Reply With Quote
^unhinged bloodlust
I hope we keep KILLING all narcoterrorists! All of them dead should be the end goal.
^unhinged bloodlust
Minutes Ago
koriwhat
LMAO
This message is hidden because koriwhat is on your ignore list.
View Post
Remove user from ignore list
What a pussy
The United States specifically charged [Honduran ex-president Juan Orlando] Hernández with accepting millions of dollars in bribes from narcotraffickers since 2004, and in particular the Sinaloa Cartel, led at the time by Joaquín "El Chapo" Guzmán, since 2012. The indictment states that Tony Hernández collected the bribes using men armed with machine guns; in exchange, Juan Orlando Hernández conspired to protect smugglers from investigation and arrest, specifically providing "access to law enforcement and military information, including data from flight radar in Honduras."
Hernández's trial began on 21 February 2024 in New York City and concluded on 8 March, when he was found guilty of drug trafficking. On 26 June, he was sentenced to 45 years in prison.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_O...and_conviction
https://x.com/SebastianAFP/status/1994528369879519425
Still nothing of substance coming from you on any such subject here on ST. You seem to be in a state of endless coping.
Andrew McCarthy at NR
(Kegseth needs a pardon, a lot of people will soon)
Trump distancing himself from the second strike
https://www.rawstory.com/trump-hegseth-second-strike/"I don’t know that that happened and Pete said he did not want them, even know what people were talking about, so we'll look in –we'll look into it," Trump told reporters. "But no, I wouldn’t have wanted a second strike. The first strike was very lethal, it was fine, and if there were two people around, but Pete said that didn't happen. I have great confidence."
no cover from the GOP Senate leader before the oversight hearings start
last week Hegseth was acting like he was going to recall Mark Kelly and court-martial him
Hegseth throws Bradley under the bus
sacrifices subordinates to save his own hide, as a war-fighter does
"I give you unlawful orders, you will be punished for them"
"The buck stops...over there"
when you piss off a vast bureaucracy by throwing subordinates under the bus for your own criminal decisions, leaks can develop
https://www.wsj.com/politics/white-h...legal-951a19d6
https://ogc.osd.mil/Portals/99/depar...war_manual.pdfDEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE LAW OF WAR MANUAL
18.3.2.1 Clearly Illegal Orders to Commit Law of War Violations. The
requirement to refuse to comply with orders to commit law of war violations applies to orders to
perform conduct that is clearly illegal or orders that the subordinate knows, in fact, are illegal.
For example, orders to fire upon the shipwrecked would be clearly illegal.[27] Similarly, orders to
kill defenseless persons who have submitted to and are under effective physical control would
also be clearly illegal.28 On the other hand, the duty not to comply with orders that are clearly
illegal would be limited in its application when the subordinate is not competent to evaluate
whether the rule has been violated.29
Subordinates are not required to screen the orders of superiors for questionable points of
legality, and may, absent specific knowledge to the contrary, presume that orders have been
lawfully issued
[27] Judgement in Case of Lieutenants Dithmar and Boldt, Hospital Ship “Llandovery Castle” (Second Criminal
Senate of the Imperial Court of Justice, Germany, Jul. 16, 1921), reprinted in 16 AJIL, 708, 721-22 (1922) (“It is
certainly to be urged in favor of the military subordinates, that they are under no obligation to question the order of
their superior officer, and they can count upon its legality. But no such confidence can be held to exist, if such an
order is universally known to everybody, including also the accused, to be without any doubt whatever against the
law. This happens only in rare and exceptional cases. But this case was precisely one of them, for in the present
instance, it was perfectly clear to the accused that killing defenceless people in the life-boats could be nothing else
but a breach of the law. As naval officers by profession they were well aware, as the naval expert Saalwiachter has
strikingly stated, that one is not legally authorized to kill defenceless people. They well knew that this was the case
here. They quickly found out the facts by questioning the occupants in the boats when these were stopped. They
could only have gathered, from the order given by Patzig, that he wished to make use of his subordinates to carry out
a breach of the law. They should, therefore, have refused to obey.”).
Jesus Christ
https://x.com/atrupar/status/1995950680058855646
Do you deliberately come here to spread disinformation or are you just so stupid that you fall for it every, single, time?
Andat referring to designated terrorists in a stateless flagless boat running narcotics as "castaways and injured swimmers"
If this board wasn't so dead and there were more than five people here to embarrass you in front of I'd take the time to insert every bluesky screen shot and link you posted into the below to show how you fell for this every single step of the way. Strange how your constant updates stopped once the NYT piece broke.
Long explainer:
Let’s examine the emerging “scapegoat” narrative, because it demonstrates the true objective of the Democrat/Regime Media/Fredocon axis - to hurt Trump politically and to stop the changing of the Pentagon from a leftist-supporting social pathology Petri dish back into a patriotic war-fighting force that can effectively prevent the eventual color revolution they are working toward.
At the threshold, let’s understand that there was nothing illegal here. Even under the facts as alleged, which change as they keep shifting the goalposts, there was no violation of the law of war. There was no violation of any Geneva Convention, not least because no Geneva Convention applies here. So, everything I say here is simply taking their story du jour and testing it to see if it makes internal sense. It does not, because it’s all baloney. They don’t care. It’s the lie that’s important.
So, just last week, we had a bunch of Democrats claiming they were just helpfully explaining to our troops that our troops cannot follow illegal orders. The whole basis is that you were going to be issued an illegal order by some Trump higher-up, and that you should disobey it because it’s illegal. This was part of a narrative to tee-up the current fake scandal.
Then, after a Democrat-imported jihadi s bag murdered a soldier and wounded another, they had to accelerate their narrative and get that embarrassing fact off the front page. So, last Friday, the Washington Post dropped a story by a reporter who has lied about Russiagate, the Hunter Biden laptop, and other anti-Trump hoaxes. This story allegedly has two anonymous sources offering double hearsay that Pete Hegseth gave an order to kill all the narco terrorists in a strike. The operation commander, a SEAL admiral, then gave the order for a first and a second attack on the ship. That was the meat of the story – Pete was personally responsible for ordering the deaths of allegedly helpless narco terrorists.
The Pentagon immediately denied that the story, as a whole, was true. Remember, the gist of the story is that Pete personally ordered the deaths of these drug mules. The regime media and Democrats either claimed that the Pentagon was not denying the story or simply rejected the denials.
The Twitter experts – the ones who suddenly became epidemiologists when Covid hit and economists when Trump imposed tariffs – suddenly became experts in the law of armed conflict. They pointed out that you’re not allowed to kill a shipwrecked enemy. But they didn’t point out that you are allowed to re-attack a vessel that hasn’t sunk yet. There’s no one-shot rule. Between a combination of ignorance and deliberate deception, they’ve tried to erase that.
Well, then the New York Times published an article saying that Pete Hegseth did not personally order the second attack. That attack order came from the operation commander. The original article alleged that Hegseth ordered them all to be killed regardless of their status. Karoline Leavitt at the White House told the press substantially the same thing as the NYT
Well, that revelation was inconvenient to the narrative. Remember, the narrative isn’t about killing drug dealers. It’s about Pete Hegseth personally ordering the killing of them in a way that’s illegal. Now, the facts indicate that Pete Hegseth didn’t do this. He didn’t give the order to kill them. The admiral gave the order to attack the vessel a second time because it was not completely destroyed.
But that doesn’t help their narrative. It needs to be Pete Hegseth. They don’t want some admiral – that doesn’t meet their objective, and normal people are going to look at it and side with the admiral. So, what to do? Well, accuse Pete Hegseth of throwing the Admiral under the bus. Of course, what that would mean is that he is shifting his responsibility onto the admiral. But wait – the NYT says that Pete didn’t have any responsibility to begin with. Further, the Democrats just got through telling us that we shouldn’t obey illegal orders. If anyone should, an admiral should certainly know what an illegal order is.
But let me emphasize, the admiral did nothing wrong. Again, I’m simply charting the internal inconsistencies of this bogus hit on Pete Hegseth.
Now, they are also going with another argument. That is that the entire mission is illegal. They have decided, without support, that it is unlawful for us to destroy enemies who are not part of a nation-state's army from bringing poison into the United States. Now, if they were bringing mus gas, instead of fentanyl and cocaine, presumably it would be OK to kill them – or maybe not under their logic.
But there’s no free pass. That’s because it’s not the law. They are unlawful combatants, and we can kill them on the high seas. This is why there are no pirates or slavers in the Atlantic. We killed them pursuant to the law. The law has not changed; apparently, we’re only allowed to avail ourselves of the parts of the law that they misinterpret to limit our capacity to defend ourselves, rather than the parts that enable us to defend ourselves from people who kill nearly 100,000 Americans a year
So, that’s where we are. Under the facts as alleged, Pete Hegseth didn’t do anything wrong. He didn’t give this kill order. As a result, the haters have had to shift their arguments. The problem is that their previous arguments about illegal orders have trapped them. If they argue that the entire operation is unlawful, or even that the second strike is unlawful, it would mean that the admiral and the dozens, maybe hundreds, of military people involved are all committing more crimes by giving or following a legal order.
That’s not what they want. They don’t want the admiral or any of the soldiers. They want Pete Hegseth, and now they can’t have him. So, they’re going to throw the whole illegal orders thing out the window and try to change the subject to accusing Hegseth of shifting the blame that he doesn’t bear to the admiral, who, under their theory, does bear it.
Yes, it’s totally inconsistent. No, it doesn’t make any sense. But that’s not its purpose. It has nothing to do with what the facts or evidence, or law say or require. It’s a political hit job designed to get rid of Pete Hegseth and replacing with somebody pliable – many of us know who they prefer - and hurt Trump. Don’t buy into it.
https://x.com/KurtSchlichter/status/1995848544033317255
Trump and Pete gave that order.
You're a ing fool.
rando Venezuelan and Trini fishermen, drug-runners and gasoline smugglers, are not in any conventional sense combatants, nor are they at war with the US in any usual sense of the word
the pretext that the US is actually at war with them would be ridiculous if it weren't so deadly
narcoterrorist is a neologism, we already have laws about narcotics smuggling and terrorism. I guess Trump had to make up a new superlegal designation to do more superlegal stuff.
Last edited by Winehole23; 12-02-2025 at 05:58 PM.
Lol these mental gymnastics.Do you deliberately come here to spread disinformation or are you just so stupid that you fall for it every, single, time?
And
If this board wasn't so dead and there were more than five people here to embarrass you in front of I'd take the time to insert every bluesky screen shot and link you posted into the below to show how you fell for this every single step of the way. Strange how your constant updates stopped once the NYT piece broke.
Long explainer:
Let’s examine the emerging “scapegoat” narrative, because it demonstrates the true objective of the Democrat/Regime Media/Fredocon axis - to hurt Trump politically and to stop the changing of the Pentagon from a leftist-supporting social pathology Petri dish back into a patriotic war-fighting force that can effectively prevent the eventual color revolution they are working toward.
At the threshold, let’s understand that there was nothing illegal here. Even under the facts as alleged, which change as they keep shifting the goalposts, there was no violation of the law of war. There was no violation of any Geneva Convention, not least because no Geneva Convention applies here. So, everything I say here is simply taking their story du jour and testing it to see if it makes internal sense. It does not, because it’s all baloney. They don’t care. It’s the lie that’s important.
So, just last week, we had a bunch of Democrats claiming they were just helpfully explaining to our troops that our troops cannot follow illegal orders. The whole basis is that you were going to be issued an illegal order by some Trump higher-up, and that you should disobey it because it’s illegal. This was part of a narrative to tee-up the current fake scandal.
Then, after a Democrat-imported jihadi s bag murdered a soldier and wounded another, they had to accelerate their narrative and get that embarrassing fact off the front page. So, last Friday, the Washington Post dropped a story by a reporter who has lied about Russiagate, the Hunter Biden laptop, and other anti-Trump hoaxes. This story allegedly has two anonymous sources offering double hearsay that Pete Hegseth gave an order to kill all the narco terrorists in a strike. The operation commander, a SEAL admiral, then gave the order for a first and a second attack on the ship. That was the meat of the story – Pete was personally responsible for ordering the deaths of allegedly helpless narco terrorists.
The Pentagon immediately denied that the story, as a whole, was true. Remember, the gist of the story is that Pete personally ordered the deaths of these drug mules. The regime media and Democrats either claimed that the Pentagon was not denying the story or simply rejected the denials.
The Twitter experts – the ones who suddenly became epidemiologists when Covid hit and economists when Trump imposed tariffs – suddenly became experts in the law of armed conflict. They pointed out that you’re not allowed to kill a shipwrecked enemy. But they didn’t point out that you are allowed to re-attack a vessel that hasn’t sunk yet. There’s no one-shot rule. Between a combination of ignorance and deliberate deception, they’ve tried to erase that.
Well, then the New York Times published an article saying that Pete Hegseth did not personally order the second attack. That attack order came from the operation commander. The original article alleged that Hegseth ordered them all to be killed regardless of their status. Karoline Leavitt at the White House told the press substantially the same thing as the NYT
Well, that revelation was inconvenient to the narrative. Remember, the narrative isn’t about killing drug dealers. It’s about Pete Hegseth personally ordering the killing of them in a way that’s illegal. Now, the facts indicate that Pete Hegseth didn’t do this. He didn’t give the order to kill them. The admiral gave the order to attack the vessel a second time because it was not completely destroyed.
But that doesn’t help their narrative. It needs to be Pete Hegseth. They don’t want some admiral – that doesn’t meet their objective, and normal people are going to look at it and side with the admiral. So, what to do? Well, accuse Pete Hegseth of throwing the Admiral under the bus. Of course, what that would mean is that he is shifting his responsibility onto the admiral. But wait – the NYT says that Pete didn’t have any responsibility to begin with. Further, the Democrats just got through telling us that we shouldn’t obey illegal orders. If anyone should, an admiral should certainly know what an illegal order is.
But let me emphasize, the admiral did nothing wrong. Again, I’m simply charting the internal inconsistencies of this bogus hit on Pete Hegseth.
Now, they are also going with another argument. That is that the entire mission is illegal. They have decided, without support, that it is unlawful for us to destroy enemies who are not part of a nation-state's army from bringing poison into the United States. Now, if they were bringing mus gas, instead of fentanyl and cocaine, presumably it would be OK to kill them – or maybe not under their logic.
But there’s no free pass. That’s because it’s not the law. They are unlawful combatants, and we can kill them on the high seas. This is why there are no pirates or slavers in the Atlantic. We killed them pursuant to the law. The law has not changed; apparently, we’re only allowed to avail ourselves of the parts of the law that they misinterpret to limit our capacity to defend ourselves, rather than the parts that enable us to defend ourselves from people who kill nearly 100,000 Americans a year
So, that’s where we are. Under the facts as alleged, Pete Hegseth didn’t do anything wrong. He didn’t give this kill order. As a result, the haters have had to shift their arguments. The problem is that their previous arguments about illegal orders have trapped them. If they argue that the entire operation is unlawful, or even that the second strike is unlawful, it would mean that the admiral and the dozens, maybe hundreds, of military people involved are all committing more crimes by giving or following a legal order.
That’s not what they want. They don’t want the admiral or any of the soldiers. They want Pete Hegseth, and now they can’t have him. So, they’re going to throw the whole illegal orders thing out the window and try to change the subject to accusing Hegseth of shifting the blame that he doesn’t bear to the admiral, who, under their theory, does bear it.
Yes, it’s totally inconsistent. No, it doesn’t make any sense. But that’s not its purpose. It has nothing to do with what the facts or evidence, or law say or require. It’s a political hit job designed to get rid of Pete Hegseth and replacing with somebody pliable – many of us know who they prefer - and hurt Trump. Don’t buy into it.
https://x.com/KurtSchlichter/status/1995848544033317255
Lol you fell for pizza
the kernel of superlegality is that there are moral concerns -- e.g., crime, corruption, communism, immigration, race-pollution, liberal decadence, terrorism and so forth -- so urgent and overpowering that the law and public decency must yield to the prerogative of the sovereign to create the state of exception to cons utional order and the law to save the country.
(for Carl Schmitt, the sovereign was the living embodiment of the folk and the law -- Hitler. the test of who's a sovereign for Schmitt is creating the state of the exception)
Last edited by Winehole23; 12-03-2025 at 06:11 PM.
all he does is gargle blood
why shouldn't there be a lot of people who want Hegseth gone?
he's a crap leader and incompetent to boot
should have been gone after the Signal affair, tbh
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
