Venezuela 2025

[Szdfan]

There was no second strike. So is the assault on the vessel somehow… better now? Bothers you less? Complies with international law (whatever that is)?

The White House confirms there was a second strike.

https://thehill.com/homenews/5628447-de ... trike/amp/

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt confirmed on Monday that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth authorized the second, follow-up strike on an alleged drug boat in the Caribbean in September following a bombshell Washington Post report that claimed he ordered the military to “kill everybody.”

Leavitt told reporters at the White House press briefing that Hegseth authorized Adm. Frank Bradley to carry out the second strike, which reportedly killed two people who were hanging onto the burning vessel after an initial strike.

I don’t think this makes anything better, but I do think it adds doubt to the reliability of Rasmussen Reports and the argument you built around them.

[Szdfan]

Where did that come out? I haven’t found a source supporting that claim.

Bottom of P.5 cites one source / USA TODAY / https://forum.mennonet.com/viewtopic.ph ... 0&start=40

You mean this?

Regarding allegations:

USA TODAY:

.. U.S Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth is lashing out at a report that he ordered military officials to "kill them all" during one of the Trump administration's strikes in the Caribbean aimed a boat allegedly carrying drug .. ..

That doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.

All that means is that Hegseth denies it happened and uses his usual inflammatory “fake news” rhetoric. Considering the vindictiveness of this administration, it’s not surprising that Washington Post relied on anonymous sources. Happens all the time.

This is why a congressional investigation is necessary.

Exactly.
Allegations. Opinions. Denials. Speculation.

See my response to John above. White House confirms the second strike. Looks like it wasn’t “fake news” after all.

Regardless of your very low opinion of this admin, they also enjoy due process.

You keep using the phrase “due process.”
I don’t think it means what you think it means. (Princess Bride)

Due process applies to legal proceedings, not whether we are allowed to have opinions about the government.

If Pete Hegseth gets charged with a war crime, he’s entitled to due process in court. The prosecution has to provide evidence to support the charges. A Congressional investigation into the allegations is due process.

Due process is what the military denied Venezuelan civilians when it blew their boat out of the water.

Having an opinion, discussing and debating does not require due process,

Plaintiffs can be as wrong as, or as evil as, or worse than, defendents.
Courts of human law aren’t always perfect or just. They are what we have on earth. Not all on earth have equal courts or equal systems.

God has sovereign justice that is inescapable.

Epistemological fog.

[temporal1]

JohnH:
.. The weak will be conquered by the strong. ..

^^often, not always. the Holy Spirit can intervene.

John’s argument is actually very similar to mine. He approaches it as a matter of fact, the winner writes the rules. I agree completely with his argument, but my point is focused more on the claim for moral superiority.

Christians have Jesus Christ.

This begs the question of what "morality" is.
Without Jesus, "morality" is often defined by whoever is strongest / most powerful ultimately being viewed as the one who gets to decide what "right and wrong" is.

Jesus instead came and told us the meek will inherit the earth - but he also taught us what right and wrong are, and there is a Law higher than man's laws. He also taught us that there is a Judge. You could call it an "international criminal court", if you wish, where all will be tested according to their works.

Win, lose or draw on earth, Christians have Jesus Christ for eternity.

[temporal1]

Exactly.
Allegations. Opinions. Denials. Speculation.

Regardless of your very low opinion of this admin, they also enjoy due process.

Plaintiffs can be as wrong as, or as evil as, or worse than, defendents.
Courts of human law aren’t always perfect or just. They are what we have on earth. Not all on earth have equal courts or equal systems.

God has sovereign justice that is inescapable.

Due process includes appeals.

Evidently, Szd, you presume because i remind of due process i’ve already judged the defendents to be innocent or not guilty, not so!
i’m respectful and cautious about courts - ‘cause, i don’t know. Waiting for a ruling means waiting for a ruling INCLUDING appeals.
i do not believe courts are perfect. they are what we have ON EARTH. fallible.

The best advice for all of us is to AVOID ever having to go to court.
(A local judge once told me.) i think the very best advice.

[Szdfan]

JohnH:
.. The weak will be conquered by the strong. ..

^^often, not always. the Holy Spirit can intervene.

John’s argument is actually very similar to mine. He approaches it as a matter of fact, the winner writes the rules. I agree completely with his argument, but my point is focused more on the claim for moral superiority.

Christians have Jesus Christ.

This begs the question of what "morality" is.
Without Jesus, "morality" is often defined by whoever is strongest / most powerful ultimately being viewed as the one who gets to decide what "right and wrong" is.

Jesus instead came and told us the meek will inherit the earth - but he also taught us what right and wrong are, and there is a Law higher than man's laws. He also taught us that there is a Judge. You could call it an "international criminal court", if you wish, where all will be tested according to their works.

Win, lose or draw on earth, Christians have Jesus Christ for eternity.

So war crimes don’t matter because heaven will sort it out? Why have laws and courts at all then if eternal judgment is the only place where justice happens?

[temporal1]

So war crimes don’t matter because heaven will sort it out? Why have laws and courts at all then if eternal judgment is the only place where justice happens?

your presumptions and conclusions escape me.

[Szdfan]

So war crimes don’t matter because heaven will sort it out? Why have laws and courts at all then if eternal judgment is the only place where justice happens?

your presumptions and conclusions escape me.

Fair enough. Let me ask it plainly, without presuming anything:

Do you believe it is morally wrong to kill incapacitated survivors clinging to the remains of a destroyed boat? Yes or no?

That’s the question I’m asking.

[JohnH]

So war crimes don’t matter because heaven will sort it out? Why have laws and courts at all then if eternal judgment is the only place where justice happens?

The most heinous of crimes is the slaughter of little babies that happens every day, and laws and courts do nothing - except protect t those who are doing the slaughtering.

If you are looking for right and wrong, man’s laws and man’s courts are the wrong place to look. You will find courts that take the impoverished to trial for a debt of a few thousand dollars, snatching it right out of their paychecks - when billionaires who defraud literally billions - such as Ohio’s own Vivek Ramaswamy seem to be able to get away with anything.

Hence I have more confidence in a heavenly kingdom than in these earthly ones. And yes, I find it a bit suspect when there is a great deal of concern about the lives of suspected terrorists and drug traffickers paired with no concern at all for innocent babies.

[JohnH]

So war crimes don’t matter because heaven will sort it out? Why have laws and courts at all then if eternal judgment is the only place where justice happens?

your presumptions and conclusions escape me.

Fair enough. Let me ask it plainly, without presuming anything:

Do you believe it is morally wrong to kill incapacitated survivors clinging to the remains of a destroyed boat? Yes or no?

That’s the question I’m asking.

Is it morally wrong to blow up a boat suspected to be using to traffick drugs?

[Szdfan]

your presumptions and conclusions escape me.

Fair enough. Let me ask it plainly, without presuming anything:

Do you believe it is morally wrong to kill incapacitated survivors clinging to the remains of a destroyed boat? Yes or no?

That’s the question I’m asking.

Is it morally wrong to blow up a boat suspected to be using to traffick drugs?

That’s a different question. I’m happy to discuss it, but I’d like you to answer the one I asked first.

Is it morally wrong to kill incapacitated survivors who are clinging to the remains of a destroyed boat and unable to fight back? Yes or no?