General Discussion

haele

(15,171 posts)

12. No reason why they couldn't. With more ships in the area. It's actually easier.

Fri Dec 5, 2025, 02:39 PM

Dec 5

Not to mention there's been a software program in place that provides point of intercept facial recognition of people already of the US radar for drug runners, black market smugglers, terrorists, or "enemy intelligence agents" for quite a few years now.
Successful maritime criminal and terrorist activity interdiction has been around for over a decade.

It's a sign of real moral perversion to just start escalating a tenuous situation by just murdering people suspected in wrong doing like it's some sort of action hero movie - or to approve of such actions.

When "evidence" is destroyed, how can you prove it was somehow justifiable to legal idiots, or was just gratuitous murder? That's why the Navy and Coast Guard used to bring back the contraband to be recorded, tested and traced to point of origin, and then used to determine the smuggler's points of contacts in the US.

But now. It's just a bunch of chest thumping, killing random people and destroying any possible evidence that could prove anything.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

1 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

moondust

20 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

So... is there any reason they couldn't have stopped the boats and siezed the assets? [View all] mikelewis Dec 5 OP

Except the world isn't OK with it. Disaffected Dec 5 #1

If evidence of the drugs exists. Norrrm Dec 5 #2

The reason: Letting the Coast Guard continue as they have done for decades is not as fun for blood thirsty MAGAs Attilatheblond Dec 5 #3

Murderous psychopaths don't worry about reasons Alice Kramden Dec 5 #4

Because they want to murder and the action you propose isn't that? RockRaven Dec 5 #5

They're trying to intimidate the smugglers. maxsolomon Dec 5 #6

They needed a bigger Epstein distraction. yourout Dec 5 #7

They didn't want to endanger the war ships of the fragile U.S. Navy by 4 guys in a boat. Ping Tung Dec 5 #8

They are lazy. Picking them up and charging them is way too much work and dosnt go BOOM. Srkdqltr Dec 5 #9

The goal of these terrorist attacks by the U.S. has nothing to do with drugs. yardwork Dec 5 #10

I served in the US Navy from 1990 to 2010 aboard 4 different ships in that time NavyDem Dec 5 #11

From someone who's served to another... thank you for your service. mikelewis Dec 6 #20

No reason why they couldn't. With more ships in the area. It's actually easier. haele Dec 5 #12

Blowing up boats is better for ratings... Wounded Bear Dec 5 #13

Three Reasons: Epstein, Epstein and Epstein. It's WAG THE DOG! usonian Dec 5 #14

Not supporting any action taken, but drones, etc., don't get troops killed. We should use those if/when legitimate. Silent Type Dec 5 #15

It's not about interdiction, it's about generating "casus belli" 0rganism Dec 5 #16

I think they should have followed them to shore Emile Dec 5 #17

This is a multi-part operation: Thunderbeast Dec 5 #18

No jollies? Bayard Dec 5 #19