Are you the type of person who would execute wounded survivors of a missile strike?

Dutch Uncle said:
It kills the enemy so it's logical, but it's still a war crime.
Click to expand...
It is not a war crime to destroy pirate ships and smuggling ships, Sybil.
Dutch Uncle said:
The Israelis targeting a hospital is a war crime.
Click to expand...
The hospital was a military target, Sybil. The war crime was by HAMAS for using civilians as human shields.
Dutch Uncle said:
The Israelis targeting a Hamas comm center under the hospital is not. However, by placing their comm center under a hospital, school or mosque, Hamas leaders are guilty of a war crime.
Click to expand...
This part is correct.
 
 
Uncensored2008 said:
I see the fentanyl shortage is hitting you hard..
Click to expand...
It's not just fentanyl. It's the cocaine, the meth, the acid, the barbiturates, etc.

It all fucks people up.

I don't care if the bombed boats are carrying cocaine or fentanyl...it's all the same. Misery...and death. These boats are smugglers of misery and death. They should be destroyed.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Agreed. It's SOP for them. They don't know what to think until Trump's cock holster friends at Fox Newz tells them what to think. Weird!

Regardless, Whiskey Pete is on record telling our troops to ignore the laws of war. He's now demonstrated that ideology by killing shipwrecked survivors with zero evidence they were drug traffickers.

The fact both Pedo Don and Whiskey Pete are now acting like little bitches by throwing ADM Bailey under the bus is expected. All those supporting Trump should take note.

Let's not forget Trump did exactly the same thing to the 1/6 traitors. Within a week he was condemning them for the violence and refused to pardon them in his remaining two weeks in office.
Click to expand...
Trump has broken no law, Sybil. He has pardoned none of the rioters on Jan 6th. You can't pardon someone that has never been convicted or is not standing trial.
 
QP! said:
Do you believe the term "narco terrorist" has any real meaning in terms of treating them like 'terrorists'?
Click to expand...
Yes.
QP! said:
Or better yet, if a future Dem gov't declared 'guns an emergency' using almost all the same reasoning Trump has with drugs, since it would apply, would you support that future Dem Potus taking all the same actions, including marching ICE (after he converts it to a gun focus) in to Red State only to 'seek out those trading in illegal guns' and forcing every legal owner to provide ID and proof and then targeting and killing any 'labeled' gun runners out of country?
Click to expand...
ICE is looking for (and finding!) illegal aliens. They do not target citizens.
If you idiots try to take guns away from the people, you are gonna get 'em hot lead first, and with empty magazines.
QP! said:
Because I, for one, would fully support the above, and ensuring if Red State citizens defy the operation that the are faced with maximal force.
Click to expand...
DON'T TRY TO START A WAR YOU CANNOT WIN, KEWPIE!
 
Uncensored2008 said:
The "illegal orders ruse" has failed. So now comes the host of slander and idiocy from the hive,

{
I've taught the Laws of Armed Conflict to U.S. and mult. allied troops.

It's comical to have online experts inform me: The Laws of War do not apply to killing terrorists because Congress didn't declare war

WRONG

You can't make a 2nd strike at a boat you're sinking because there might be wounded on board

WRONG

It is murder to kill designated terrorists

WRONG

I'm sorry it gives you sadz that our Commander in Chief has decided to stop letting the cartels kill Americans by smuggling poison into our country.}

https://twitter.com/x/status/1995853654486581572
View: https://x.com/JimHansonDC/status/1995853654486581572?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1995853654486581572%7Ctwgr%5E9da6fa044ab12fd9823b937914778cb9bb90c499%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitchy.com%2Fsamj%2F2025%2F12%2F02%2Fjim-hanson-drug-boats-post-oh-hell-yeah-n2422354
Click to expand...
The Left is just trying justify the seditious six
 
Uncensored2008 said:
What law prohibits a second strike? Are soldier trained that if in battle they miss with the first shot, they are prohibited from taking a second.
Click to expand...
The Geneva convention:

Article 3
In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:

Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

The (Geneva) convention also explicitly forbids the ordering of “no quarter,” meaning it is prohibited to order that there be no survivors in a conflict. This is a core principle of international humanitarian law, designed to protect non-combatants and ensure all persons who have laid down their arms or are otherwise incapacitated are treated humanely.

Prohibition of “no quarter”: The Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols make it a grave breach of the law to order that there be no survivors. This is also known as “taking no prisoners” or “no quarter” and is explicitly prohibited.
 
Cypress said:
Nope.

Presidents Bush and Obama legally operated under the congressional GWOT military authorization to attack Al Qaeda and its affiliates.

Trump is unilaterally claiming the right use American armed forces against drug dealers in an undeclared state of war.
Click to expand...
True. But that is the designation... we are at war with terrorism... so he calls everything terrorism...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top