Comment by rayiner
6 days ago
> No evidence, as in, it was just Hegseth saying they were "narco terrorists" and using that as justification for military force
Isn’t that the way it always is? Was there a PowerPoint presentation citing evidence every time Bush and Obama blew up a wedding in Afghanistan?
> Was there a PowerPoint presentation citing evidence every time Bush and Obama blew up a wedding
Does it matter? I personally didn't support those actions and would condemn them just as harshly as these ones. You're doing the "But what about Obama?!" meme. A large part of Trump's 2024 campaign was about "peace" which turned out to be a complete lie. Will you admit that Trump lied or are you going to deflect to Obama again?
You again failed to acknowledge the pardon of a drug trafficker, btw.
Saying the government shouldn't carry out extrajudicial executions of terrorists without providing a trial in domestic court is just very sheltered/naive. It's simply not what the real world demands.
Killing fisherman as a pretext to regime change is not what the "real world demands", but okay at least you're admitting it was all a lie.
EDIT: the drugs narrative was a lie too. Trump just admitted that it was about extracting oil in his speech. Now we're running the country until him and his buddies can strike a d—sorry, figure out a "transition" plan.
> You're doing the "But what about Obama?!"
I’m not. My point is that the ordinary rule accepted by most people, especially the mass media, is that the government doesn’t provide public evidence for military actions. So when the New York Times complains that “there is no evidence” here it seems like special pleading.
Given that it was used as justification for regime change ("Venezuela is sending fentanyl and killing Americans!!") then I'd say the pleading should be special.
2 replies →