Venezuela 2025

[Valerie]

Do you still maintain that the boat in the video was just a small open skiff with a single small outboard engine?

I think a peñero is, by definition, a small, open skiff.

https://dle.rae.es/pe%C3%B1ero

peñero
Definición

m. Ven. Bote pesquero de nueve metros y medio de eslora, sin cabina y de forma más fina en la proa, lo que le proporciona rapidez.

“A fishing boat nine and a half meters long, without a cabin, and with a narrower bow, which gives it speed.”

But they do vary in length.

Does anyone know of high-quality images or videos that would show us the number of engines on the boats that were struck?

What is your source for the claim that narcotrafficking boats normally have weapons on display?

I don't have statistics on that. But a lot of news reports indicate that drug smugglers the Coast Guard catches are armed, especially when they’re carrying high-value loads.

Do you know of high-value drug cargoes on boats that were NOT armed?

Right. Our government takes out fishermen.

[Bootstrap]

So if a 42' skiff is above the typical size, it's not accurate to call a 39' skiff a "small" skiff. That would be a "large" skiff.

You probably do know what a skiff is - I never disputed that. And if you know what a skiff is, you know that a 39' skiff is not a "small" skiff.

Sure. And the post you objected to initially did not use that phrase. You were the first to introduce it:

Do you still maintain that the boat in the video was just a small open skiff with a single small outboard engine?

My response was carelessly worded:

I think a peñero is, by definition, a small, open skiff.

More accurate: I think a peñero is, by definition, a small boat that is an open skiff. Small for a boat on the ocean. Large for a skiff. I think we understand each other at this point?

Here is the post you were objecting to:

Here's another thing that looks fishy: these boats look like fishing boats, not the kinds of boats used for drug trafficking.

The boats shown in the strike videos appear to be small, ordinary fishing-style vessels. These boats are:

• Length: about 20–30 feet
• Crew size: only 3–5 people
• Engines: one small outboard engine
• Range: no visible fuel reserves or capacity for long-distance travel, unable to make it to the United States
• Structure: open skiffs with no cabin, no cover, no reinforced hull
• Cargo capacity: minimal — no room for large loads
• Compartments: no hidden storage or modifications
• Weapons: none visible in any released videos

The boats used for narcotrafficking are made for long-range, high-value smuggling and usually have:

• Length: 40–60 ft go-fast boats, 80–120 ft modified fishing vessels, or 50–100 ft narco-subs
• Crew size: 4–10 people, depending on vessel type
• Engines: multiple high-horsepower outboards or diesel inboards
• Range: large fuel bladders enabling multi-day ocean routes to Central America, Mexico, or the Caribbean
• Structure: reinforced or semi-submersible hulls designed for long-distance travel
• Cargo capacity: able to carry tons of cocaine, precursors, or other contraband
• Compartments: concealed storage, false floors, or hidden tanks
• Weapons: assault rifles, submachine guns, shotguns, and sometimes mounted machine guns
• Operational capability: fully capable of long-range smuggling routes to markets ultimately serving the U.S.

[Bootstrap]

Right. Our government takes out fishermen.

Our government is currently killing people with no public evidence whatsoever. In an area where we have no police jurisdiction. If they had the evidence, I think they would be showing it.

The victims have committed no acts of war. They are not agents of any entity we are at war with.

How is this different from murder?

[Bootstrap]

If I understand you correctly, someone said this: Instead of trying to police or kill people outside our jurisdiction, we should follow them and intercept the transport vehicle that’s carrying the drugs before it gets into our territory.

Did I understand correctly? But it also sounds like you do not think that is a good idea ("someone came up with a great idea"). What would you propose instead?

Do you understand how these drug runners work?
They use the small boats to haul to a large larger fishing vessel that then brings it in. So they generally can get it done outside of the sight of the Coast Guard in international water under the cover of the fishing vessel.
You tail the small boat, to get the big boat.
I was being sarcastic because we’re just making them change their methods and we’re scooping up or rather should I say killing some small fish that may or may not even be small fish.

Thanks for the clarification, I think I understand now. So are you saying we should just kill them with no due process in an area where we have no police jurisdiction? Or that this should be treated as a war?

As far as I know, there’s no evidence these Venezuelan boats were acting as feeder boats to a larger vessel. No satellite imagery, no Coast Guard tracking statements, no radar records, no public intelligence reports, no statements from DHS or DoD.

If the U.S. government thought these boats were part of a larger trafficking chain, they would normally track them, not blow them up. They would do this in order to locate the mother ship or identify the organized network and catch the big fish.

Even if feeder boats were involved, lethal strikes on open fishing boats still make no sense strategically. Why kill the small boat crew and destroy all evidence? Why eliminate the intelligence source?

I admit I am no expert on drug trafficking. If you have expertise in this area, please say more about your expertise.

[ken_sylvania]

So if a 42' skiff is above the typical size, it's not accurate to call a 39' skiff a "small" skiff. That would be a "large" skiff.

You probably do know what a skiff is - I never disputed that. And if you know what a skiff is, you know that a 39' skiff is not a "small" skiff.

Sure. And the post you objected to initially did not use that phrase. You were the first to introduce it:

Yes, I was the first to introduce that phrase. And I still maintain the boat was not a small skiff. I also maintain that professional, unbiased reporters seem to agree that at least some of the boats shown in the videos are of the style used in drug smuggling operations in that area.

Do you still maintain that the boat in the video was just a small open skiff with a single small outboard engine?

My response was carelessly worded:

I think a peñero is, by definition, a small, open skiff.

More accurate: I think a peñero is, by definition, a small boat that is an open skiff. Small for a boat on the ocean. Large for a skiff. I think we understand each other at this point?

I agree, a small boat for the open ocean, but certainly large for a skiff. I think most people think of a skiff more as being rowboat size.

Here is the post you were objecting to:

Here's another thing that looks fishy: these boats look like fishing boats, not the kinds of boats used for drug trafficking.

The boats shown in the strike videos appear to be small, ordinary fishing-style vessels. These boats are:

• Length: about 20–30 feet
• Crew size: only 3–5 people
• Engines: one small outboard engine
• Range: no visible fuel reserves or capacity for long-distance travel, unable to make it to the United States
• Structure: open skiffs with no cabin, no cover, no reinforced hull
• Cargo capacity: minimal — no room for large loads
• Compartments: no hidden storage or modifications
• Weapons: none visible in any released videos

The boats used for narcotrafficking are made for long-range, high-value smuggling and usually have:

• Length: 40–60 ft go-fast boats, 80–120 ft modified fishing vessels, or 50–100 ft narco-subs
• Crew size: 4–10 people, depending on vessel type
• Engines: multiple high-horsepower outboards or diesel inboards
• Range: large fuel bladders enabling multi-day ocean routes to Central America, Mexico, or the Caribbean
• Structure: reinforced or semi-submersible hulls designed for long-distance travel
• Cargo capacity: able to carry tons of cocaine, precursors, or other contraband
• Compartments: concealed storage, false floors, or hidden tanks
• Weapons: assault rifles, submachine guns, shotguns, and sometimes mounted machine guns
• Operational capability: fully capable of long-range smuggling routes to markets ultimately serving the U.S.

Then, after saying these boats don't look like the style used for drug trafficking, you say "Peñeros are commonly used on that route for various kinds of short-distance smuggling." And reporters who go on the ground and actually interview the locals say that drug smuggling is more-or-less an open secret. I think you've bought into a narrative and it's blinding you to the reality.

Now, I really don't think these boats were headed to the US. I don't think they were carrying loads of fentanyl. And I have my doubts about whether their cargoes were even destined for the US. And even if they had been, I don't think it justifies blowing them out of the water. But I say - if you have a strong position, don't weaken it by playing fast and loose with the facts. (And yes, ditch the AI, I say that too.)

[Ernie]

So if a 42' skiff is above the typical size, it's not accurate to call a 39' skiff a "small" skiff. That would be a "large" skiff.

You probably do know what a skiff is - I never disputed that. And if you know what a skiff is, you know that a 39' skiff is not a "small" skiff.

Sure. And the post you objected to initially did not use that phrase. You were the first to introduce it:

Yes, I was the first to introduce that phrase. And I still maintain the boat was not a small skiff.

And now we have a new world record.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/us-seiz ... =128290987

US seizes tanker off coast of Venezuela, Trump says.

"Large tanker, very large, largest one ever seized, actually."

[QuietlyListening]

US seizes tanker off coast of Venezuela, Trump says.

It's like he is doing everything in his power to get Venezuela to shoot first so he can say they started the war/skirmish.

"Large tanker, very large, largest one ever seized, actually."

Like he is trying to compete with someone????

[ken_sylvania]

Sure. And the post you objected to initially did not use that phrase. You were the first to introduce it:

Yes, I was the first to introduce that phrase. And I still maintain the boat was not a small skiff.

And now we have a new world record.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/us-seiz ... =128290987

US seizes tanker off coast of Venezuela, Trump says.

"Large tanker, very large, largest one ever seized, actually."

Possibly larger than the seizure in 2020.
https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr ... ur-tankers

So how does this work, anyway? The US gets to just decide that ships can't carry Venezuela's oil to China, and that makes it legal for the US to just take the oil without paying for it? Seems about like piracy to me....

[temporal1]

Right. Our government takes out fishermen.

Our government is currently killing people with no public evidence whatsoever. In an area where we have no police jurisdiction.
If they had the evidence, I think they would be showing it.

The victims have committed no acts of war. They are not agents of any entity we are at war with.

How is this different from murder?

Hmm. Somehow, i’ve never gotten the impression any administration in my life has made everything they know public,
esp not wrt police or military operations.

Yet this admin gets immediate+damning speculation no matter what they do or don’t do.
Other admins don’t seem near as “interesting”. A lot goes by without mention. An awful lot.

i look for courts to determine if the victims in this case committed crimes or acts of war, and their agency.
Beyond the scope of circus media narratives.

I admit I am no expert on drug trafficking.

Not shy to conclude, tho.

[Soloist]

Thanks for the clarification, I think I understand now. So are you saying we should just kill them with no due process in an area where we have no police jurisdiction? Or that this should be treated as a war?

If this was done to us, it would be an act of war.
You seem to misunderstand me. I used sarcasm to make a point but I’m saying that normal practice has been to tail them to get the larger ships and no I don’t know of any evidence to support that those ships that we shot and destroyed (we being the US) are connected to Tender.

As far as I know, there’s no evidence these Venezuelan boats were acting as feeder boats to a larger vessel. No satellite imagery, no Coast Guard tracking statements, no radar records, no public intelligence reports, no statements from DHS or DoD

.
If it was, it would not be made public. Otherwise, they would’ve evade it. If someone really wanted to be thorough, they could dig through and see if there’s been any large boat seizures by the Coast Guard off the coast from anywhere from Florida all the way through Texas.

If the U.S. government thought these boats were part of a larger trafficking chain, they would normally track them, not blow them up. They would do this in order to locate the mother ship or identify the organized network and catch the big fish.

I get the feeling you either are restating what I say to find out if you understand it or are completely misunderstanding me entirely.

Even if feeder boats were involved, lethal strikes on open fishing boats still make no sense strategically. Why kill the small boat crew and destroy all evidence? Why eliminate the intelligence source?

I am saying that sinking them is both an act of war, illegal by both US law and international law and for that matter military law.
I am saying it flies in the face of all historical practice of US drug enforcement.

I admit I am no expert on drug trafficking. If you have expertise in this area, please say more about your expertise.

I’ve read up on it, but I have no personal experience.
Also, just being practical, those sort of vessels don’t really make that kind of journey especially not during hurricane season.