel in the Caribbean that carried 11 people accused of trafficking drugs into the United States.

When two survivors emerged from the wreckage, a Special Operations commander overseeing the attack ordered a second strike to comply with Hegseth’s instructions to “kill everybody,” according to The Washington Post, citing officials with direct knowledge of the operation.

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/survivors-narco-boat-targeted-trump-181519748.html

[BeaverFever]

17 hours ago, User said:

Did you even bother to read your source?

These are military targets as they are declared enemy combatants. They are not just some random civilian vessel. 

 

You can’t just declare anyone you dislike an “enemy combatant” to make killing them legal. In what way are unarmed people thousands of miles away from your shores and not engaging in combat a “combatant”?

 

Per my earlier post Trump will be pardoning someone who flooded USA with hundreds tons of cocaine why isn’t  he an “enemy combatant”?  Ronald Reagan’s goons like Ollie North flooded USA with cocaine (or allowed it to be flooded) for their Iran-Contra scam. They got pardons from a Republican president too. That’s the real “sedition”  not Kelly accurately telling servicemen they can ignore illegal orders. Why do some people get summary executions and others get pardons?  

Edited November 30, 2025 by BeaverFever

[User]

3 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

You can’t just declare anyone younlike an “enemy combatant” to make killing them legal. In what wat are unarmed people thousands away from your shores and not engaging in combat a “combatant”?

Good thing this isn’t what happened at all.

This has been explained before, that the administration publicly posted its rationale and declaration of these narco terrorists as terrorists. 
 

They are a combatant the same way a fuel truck delivering fuel to tanks on the battlefield is a combatant. 
 

You people will take being obtuse to any level to further your hate of Trump.

These concepts are not new, Trump didn’t invent them, Presidents have been blowing people up like this for a long time.

Obama was famous for blowing up people all over the world with drones.

But that was Obama, so leftists like you don’t care. 

[BeaverFever]

8 hours ago, User said:

Good thing this isn’t what happened at all.

This has been explained before, that the administration publicly posted its rationale and declaration of these narco terrorists as terrorists. 
 

They are a combatant the same way a fuel truck delivering fuel to tanks on the battlefield is a combatant. 
 

You people will take being obtuse to any level to further your hate of Trump.

These concepts are not new, Trump didn’t invent them, Presidents have been blowing people up like this for a long time.

Obama was famous for blowing up people all over the world with drones.

But that was Obama, so leftists like you don’t care. 

You’re the one being obtuse.  Your ridiculous analogy bears no resemblance to reality. Members of a military that is at war with your country are by definition enemy combatants  whether they are armed or not, driving tanks or fuel trucks. Civilians who are unarmed and whose country is not at war with you and who are thousands of miles from your border are neither combatants nor armed.  
 

Obama bombed terrorist groups who were at war with USA and committed attacks on US soil.  Also not at all similar to Trump’s contrived offensive against Venezuela. 
 

And now Trump has declared all Venezuelan airspace closed to all civil air traffic, implying he will shoot down airliners full of civilians who I guess will also be enemy combatants?  He already has special operations on the ground in Venezuela it clear he’s planning to invade. 
 

Also you clearly avoided acknowledging his pardon of major cocaine kingpin after only a year. If smuggling cocaine into USA is now considered a state-sanctioned act of war by a state against America deserving of immediate execution then why is Trump showing such leniency to a clearly guilty larty?  Would be like pardoning Bin Laden after 9/11 and letting him out of prison after 1 year. 
 

You’re such a shameless unthinking apologist 

 

[User]

1 hour ago, BeaverFever said:

You’re the one being obtuse.  Your ridiculous analogy bears no resemblance to reality. Members of a military that is at war with your country are by definition enemy combatants  whether they are armed or not, driving tanks or fuel trucks. Civilians who are unarmed and whose country is not at war with you and who are thousands of miles from your border are neither combatants nor armed.  

There is no terrorist loophole where an organization gets to harm your country and you just have to say... well, oops, oh well, I guess they are not a country so we can't be engaged in combat against them!

You are making the obtuse point like these are just some random civilians out on their sail boat enjoying a picnic. 

The United States of America, following American law, has declared these narco terrorist factions as an enemy of the state. 
 

1 hour ago, BeaverFever said:

Obama bombed terrorist groups who were at war with USA and committed attacks on US soil.  Also not at all similar to Trump’s contrived offensive against Venezuela. 

Wo... wait a minute, how exactly were these "terrorists" at "war" with the United States? They were no more committing "attacks" against US soil than these narco terrorists are right now. 

1 hour ago, BeaverFever said:

Also you clearly avoided acknowledging his pardon of major cocaine kingpin

Because it is an irrelevant distraction in this thread. 

You run away from almost every discussion you are ever in, why am I wasting my time responding to your distractions here?

1 hour ago, BeaverFever said:

You’re such a shameless unthinking apologist 

Yeah, says the most extreme partisan on this forum where you start with that premise and work backwards from there in almost every discussion you are in!

[BeaverFever]

2 hours ago, User said:

There is no terrorist loophole where an organization gets to harm your country and you just have to say... well, oops, oh well, I guess they are not a country so we can't be engaged in combat against them!

There is ZERO evidence that people Trump is killing are “terrorists” by any definition of the term or are intentionally trying to “harm the USA”.  There’s not even any evidence that they trying to smuggle drugs, and if they are trying to smuggle drugs , there’s no evidence that it’s destined for the United States.   To follow your argument one has to:

1) Believe the “facts” alleged by Trump are true (that they are carrying cocaine) despite Trump being a known shameless liar.  THIS MAY OR MAY NOT BE TRUE 

2) Believe the “fact” alleged by Trump that they are not simply middlemen passing drugs along to the next cartel in the globalist supply chain but deliberately smuggling cocaine to USA  If 1 is true, 2 is plausible simply because USA is a large and nearby market but cocaine is sold GLOBALLY and it all moves through the same region  

3) Believe the “fact” that they’re not just selling cocaine to make money from selling a profitable contraband buy as a deliberate for of warfare against USA. This is LAUGHABLE. Cocaine is mostly a party drug for people with hundreds of dollars to spend for one night’s worth of amusement. Don Jr. probably snorts his weight in coke every weekend. It’s not fentanyl or heroine   Venezuela doesn’t even produce cocaine so they wouldn’t be the source of it anyway. 
 

Then after believing the above dubious claims you then have to make the ridiculous leap of logic that

1) the smugglers and their employees are therefore “terrorists” or “armed combatants” when there are no arms or combat involved ANYWHERE (unlike in your ridiculous tank analogy) 

2) they can therefore be killed on sight as if they were

3)  completely ignore the fact that Trump just pardoned a head of state who smuggled hundreds of tons into USA and that Reagan/Bush allowed an incalculable amount of cocaine into USA to fund their Iran-Contra death squads and secret wars  as this completely contradicts your sudden newfound moral outrage and demands for summary execution for anyone smuggling cocaine into USA  oh and when they did recently capture 2 survivors of a strike, they let the supposed “narco terrorists” go. Why ?

At least when the previous Republican president wanted to gin up a phoney excuse for regime change to seize a country’s oil they had common courtesy to fabricate evidence   Trump and his minions just expect you to believe their lies 

2 hours ago, User said:

Wo... wait a minute, how exactly were these "terrorists" at "war" with the United States? They were no more committing "attacks" against US soil than these narco terrorists are right now. 

That is seriously the dumbest thing you have said on this forum. Are you seriously not aware of something called 9/11 and that for a 15-year period afterwards there were constant deadly terrorist attacks on US and European soil and against US troops abroad, perpetrated by terrorist groups that publicly avowed to destroy America and kill Americans anywhere in the world?  How old are you?  You think that’s no different than smuggling contraband rich kid party favours into USA (if that is even what they were doing). People smuggle drugs into USA because Americans WANT them and will pay hundreds of dollars a pop for them. Nobody wanted to be killed by ISIS. The fact that you think these 2 things are identical is just ridiculous.  And when Americans captured REAL terroristS they sent them to GITMO or some other prison they didn’t let them go. 
 

2 hours ago, User said:

Because it is an irrelevant distraction in this thread. 

HA!  In what way is it irrelevant?  It’s COMPLETELY RELEVANT!  You have no rebuttal and got your ass handed to you so you do the typical MAGA “inconvenient facts are irrelevant!” maneuver. Pathetic. 
 

2 hours ago, User said:

Yeah, says the most extreme partisan on this forum where you start with that premise and work backwards from there in almost every discussion you are in!

False on both counts!

Edited November 30, 2025 by BeaverFever

[User]

2 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

There is ZERO evidence that people Trump is killing are “terrorists” by any definition of the term or are intentionally trying to “harm the USA”.  There’s not even any evidence that they trying to smuggle drugs, and if they are trying to smuggle drugs , there’s no evidence that it’s destined for the United States.   To follow your argument one has to:

This is combat, not a court of law. Every military action doesn't have to be proven to you or some tribunal. That is not how this works. 

But sure, you go on with your conspiracy that the entire US military is somehow covering up their actions and is just randomly blowing up famalies out for a picnic cruise on their sail boat. Sure. 

5 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

1) Believe the “facts” alleged by Trump are true (that they are carrying cocaine) despite Trump being a known shameless liar.  THIS MAY OR MAY NOT BE TRUE 

Again, this is a stupid argument. Trump isn't the one out there all by himself, blowing people up and then coming back to tell you about it. 

6 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

That is seriously the dumbest thing you have said on this forum. Are you seriously not aware of something called 9/11 and that the US went through a for a 15-year period afterwards there constant terrorist attacks on US and European soil and against US troops abroad perpetrated by terrorist groups that publicly avowed to destroy America?  How old are you?  You think that’s no different than smuggling contraband rich kid party favours into USA (if that is even the case). People smuggle drugs into USA because Americans WANT them amd will pay hundreds of dollars a pop for them. Nobody wanted to be killed by ISIS. The fact that you think these 2 things are identical is just ridiculous. 

I am well aware of 9/11, the stupidity is all yours in that you somehow think that every single terrorist the US was killing across the world after 9/11 up and until now were all linked to 9/11 or are somehow direcly engaged in attacking US Soil. THAT is your stupidity. 

8 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

HA!  In what way is it irrelevant?  It’s COMPLETELY RELEVANT!  You have no rebuttal and got your ass handed to you so you do the typical MAGA “inconvenient facts are irrelevant!” maneuver. Pathetic. 

Well, I guess because you say it is... it is! You gave nothing to rebut here. 

[BeaverFever]

3 minutes ago, User said:

This is combat, not a court of law. Every military action doesn't have to be proven to you or some tribunal. That is not how this works. 

But sure, you go on with your conspiracy that the entire US military is somehow covering up their actions and is just randomly blowing up famalies out for a picnic cruise on their sail boat. Sure. 

No it is NOT combat. Only one side is armed and doing the shooting the other side is unarmed and not a combatant. If someone murdered you in your sleep that wouldn’t be combat either. The fact that Trump can’t produce a shred evidence to the public (whether legally required to or not) shows that he is full of shyte. 
 

Its not a conspiracy that the military is following Trump’s orders and not speaking out. That’s what the military dies.
 

You’re also lying by claiming I said they were families out on a cruise, which just shows you have no argument so you invent false ones for the other side. . They may or may not be smuggling drugs or other contraband that is irrelevant. 
 

9 minutes ago, User said:

Again, this is a stupid argument. Trump isn't the one out there all by himself, blowing people up and then coming back to tell you about it. 

No your argument is stupid!  Trump is the one who ordered this unprecedented campaign and these are his alleged justifications for it.  The military isn’t just out there doing this with Trump’s ok, Trump’s administration dreamed  this up amd the dubious arguments behind them. 
 

13 minutes ago, User said:

I am well aware of 9/11, the stupidity is all yours in that you somehow think that every single terrorist the US was killing across the world after 9/11 up and until now were all linked to 9/11 or are somehow direcly engaged in attacking US Soil. THAT is your stupidity. 

No, Apparently you’re not aware. Those REAL terrorists were attacking US troops in active combat zones like Iraq and Afghanistan and Americans all around the world (as I already mentioned and you ignored for another false argument of yours). They were card-carrying members of known terrorist organizations that publicly bragged about attacking America and posted beheadings of Americans on the internet. the fact that you think that has any similarity is YOUR stupidity. 
 

20 minutes ago, User said:

Well, I guess because you say it is... it is! You gave nothing to rebut here. 

What don’t you understand?

1) Trump says smuggling cocaine into USA makes you a state-sponsored “narco-terrorism” against USA punishable by immediate execution 

2) Trump pardons former president of Honduras who smuggled hundreds of tons of cocaine into USA while he was in office after only 1 year in prison….clearly contradicting point 1. 

You “irrelevant”!

Explain how that is “irrelevant”. You can’t. 

[User]

4 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

No it is NOT combat. Only one side is armed and doing the shooting the other side is unarmed and not a combatant. If someone murdered you in your sleep that wouldn’t be combat either. The fact that Trump can’t produce a shred evidence to the public (whether legally required to or not) shows that he is full of shyte. 

Um, yeah, it certainly is combat. Those are military ships and planes and troops down there. LOL

Once again, if this is how obtuse you want to be, then *ANY war on terror actions for the last 30 years were not combat either... and back to the fuel truck drivers... etc...

But you stick with your big conspiracy theory... ROFL

6 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

Its not a conspiracy that the military is following Trump’s orders and not speaking out. That’s what the military dies.

It is your conspiracy, they are all just out there blowing up families on a picnic trip in their sail boats...

7 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

You’re also lying by claiming I said they were families out on a cruise, which just shows you have no argument so you invent false ones for the other side. . They may or may not be smuggling drugs or other contraband that is irrelevant. 

No, I am mocking you, because that is what you are acting like when you keep saying OMG there is ZERO evidence! 

Sure there is evidence, the fact that these are military strikes being carried out through a chain of command from top to bottom with numerous people involved all operating on military intelligence gathering on target selection. 

But sure... lets go with your DURRRRRRRR ZeRo EvIdEnCe DURRRRRRRRR they must be famalies on a sail boat!

9 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

No your argument is stupid!  Trump is the one who ordered this unprecedented campaign and these are his alleged justifications for it.  The military isn’t just out there doing this with Trump’s ok, Trump’s administration dreamed  this up amd the dubious arguments behind them. 

You are the one sitting here saying Trump is a liar as if he was out there all on his own. That is YOUR stupid argument. 

9 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

No, Apparently you’re not aware. Those REAL terrorists were attacking US troops in active combat zones like Iraq and Afghanistan and Americans all around the world (as I already mentioned and you ignored for another false argument of yours). They were card-carrying members of known terrorist organizations that publicly bragged about attacking America and posted beheadings of Americans on the internet. the fact that you think that has any similarity is YOUR stupidity. 

No, you clearly are ignorant as the war on terror was fought all over the globe including the Horn of Africa, all in numerous countries that were not any "combat zone" with Americans on the ground and it was your stupid goal post to say attacking the US. 

But sure, Obama blowing up people at a wedding was totes cool for you. Or blowing up americans, because Ooops, they too bad they happened to be traveling near a terrorist they wanted to blow up. 
 

14 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

1) Trump says smuggling cocaine into USA makes you a state-sponsored “narco-terrorism” against USA punishable by immediate execution 

That is not his argument; this is your silly, absurd reduction. 

 

[BeaverFever]

11 hours ago, User said:

Um, yeah, it certainly is combat. Those are military ships and planes and troops down there. LOL

US MILITARY, dumbass. It not “combat” if you’re the only combatant. 
 

11 hours ago, User said:

Once again, if this is how obtuse you want to be, then *ANY war on terror actions for the last 30 years were not combat either... and back to the fuel truck drivers... etc...

But you stick with your big conspiracy theory... ROFL

You are so absurdly dense. . Another of you RIDICULOUS ARGUMENTS

These are not terrorist groups by any definition of the word. If they were them maybe you would start to have a shred of a point.  Terrorist groups are armed, politically or ideologically motivated and declared war on USA,  actively targeted US civilians amd soldiers all over the world. By joining such a group you are a combatant even if you only fuel their truck. The terrorist group is armed even if you aren’t  NONE of that applies to local drug smugglers thousands of miles from US soil, if that’s even what these people even were  

 

11 hours ago, User said:

t is your conspiracy, they are all just out there blowing up families on a picnic trip in their sail boats...

There you go lying again and still misusing the word “conspiracy”

 

11 hours ago, User said:

Sure there is evidence, the fact that these are military strikes being carried out through a chain of command from top to bottom with numerous people involved all operating on military intelligence gathering on target selection. 

But sure... lets go with your DURRRRRRRR ZeRo EvIdEnCe DURRRRRRRRR they must be famalies on a sail boat!

Another ridiculous argument. Letss just be clear here ZERO evidence has been presented publicly verifying that any of the Trump administration’s claims are true. Your dumbass argument is basically that they wouldn’t be doing this if there wasn’t evidence therefore the fact that the strikes happen is the only evidence required. Totally dystopian Orwellian logic you’’d expect from Stalin’s Soviet Union. “The fact that I’m executing you is the evidence that you’re guilty”. 
 

Need I remove you the military under previous Republican president invaded Iraq because of the false claim that Saddam had WMD and was involved in 9/11?  The military follows orders especially under this administration who has placed loyalists throughout the leadership. You expect us to believe the military only follows orders when they’ve carefully reviewed the evidence and they’re convinced the president is right ?  Another right wing chickenhawk who doesn’t know shit about the military but sniffs military jock at every turn. Quelle surprise. 
 

11 hours ago, User said:

You are the one sitting here saying Trump is a liar as if he was out there all on his own. That is YOUR stupid argument. 

Trump is a liar. His claims are fabricated and exaggerated. His arguments have no basis in US or international law and defy common logic. The military follows the president’s orders. Anyone who can’t understand those facts is the stupid person. 

 

 

11 hours ago, User said:

No, you clearly are ignorant as the war on terror was fought all over the globe including the Horn of Africa, all in numerous countries that were not any "combat zone" with Americans on the ground and it was your stupid goal post to say attacking the US. 

LMAO you’re clearly becoming unhinged. I don’t think you even know what you’re arguing anymore you’re just responding line by line trying to think of something that disagrees with the sentence you just read.
 

I clearly said all over the globe multiple times, go give it a re-read. USA targeted terrorist organizations that attacked the US  no matter where their people went in the world. What don’t you understand?  If they bombed terrorists in a certain country its because those people were 1) members of a terrorist group at war with USA and 2) involved in planning or carrying out attacks on Americans somewhere in world. NONE OF THOSE APPLY to Trump’s attacks off the coast of Venezuela. USA didn’t bomb random people because they didn’t like what they were doing. They certainly never bombed people just because they were drug smugglers.   How f king stupid are you?

 

11 hours ago, User said:

But sure, Obama blowing up people at a wedding was totes cool for you. Or blowing up americans, because Ooops, they too bad they happened to be traveling near a terrorist they wanted to blow up. 

Obama didn’t have a policy of deliberately blowing up weddings and Americans , those were accidents and didn’t happen on Obama’s personal orders….unlike Trump’s boat strikes which is official presidential policy carried out at his personal directive. 
 

11 hours ago, User said:

That is not his argument; this is your silly, absurd reduction. 

 

What is his argument then?

[User]

2 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

US MILITARY, dumbass. It not “combat” if you’re the only combatant. 

That is not the definition of combat. Also, back to your being obtuse again, trying to act like the guy in the fuel truck delivering fuel to the tanks is not in combat either... 

2 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

These are not terrorist groups by any definition of the word.

Sure they are. Regardless of your semantics, the point remains that the United States has declared them to be an enemy organization to the state and is engaged in military/combat operations against them to neutralize that threat. 

They are not, regardless of all your conspiratorial claims, just out randomly blowing up families enjoying a picnic on their sailboat. 

2 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

There you go lying again and still misusing the word “conspiracy”

No lie, you are the one here pretending there is no evidence and the US military is just out randomly blowing up people trying to enjoy their day on a sail boat. 

2 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

“The fact that I’m executing you is the evidence that you’re guilty”. 

This is not a court of law, it is a military engagement. Why can't you figure this simple concept out?

2 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

Need I remove you the military under previous Republican president invaded Iraq because of the false claim that Saddam had WMD and was involved in 9/11?  

Oh great, another one of your distractions. Listen man, you run away from almost every thread you are in and can barely keep up here, stay focused. 

2 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

Trump is a liar.

So are you. What is your point? 

Trump is not the one out there single-handedly blowing up narco terrorists and then coming back to say what he did. 

2 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

LMAO you’re clearly becoming unhinged. I don’t think you even know what you’re arguing anymore you’re just responding line by line trying to think of something that disagrees with the sentence you just read.

Lets see, you make an ignorant claim that all terrorists were on some kind of known combat zone at war such as Afghanistan or Iraq... and I am pointing out to you they were not. 

You can't deal with those facts, so this is what you do instead. 

2 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

I clearly said all over the globe multiple times

Oh, OK then, so you do grasp the concept that this war on narco terrorists can in fact be carried out in international waters like this. Great! Glad you came around. 

2 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

Obama didn’t have a policy of deliberately blowing up weddings and Americans , those were accidents and didn’t happen on Obama’s personal orders….unlike Trump’s boat strikes which is official presidential policy carried out at his personal directive. 

LOL, so... now your big conspiracy is that Obama was not in charge of the US military?! They were just running around blowing people up without permission all around the globe?!

2 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

What is his argument then?

Not that. 

[Venandi]

On 11/29/2025 at 2:42 AM, BeaverFever said:

Also the claim that they were headed to the US is objectively false considering they are thousands of miles from US shores and in tiny boat that couldn’t possibly travel that far. 

No one is suggesting they actually make that trip BTW. 

The fast movers meet up with another boat at a predetermined place and time and transfer the cargo. Sometimes (but not always of course) it can happen in reverse at destination. Lot's more flexibility for bad guys with that approach.

I have no idea what's actually happening there BTW... absolutely none, if I did I wouldn't be commenting on it. But, I'm guessing that a UAV was tracking these shipments from point of origin to the dock, from the dock to the boat, and the boat to international (or at least safe) waters prior to and during the engagement. I only say that because that's what I'd be doing.

Regardless though, I'm confident that there is nothing haphazard, reckless or careless about any of this.... it makes for a good story but it's just not how things like this are done.

Edited November 30, 2025 by Venandi

[robosmith]

19 minutes ago, Venandi said:

No one is suggesting they actually make that trip BTW. 

The fast movers meet up with another boat at a predetermined place and time and transfer the cargo. Sometimes (but not always of course) it can happen in reverse at destination. Lot's more flexibility for bad guys with that approach.

I have no idea what's actually happening there BTW... absolutely none, if I did I wouldn't be commenting on it. But, I'm guessing that a UAV was tracking these shipments from point of origin to the dock, from the dock to the boat, and the boat to international (or at least safe) waters prior to and during the engagement. I only say that because that's what I'd be doing.

Regardless though, I'm confident that there is nothing haphazard, reckless or careless about any of this.... it makes for a good story but it's just not how things like this are done.

You obviously have no idea how Pete Hegseth operates, since he's COMPLETELY NEW TO THE JOB.

It used to be SOP to intercept those boats instead of bombing them to HELL, so "just not how things like this are done," means NOTHING NOW.

[User]

24 minutes ago, robosmith said:

You obviously have no idea how Pete Hegseth operates, since he's COMPLETELY NEW TO THE JOB.

He has been there for 10 months now. 

[Hodad]

7 hours ago, Venandi said:

No one is suggesting they actually make that trip BTW. 

The fast movers meet up with another boat at a predetermined place and time and transfer the cargo. Sometimes (but not always of course) it can happen in reverse at destination. Lot's more flexibility for bad guys with that approach.

I have no idea what's actually happening there BTW... absolutely none, if I did I wouldn't be commenting on it. But, I'm guessing that a UAV was tracking these shipments from point of origin to the dock, from the dock to the boat, and the boat to international (or at least safe) waters prior to and during the engagement. I only say that because that's what I'd be doing.

Regardless though, I'm confident that there is nothing haphazard, reckless or careless about any of this.... it makes for a good story but it's just not how things like this are done.

I don't think that murdering someone at the beginning of a supply chain is a legal, moral or ethical way to prevent consumers from getting something you'd rather they not have. Nor do I think it can be reasonably justified as combat. If there were drugs on the boats (and I don't believe that evidence has been produced) then who's to say the drugs weren't headed for other destinations? -- Well, I guess nobody is to say, since double-tap Hegseth murdered them. 

And I absolutely do think that party-boy Hegseth, the sharer of classified information on signal chats, is haphazard, reckless and careless. He's certainly not smart or thoughtful. 

 

 

[User]

3 minutes ago, Hodad said:

I don't think that murdering someone at the beginning of a supply chain is a legal, moral or ethical way to prevent consumers from getting something you'd rather they not have.

Your statement presumes murder, when that is your absurdly politicized contested assertion, not a fact.

4 minutes ago, Hodad said:

then who's to say the drugs weren't headed for other destinations?

 It helps if you actually bothered to educate yourself on the subject, as the war on these narco terrorists is not just about disrupting their supply of narcotics to the US, but in their using the narcotics trade to fund their terrorist operations.