There have been so many killings I almost forgot about all the other killings.
57
xpda5 days ago
+5
It's sad when something like this has become insignificant.
5
carnage_lollipop5 days ago
+63
"Alleged" drug boat.
63
IKillZombies4Cash5 days ago
+19
Maybe it’s a drug boat, maybe it’s a Chinese flagged tanker, maybe it was all an alcohol induced vision.
19
djdecimation5 days ago
+14
The Whitehouse pardoned the silk road dude and some Narcos... probably competition.
14
Delamoor5 days ago
+1
Ah, probably just suspected they might be Hispanic, opened fire, figured out the cover story later.
1
The_Bitter_Bear5 days ago
+1
That's why you hit em twice.
Can't have any evidence left behind in case Claude was wrong.
1
no-more-depravity5 days ago
+116
Killiing innocent people in Jesus' name, says Hegseth.
116
3dios5 days ago
+32
They're still executing "criminals" without a trial or even charges wow
32
Rythonius5 days ago
+5
I don't get it. Trump pardoned drug dealers LAST YEAR, some serving life sentences. Now they're dealing out executions to lesser dealers? This admin is so whack
https://www.npr.org/2025/05/31/nx-s1-5415939/trump-pardons-drug-kingpins-even-as-he-escalates-the-u-s-drug-war
5
Salt_Lodge_Nicaragua5 days ago
+60
No! Killing people without trial is not a good thing.
60
pbr30005 days ago
+18
Killing people is not a good thing
18
[deleted]5 days ago
-175
[removed]
-175
boringfantasy5 days ago
+66
How can you determine (beyond a reasonable doubt) that they are drug dealers without a trial?
66
Itchy_Shoulder_6245 days ago
+56
We don’t put drug dealers to death just fyi
56
FederalAgent175 days ago
+20
Well aren’t you a loyal little fedboy
20
holman5 days ago
+34
And how do you know they're drug dealers without having a trial?
34
TheRessistance5 days ago
+35
Where is your evidence that any drugs were being dealt or transported? Using your logic, summary execution by the state for certain crimes is now acceptable? How Nazi of you
35
bullmarket20235 days ago
Nazi enough not to defend drug dealers. Do you hear yourself. You are supporting narco terrorists. That's who you've become.
0
blewnote15 days ago
+12
I think you're a narco terrorist.
12
bullmarket20235 days ago
+3
You're special
3
jmhalder5 days ago
+16
They deserve justice. You're just assuming they're guilty, and justice is death.
Those are really dumb assumptions.
16
bullmarket20235 days ago
No, all drug dealers deserve one fate, death. Quicker the better. Stop defending these people. They wouldn't think twice about putting you in harms way. These animals are worth your time.
0
jmhalder5 days ago
+17
1: There is literally zero evidence that they're drug dealers.
2: We aren't the world police.
3: This is a war crime
You're stupid for thinking I'm defending drug dealing. Use your brain you idiot.
17
bullmarket20235 days ago
I don't hear anyone in the world complaining about deal drug dealers except you. Let that sink in. Cry about it. No one will support justice for dead cartel members.
0
jmhalder5 days ago
+7
They've not given names, or any information that actually supports that they're drug dealers.
You'll clearly lap up anything they tell you.
7
FlipFlappattywhack5 days ago
+18
Dear God you are an astronomical piece of shit.
18
future_sommelier5 days ago
+10
Hey everyone, this guy is a drug dealer! Guess that means explosive end for you right?
See what happens when you don’t get a trial?
10
Accurate-Simple56625 days ago
Nothing because you’re some random guy on Listnook and they’re likely not a drug trafficking member of the cartel?..
0
Separate-Divide-74795 days ago
+5
Firstly, dont sperg out cos you can't entertain a hypothetical. Secondly, in this hypothetical it's completely irrelevant what they are or are not. If you're not entitled to a trial then it doesn't matter; the arrest seals their fate.
5
bullmarket20235 days ago
Sorry, I don't own a boat, not traveling at night at high speeds trying to evade detection. Do you have an ounce of brains?
0
future_sommelier5 days ago
+9
Sorry didn’t get a chance to prove that you died already. Rip. Someone might miss you.
9
HousingThrowAway10925 days ago
+10
The South Pacific is about as far away as you can get from American jurisdiction. Would you be fine if Australia bombed boats off the coast of Florida and claimed that they were bombing drug dealers with 0 evidence?
10
bullmarket20235 days ago
Just because they don't ask you first doesn't mean they don't have evidence. Don't be such a moron.
0
HousingThrowAway10925 days ago
+2
What part of the South Pacific isn’t in America was unclear to you. No evidence has been before a judge or a jury. The executive doesn’t have the authority to unilaterally murder people is suspects of crimes because that’s insane.
There is overwhelming evidence that Trump raped children. Can Norway bomb Trump instead of him being arrested and tried for his crimes?
2
VernorsEnthusiast5 days ago
+8
It’s a shame mother aunt and daddy uncle decided to keep you.
8
U_Sound_Stupid_Stop5 days ago
+9
What about pedos?
9
Salt_Lodge_Nicaragua5 days ago
+6
You're a bot most likely but I'll bite. Where is the line on who they are allowed to kill without a trial? Insurance fraud? Watching an illegal sports stream or movie? Jaywalking? Once it is established that killing a suspect without proving guilt has been established, it's a slippery slope until you can be killed for anything.
6
IxmagicmanIx5 days ago
+2
Not the point, it should have to be proven in court
2
TJ-LEED-AP5 days ago
+1
Then let’s “bomb” big pharma
1
bullmarket20235 days ago
+1
Why? Those are legal and regulated. You're clearly a monster if you want to bomb innocent people doing legal work.
1
TJ-LEED-AP5 days ago
+2
Wait, so you agree bombing innocent people would make you a monster?
2
bullmarket20234 days ago
+1
Drug traffickers are not innocent. What is so difficult to understand? Honestly, why is this so difficult for you?
1
TJ-LEED-AP4 days ago
+1
Prove they were drug dealers. Prove it.
1
bullmarket20234 days ago
+1
Prove they aren't.
1
TJ-LEED-AP4 days ago
+1
That’s not how the legal system works in any first world country. Take your L.
1
TJ-LEED-AP4 days ago
+1
Nothing huh? Also, what laws they are breaking when at sea off the coast of Latin America? And if they do come to the states, and that state does not have capital punishment, what justification is there for their execution? If you cannot answer simple questions then you do not know enough to have an opinion.
1
bullmarket20234 days ago
+1
The Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act.
1
TJ-LEED-AP4 days ago
+1
Not the google AI reply 🤣
1
Whiladan5 days ago
+1
Mmmm boots
1
swollenrubberball5 days ago
+1
Yes they do you fubar
1
djdecimation5 days ago
+1
Drugs should be legal, people like them.
1
hibbitydibbidy5 days ago
+1
Hey look! OP is a drug dealer 👆
1
Maxwell-Druthers5 days ago
+16
Why is this still happening?
16
WeirdSysAdmin5 days ago
+5
Need a distraction from the Iran failures.
5
Brilliant_Pin74845 days ago
-10
They've been blowing up drug boats before the Iran conflict, and are continuing to blow them up now. Regardless of if you think this is good or bad, I don't see what it has to do with Iran or being a distraction.
-10
Timbershoe5 days ago
+6
Thanks, 5hr old account that posts almost exclusively about trump in a positive way.
Your input is super valued and appreciated.
6
Brilliant_Pin74845 days ago
-6
Do you have any disagreement with my comment or just don't like the fact that I have a new account? Because I'm not really sure how someone could look at this as a purposeful distraction from Iran when the US has been doing it for months now. 50 strikes thus far according to the article.
-6
Timbershoe5 days ago
+1
Sure thing. Suddenly restarting the controversial attacks on random boats then posting the footage to twitter can’t be a distraction!
This was a totally just a coincidence and not a distraction from Operation Epstein Distraction.
Thanks again for your valuable input.
1
Brilliant_Pin74845 days ago
-5
Wait is this a distraction from Epstein or Iran or both? You and OP seem to have different opinions here.
Regardless, this isn't really a sudden restart. There's been 50 of them according to NBC. And again, do you have any evidence or reason behind this? Because as far as I can tell the only reason seems to be... well actually I don't think you've given much of one. Your reasons are that it was a sudden restart, which is outright false, and that it's controversial. That seems to be true according to yougov, mostly along party lines, but I'm not sure how it's a reason at all. Pretty much any action in current US politics is controversial along party lines.
https://yougov.com/en-us/articles/53700-two-thirds-americans-say-drug-smuggling-big-problem-divided-on-boat-attacks-december-5-8-2025-economist-yougov-poll
-5
Timbershoe5 days ago
+1
>Wait is this a distraction from Epstein or Iran or both? You and OP seem to have different opinions here.
No, we don’t.
One thing distracts from the previous.
It’s called ‘flooding the zone’.
>Regardless, this isn't really a sudden restart.
This is a sudden restart.
>Your reasons are that it was a sudden restart, which is outright false
It’s a sudden restart.
>Pretty much any action in current US politics is controversial along party lines.
So let’s have a little dip test of your opinions rather than some random poll.
Do you think trump directing the navy to strike random boats, killing the people inside them, without due process or any attempt at arrest then post the footage to Twitter is a good thing or a bad thing?
I’d genuinely like to hear your unfiltered opinion on the US president murdering people.
1
Brilliant_Pin74845 days ago
+2
I don't think it's possible to have a conversation with you based on your comments so far.
2
Timbershoe5 days ago
+3
So you can’t answer one question?
You can’t say if you think Trumps orders for extrajudicial killings of people on boats is good or bad?
It’s just not possible for you to answer that question?
3
OnlyTheDead5 days ago
+9
War crimes just right there in the title.
9
laluneodyssee5 days ago
+17
What distraction is this for now? I've lost count
17
iaintskeered5 days ago
+28
I'm starting to think it's not a distraction just how we operate
28
ForgiveOX5 days ago
+7
Flooding the zone
7
audioofbeing5 days ago
+3
If you can’t control your horrible, idiotic, narcissistic impulses, it makes sense to pretend it’s a strategy.
3
jazir555 days ago
+1
People are in pure denial that someone can be this much of a d*** and this stupid, and have to invent a disease, an illness, a misdirection, some conspiracy for why he's doing what he does. It's actually funny to see them tying themselves into pretzels to avoid accepting this is just who he is.
1
ForgiveOX5 days ago
Flooding the zone is just the strategy governments have used for centuries
0
Certain_Shake_51575 days ago
+4
The new Trump Jesus pic
4
Brilliant_Pin74845 days ago
+1
Why do you think it's a distraction?
1
U_Sound_Stupid_Stop5 days ago
-2
I guess the fact that the US is messing with China's boat, talking about Pearl Harbor
-2
PinchMaNips5 days ago
+3
Back to this shit… It just never ends with this administration. Will do Anything but release the files…
3
briareus085 days ago
+8
What has the US become?
A violent and irrational state actor.
8
arajajaja5 days ago
+1
theyve always bern like that
leader of the free world my ass
1
supercali455 days ago
+9
He sure is good with distractions from other crimes with more crimes
9
Poverty_Shoes5 days ago
+4
“Flood the zone” worked during his first term and it’s working again. If everything’s a scandal, none of the scandals get enough attention to matter. The only swing voter support he’ll likely lose is due to gas prices, which will likely climb even higher if this blockade fiasco escalates. MAGA are numb to everything else, even praising Allah on Easter (I know that Allah is Arabic for God, but MAGA always claimed to not know that, and now they suddenly figured it out).
4
TheRessistance5 days ago
+14
Just asking, but aren’t these war crimes? If that’s the case, aren’t the soldiers “just following orders” open to potential prosecution? I realize we aren’t signatories to the ICC, but this is putting serviceman in terrible positions
14
WaffleHouseGladiator5 days ago
+11
Prosecution by who? I'm not being snarky. Who would prosecute them?
11
TheRessistance5 days ago
-1
The ICC… they could absolutely issue arrest warrants. Enforcement is another matter
-1
faffc2605 days ago
+6
they won't because a law says anyone with american citizenship arrested by that court WILL have the military attempt to rescue them, and europe doesn't want that.
They sanctioned the judges when warrants were issued for Netanyahu and Hamas leadership jointly. The judges on on the IoC can’t even use American payment processors like visa and Mastercard globally for doing their job lmao wtf you think they’re gonna do?
1
fastolfe004 days ago
+1
> The ICC… they could absolutely issue arrest warrants.
The ICC is opt-in. They only have jurisdiction when either the victim or the perpetrator is a signatory state or the act happened in the territory of a signatory state. The US isn't a signatory and it's not clear what flag these vessels were flying, if any, that might lead to a plausible claim of territorial jurisdiction.
> Enforcement is another matter
US law actually authorizes the use of force to prevent a US national from being held to answer for any war crime they commit.
1
Yelworc02425 days ago
+20
They most definitely are crimes against humanity.
20
TheSleepyTruth5 days ago
+6
Was it war crimes when Obama struck militants in Libya and ISIL in Syria? There was no trial there either, no congressional approval etc.The cartels have been officially designated terrorist organizations by the US government, no different from ISIL... so legally speaking blowing up a cartel drug boat is no different than blowing up an ISIL truck in Syria. You are free to disagree with the morality of it, but it is legal and well supported by endless precedent throughout decades of US history of striking terrorist and guerilla militant camps in other countries with no trial etc.
The argument should be whether or not cartels should be designated terrorist organizations in the first place rather than just criminal organizations, but the historical precedent supporting the legality of military strikes on government designated *terrorist* targets is extensive.
6
VonVader5 days ago
+5
If in fact it is a drug cartel boat which none of us will ever know.
5
Brilliant_Pin74845 days ago
+6
Wasn't that same criticism used against the ISIS strikes? Didn't really matter much then, at least legally speaking.
6
TheRessistance5 days ago
+3
If you bothered to read any of the other posts here before posting this you’d have realized your statement was already contradicted.
There were UN resolutions etc allowing for use of force. Your rationale is “I call you terrorist and I kill you” bears no justification in the modern world
3
plsbeagoodneighbor5 days ago
-2
Great come and stop us. Glad we don’t care if some f*** on the other side of the world wants us to ask them for permission to blow up drug boats.
-2
Crypt33x5 days ago
Double tapping survivors? Degenerate scum.
0
plsbeagoodneighbor5 days ago
-1
They can simply stop trying to run drugs into the US.
-1
Crypt33x5 days ago
Sure. Are you gonna bomb a cruiseship, because there is a couple smuggling cocaine in their suitcases? You call them drug boats, while the US coast guard says that atleast 25% never had any drugs in them. Instead of using f****** bombs worth more than a couple of salarys, maybe use a f****** boat to stop them, like all noble humans on earth. This degenerate shit is disgusting, honorless and as progressive as the people from 1500 ad. Prize law from 1600 was more progressive compared to the shit the US is doing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prize_(law)
0
plsbeagoodneighbor5 days ago
No, just the speedboats.
0
DigitaIBlack5 days ago
+1
I think the ones that were war crimes were the trouble taps (showing no quarter). I'm not an expert though.
1
[deleted]5 days ago
+1
[deleted]
1
faffc2605 days ago
they're crimes against humanity, for it to be a war crime...there sort of needs to be an actual war involved, the geneva conventions are only relevant between two groups of armed combatants who are signatories to it. the ICC which prosecutes crimes against humanity has no juristiction in the US so it's really only US military law they are worried about.
0
Darkelementzz5 days ago
-4
I'm not saying I agree with it, but every president have been happily doing this shit for 50 years, reaching their peak in the Obama years. No they are not considered war crimes and nobody has been charged for these situations for decades.
-4
TheRessistance5 days ago
+2
I’m sorry but that’s factually incorrect on multiple fronts. When there were drone strikes there was congressional and UN authorization in many instances allowing for the use of force.
Here, Kegseth and others have just decided anyone in a boat is a “narco terrorist” whatever that means. You can’t just call anyone you don’t like a terrorist and murder them.
2
Keeltoodeep5 days ago
+4
Obama did not have a UN mandate in Pakistan or Yemen. For Biden, all the UN did was demand the Houthis stop. It did not approve any resolutions for acts of force.
4
clownshow595 days ago
-7
No, the soldiers are following orders. Who would prosecute them?? The US government is giving them the orders. If they don’t follow orders they will get court marshaled.
-7
FederalAgent175 days ago
+3
The *pilots are not innocent in this case. If illegal orders are given, it’s their duty to refuse them.
3
TheRessistance5 days ago
I said the ICC could issue warrants. Further your argument is hilarious at best, not all orders are lawful. You’re literally using the Nazi argument from the Nuremberg trials.
0
clownshow595 days ago
-2
You’re just a random person on Listnook. Provide some links to prove you know what you’re talking about.
One thing I can assure you of; if a US soldier refuses orders from a commanding officer they will be reprimanded. That’s just a hard f****** fact of life that you will have to get realistic about.
-2
TheOneManDankMaymay5 days ago
+2
>Provide some links to prove you know what you’re talking about.
Go on then. Where are yours?
2
mrroofuis5 days ago
+5
We (US) just can't stop shooting at stuff and killing people
5
ranchspidey5 days ago
+4
Remember when the U.S. at least pretended they didn’t murder innocent people? Pepperidge Farm remembers.
4
plsbeagoodneighbor5 days ago
-2
Naive to think they’re innocent. There is no benefit to striking random innocent boats, when there are obviously real targets.
-2
ranchspidey5 days ago
Our justice system says everyone is innocent until proven guilty ya dingbat.
0
plsbeagoodneighbor5 days ago
+1
Our justice system doesn’t apply to terrorist groups in international waters dummy
1
ranchspidey5 days ago
that’s not how anything works lmfao
0
plsbeagoodneighbor5 days ago
+1
Literally currently working exactly like that while you screech on the internet.
1
Lucky_Mongoose_48345 days ago
+2
I thought we’d moved on to other war crimes, did these guys not get the memo?
2
Rythonius5 days ago
+2
This admin is spreading us too thin and making us susceptible.
2
Tex19315 days ago
+7
This is some sick sadist bs. I hope the military command is prosecuted sone day.
7
StretchMother96275 days ago
+4
Because the “security” the US offers anyone in The world has never been more obviously BS , so predictably sick and demented attempted flex by them to murder two random guys that don’t have anti air craft capability
4
Nick_Napeam5 days ago
+3
Look out below druggos
3
the_jokes_on_u5 days ago
+4
Does anyone have proof they aren’t drug smugglers…?
4
imaginarytoby5 days ago
+5
No, zero evidence a non drug smuggling boat was ever hit. And in every video seen the boats are clearly weighed down and completely full of sealed packages.
5
PracticalYellow35 days ago
+3
And big blue chemical barrels and no nets.
3
Nadante5 days ago
+3
Does that mean it's justified to go full Judge Dredd?
3
pm_social_cues5 days ago
-1
So why don’t we drone strike drug smugglers in the country but only in international waters? It’s clearly the just thing to do since you’re justifying it by saying they are drug smugglers.
-1
plsbeagoodneighbor5 days ago
Because we have internal laws that limit the use of force internally.
We tend to not give the same level of judicial procedure to non-citizens driving boats of drugs towards us in international waters.
Good. Glad to see we haven't forgotten to continue war crimes in this hemisphere.
3
sharrrper5 days ago
+1
Still doing this also?
Get fucked Republicans.
All of you.
1
imaginarytoby5 days ago
+4
You love drug smugglers that much? Hopefully none of the drugs they bring in will kill anyone you love
4
sharrrper5 days ago
-1
You in particular can get fucked twice
-1
imaginarytoby5 days ago
+1
Angry because your illegal drugs are becoming harder to get? Or because less people are overdosing on the drugs these terrorists are transporting?
1
sharrrper5 days ago
Even by facist standards you're shockingly bad faith.
Bye!
0
imaginarytoby5 days ago
+3
Says the facist. Stop supporting terrorist drug smugglers then
3
[deleted]5 days ago
+1
[ Removed by Listnook ]
1
ViolettaQueso5 days ago
+1
So that’s where to they have whiskey Pete…he’s been AWOL during escalation.
1
Jaded-Kangaroo5695 days ago
+1
Donald and Pete. Two micro p**** guys who wouldn’t throw knuckles face to face but mean mother f*** inside the sit room.
1
quaglandx35 days ago
+1
Oh yeah, we’re still doing that bullshit too. F*** me.
1
pm_social_cues5 days ago
+1
What do they mean by ”eastern pacific”? It literally doesn’t even say which country.
1
erikaspausen5 days ago
+1
"We need new distraction from the distractions of the last distraction"
1
Constant_Section14915 days ago
+1
"Alleged"
1
Main_Statistician5792 days ago
+1
Point for the good guys bud
1
DennyPebblepot5 days ago
+1
Oh cool we’re doing this again.
1
KaliUK5 days ago
+1
War crimes to distract from war crimes.
1
MuthaPlucka5 days ago
Something to cheer up King Don-Don.
0
[deleted]5 days ago
-8
[deleted]
-8
FederalAgent175 days ago
+4
Why do you automatically trust the government’s declaration that it was a drug boat?
4
BrofessorFarnsworth5 days ago
-2
3 month account, reeks of vodka
Edit: Ope, I upset the sock puppets
-2
Blunt_Hadder5 days ago
Where is the ICJ.
0
Additional-Arm-12985 days ago
Allegedly
0
Accurate-Simple56625 days ago
-59
Good. Those 2 evil people would’ve killed many more either by violence or drug use.
-59
TheRessistance5 days ago
+18
What is the evidence that any illegal activity has occurred? In addition, what activity warranted a death sentence without a trial?
18
imaginarytoby5 days ago
The video evidence of a boat full of drugs
0
Accurate-Simple56625 days ago
-4
I see what you’re saying.
-4
a1055x5 days ago
+6
Let's not give the drug user any responsibility here. And by that standard let's start bombing pharma corporate headquarters, booze and cigarette offices...
6
Accurate-Simple56625 days ago
-3
> Let's not give the drug user any responsibility here. And by that standard let's start bombing pharma corporate headquarters
Holy low blow. You’re comparing illegal drug trafficking to medicine manufacturers? Also overdoses and trafficking related violence to people who choose to self-intoxicate are not something you should wish on people. Key word “self”. They’re not hurting anyone but themselves.
-3
zippykaiyay5 days ago
+4
How do you know this was drug related? Time and time again it's been shown that they are killing fishermen.
4
Accurate-Simple56625 days ago
-23
Hmm maybe I was ignorant to that. Can you provide articles covering multiple scenarios of what you’re describing?
-23
alreaytakennameuser5 days ago
+8
To date, the Trump administration has acknowledged at least 33 strikes against boats suspected of transporting narcotics, killing at least 110 people.
Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth have cited intelligence that they claim proves the boats were involved in narcoterrorism or transporting narcotics to the U.S. They've at times said that the people on board were affiliated with specific criminal organizations. They have not publicly offered evidence to support their claims.
[Here](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/all-the-u-s-military-strikes-against-alleged-drug-boats)
8
Accurate-Simple56625 days ago
+4
Thank you for being civilized in a discussion, but where’s the evidence that they did indeed kill innocent people?
4
TranslatorTough89775 days ago
+9
Everyone is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Extrajudicial killings are crimes against humanity.
9
Accurate-Simple56625 days ago
+1
Did he not get approval from the courts to do this because it’s a threat to the nation? Genuine question, I could be tripping idk.
1
Horror_Response_19915 days ago
+2
Did the courts approve murder to people on boats from other countries without any due process? No, I don’t believe so.
2
TranslatorTough89775 days ago
+2
There is no death penalty for drug dealing in the US, so no court would ever authorize it. Military action is for actual national security, and this ain't that.
2
Araminal5 days ago
+4
Where is the evidence that they were drug runners? And under what law is the US military allowed to kill non-combatants?
4
justdidapoo5 days ago
+5
It's classified, we don't know.
America just executing people in international water with the only evidence being the word of HEGSETH is absolute insanity
5
alreaytakennameuser5 days ago
+3
If you are truly looking to be civil, when it comes to the matter of our, or any government killing anyone. The questions should always be where is the proof those people are guilty and not the other way around. Imagine if a loved one of yours was killed by the police, who would be more right, you to questions why the police thought they were guilty, or the police to question you why you think they are innocent?
3
Accurate-Simple56625 days ago
+1
I mean if my federal government is convinced that someone is trafficking mass amounts of drugs into my country, and claims to have proof, I would trust my government unless given hard evidence to counter their claims. You’d trust alleged drug traffickers over your own government? You’re living in the wrong country then my friend.
1
alreaytakennameuser5 days ago
+3
If there’s proof then why haven’t they shared it? If the government is not required to share such proof what stops them from just claiming proof even if they don’t have it. These are all questions you must ask as fully trusting any government, even one you like, is extremely dangerous. Whether R or D it has been shown over the past many decades our government is full of bad actors taking advantage of us. If you love your country then do as your fore fathers wanted and question everything, take nothing at face value, and demand our government be held accountable no matter who they are, same side or not.
3
Accurate-Simple56625 days ago
+1
Good point about the past, but let me ask you something: genuinely why do you think they would bomb innocent people? For what reason?
1
alreaytakennameuser5 days ago
+3
Let’s just say they were drug smugglers, do they still deserve to die without some form of due process? If so then ask yourself this, if every American who also smuggles drugs, or even sells drugs on any level. Do they deserve to die without a trial?
3
Orposer5 days ago
+7
Maybe you can look it up yourself being saying stupid shit..
7
big_stipd_idiot5 days ago
+5
He told you what to look up. Go Google it yourself a******.
5
Caymonki5 days ago
Listnook
0
Accurate-Simple56625 days ago
-3
I think anyone trafficking illegal drugs is asking to die and I wouldn’t feel any bit bad about it if they did. In terms of killing them with no evidence, I agree with you.
180 Comments