Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Latest Breaking News

Wuddles440

(1,832 posts)

5. In the incident you cited,...

Reply to Stargazer99 (Reply #3)

Sun Sep 14, 2025, 08:50 AM

Sunday

the boat that the Navy attacked and slaughtered its occupants had not been boarded as they merely relied on "intelligence" to justify their action. Considering the type of boat and the number of people on it, "drug smuggling" was probably not on their menu. Of course, now we'll never know for certain.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

LeftInTX BeyondTheVeilJack

12 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

US official says personnel from Navy ship inspected Venezuelan fishing boat for drugs [View all] BumRushDaShow Sunday OP

Using the military to detain people without probable cause. gab13by13 Sunday #1

I am waiting. OldBaldy1701E Sunday #2

why did 11 people get killed on the boarded boat? Especially if there were no drugs found? Stargazer99 Sunday #3

The boat searched on September 12th isn't the same one that was destroyed on September 2nd. 24601 Sunday #4

I'd have to agree with this guy, Bayard Sunday #11

In the incident you cited,... Wuddles440 Sunday #5

Did they check in the keel? mdbl Sunday #6

They got down to the... reACTIONary Sunday #7

"Excessive military means" seems to PatSeg Sunday #8

I remember reading how the U.S. once went to WAR over... Grins Sunday #9

Smells fishy LeftInTX Sunday #10

Real fishy!! bluestarone Sunday #12

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»US official says personne...»Reply #5