It is what the Native Americans call it! Long before the white men invaded.
Hegseth issues an illegal order.
- Thread starter Jarod
- Start date
Learn to think Comrade. Narco Terrorists are not party to the Geneva Convention.
Obama didn't violate the GC by his identical order regarding bin Laden, either.
Your King Obama killing 14 year old American Citizen Al Alwiki while he sipped coffee in a cafe is a different story.
QP!
Verified User
- Enemy personnel in the water from a destroyed vessel are considered hors de combat (out of the fight)
The military DELIBERATELY closed that door to that discretion with the above clause.
christiefan915
Catalyst
I like the name "Denali" a lot. Just the sound of it.
Me, too! It means “the great one” It fitsI like the name "Denali" a lot. Just the sound of it.
What did the Aborigines call it before the Asians invaded and slaughtered them all?
Remember, when the so=called "Indians" came over from Siberia, there were already people in America. The invading Asians engaged in actual genocide of the black Aboriginals - which is why there are none left - only bones and pottery.
So, why not just call is "Mount Mark Lavin?"
One hundred percent...again this morning.
Jake Starkey
Verified User
That's why inflation is up, Thanksgiving cost 5 t0 9% more, and the job layoffs continue?
Jake Starkey
Verified User
Go sip coffee with a declared enemy combatant and see what happens. Obama is legit, Trump not so much.
QP!
Verified User
Can a magat here show me anywhere in the code conduct that allows anyone in the military to put this rule aside if, in their discretion they believe "...a survivor... out of combat... due to ship destruction...", is not "... considered hors de combat (out of the fight)..." and thus can be targeted and killed?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From the U.S. Military Code of Conduct
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
If an American war ship was blown up and some of the personell was floating in the water clinging to wreckage, an opposing army could assume they were trying (hoping) for a US war ship to save them and they would rejoin the fight. So do magats believe every single US service person in that spot is fair game to kill, if the opposing commander simply says 'I think they were trying to rejoin the fight"?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From the U.S. Military Code of Conduct
- and survivors of maritime warfare who are “out of combat” due to ship destruction
- Enemy personnel in the water from a destroyed vessel are considered hors de combat (out of the fight)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
If an American war ship was blown up and some of the personell was floating in the water clinging to wreckage, an opposing army could assume they were trying (hoping) for a US war ship to save them and they would rejoin the fight. So do magats believe every single US service person in that spot is fair game to kill, if the opposing commander simply says 'I think they were trying to rejoin the fight"?
IBDaMann
Well-known member
Were you not able to read what I wrote?
Senator Tom Cotton defended the U.S. strikes on an alleged drug boat as "entirely lawful and needful," stating that the survivors were attempting to salvage their cargo and "stay in the fight"
.
Following a classified briefing with Navy Admiral Frank "Mitch" Bradley and other officials on December 4, 2025, Cotton, who chairs the Senate Intelligence Committee, offered a starkly different interpretation of the video footage compared to his Democratic colleagues.
View of the survivors Cotton stated, "I saw two survivors trying to flip a boat loaded with drugs bound for the United States back over so they could stay in the fight". He suggested they were "narcoterrorists" and the strikes prevented them from recovering their cargo or getting aid from other nearby boats.
Legality of the strikes He described the multiple strikes as "righteous" and exactly what he would expect military commanders to do. He also relayed that Admiral Bradley denied receiving any "kill them all" order from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, confirming the order was detailed and lawful.
** view on the incident** Cotton stated he "didn't see anything disturbing about it," emphasizing that the true concern is the number of Americans who have died from drugs smuggled into the country.
.
Following a classified briefing with Navy Admiral Frank "Mitch" Bradley and other officials on December 4, 2025, Cotton, who chairs the Senate Intelligence Committee, offered a starkly different interpretation of the video footage compared to his Democratic colleagues.
View of the survivors Cotton stated, "I saw two survivors trying to flip a boat loaded with drugs bound for the United States back over so they could stay in the fight". He suggested they were "narcoterrorists" and the strikes prevented them from recovering their cargo or getting aid from other nearby boats.
Legality of the strikes He described the multiple strikes as "righteous" and exactly what he would expect military commanders to do. He also relayed that Admiral Bradley denied receiving any "kill them all" order from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, confirming the order was detailed and lawful.
** view on the incident** Cotton stated he "didn't see anything disturbing about it," emphasizing that the true concern is the number of Americans who have died from drugs smuggled into the country.
Tbird19482
Verified User
And it doesn't make it right for Trump to do it just because Obama did it.
IF you think Obama broke the GC then take him to the world court and charge him with it.
Obama didn't break the GC until he killed an unarmed American citizen.
ROFL
You stupid little retard.
Why do you post shit that is 180° from the facts? What makes you think anyone will do anything other than laugh and call you a fucking liar?
IBDaMann
Well-known member
I give up. Can a magat here show you anything? What's a magat anyway? Are there any here?
The boat was not neutralized until the second shot. The narco-terrorists should have taken themselves out of the fight by diving into the water. Unfortunately for them, they were stupid and decided to remain in the fight, and remain aboard a valid military target. That was dumb.
If they had jumped into the water, the US Navy would have rounded them up, but not necessarily as POWs because they weren't wearing uniforms.
King Obama didn't violate the GC with his order to kill everyone in the bin Ladin strike. What he did was legal and proper. Just as what Hegseth did was legal and proper.
The "world court" has no authority. They are pissant clowns. Obama should face murder charges for the 14 year old he killed. But the bin Ladin thing was the right thing to do. Just as taking out Narco Terrorists is the right thing to do.
You are desperately trying to cover for the treason of the Seditious Six. You've failed. Even ABC - which spread the demagoguery to start with, has acknowledged that this was all in line with our laws.