Liberal Forum

Huey » 28 Nov 2025, 4:06 pm » wrote: ↑

28 Nov 2025, 4:06 pm

Since you refuse to answer the question put before yours I gave you an EXAMPLE of an illegal order.

Granny Vapors, another example of an illegal order would be ordering a soldier to shoot a civilian.

are the boat runners civilians?

Huey » 28 Nov 2025, 4:06 pm » wrote: ↑

28 Nov 2025, 4:06 pm

Since you refuse to answer the question put before yours I gave you an EXAMPLE of an illegal order.

Granny Vapors, another example of an illegal order would be ordering a soldier to shoot a civilian.

------------------------------------------

 civilians

1. a person who is not a member of the armed forces.

-----------------------------------

ci·vil·ian
/səˈvilyən/

noun
plural noun: civilians

1. a person who is not a member of the armed forces.

Huey » 28 Nov 2025, 4:06 pm » wrote: ↑

28 Nov 2025, 4:06 pm

Since you refuse to answer the question put before yours I gave you an EXAMPLE of an illegal order.

Granny Vapors, another example of an illegal order would be ordering a soldier to shoot a civilian.

------------------------

A soldier is a member of a nation's armed forces, bound by a contract and a strict hierarchy, who is trained for combat and other military duties. A civilian is simply a person who is not a member of the armed forces or any other military organization.

---------------Yes, criminals can be civilians, as "civilian" generally refers to someone who is not in the military or law enforcement. 

jerra » wrote:

02 Feb 1970, 10:10 am

Huey » 28 Nov 2025, 4:08 pm » wrote: ↑

28 Nov 2025, 4:08 pm

Survivors of what?  What are you so afraid to be specific, Granny V?

-------------------------------------

https://www.cnn.com/2025/11/28/politics ... -caribbean

People briefed on the “double-tap” strike, said they were concerned that it could violate the law of armed conflict, which prohibits the execution of an enemy combatant who is “hors de combat,” or taken out of the fight due to injury or surrender.
 

 

that it could violate

Doesn't mean it did.  

Plus, since they are deemed terrorists, they are using the same authority that Obama used to drone American citizens who were considered part of al-Qaeda or its associated forces, especially when they posed an "imminent threat" abroad
 

jerra » wrote:

02 Feb 1970, 10:10 am

Huey » 28 Nov 2025, 4:06 pm » wrote: ↑

28 Nov 2025, 4:06 pm

Since you refuse to answer the question put before yours I gave you an EXAMPLE of an illegal order.

Granny Vapors, another example of an illegal order would be ordering a soldier to shoot a civilian.

are the boat runners civilians?

 

NO.  Using the same authority that Obama used to drone America citizens who where deemed terrorists, these guys are deemed terrorists.

Huey » 29 Nov 2025, 10:04 am » wrote: ↑

29 Nov 2025, 10:04 am

NO.  Using the same authority that Obama used to drone America citizens who where deemed terrorists, these guys are deemed terrorists.

'deemed'?

Huey » 29 Nov 2025, 10:04 am » wrote: ↑

29 Nov 2025, 10:04 am

NO.  Using the same authority that Obama used to drone America citizens who where deemed terrorists, these guys are deemed terrorists.

The core meaning is to judge or view someone or something in a specific way, similar to words like "consider," "believe," or "regard". 

jerra » wrote:

02 Feb 1970, 10:15 am

Huey » 29 Nov 2025, 10:04 am » wrote: ↑

29 Nov 2025, 10:04 am

NO.  Using the same authority that Obama used to drone America citizens who where deemed terrorists, these guys are deemed terrorists.

'deemed'?

 

You would have to take that up with Obama, Granny.

jerra » wrote:

02 Feb 1970, 10:15 am

Huey » 29 Nov 2025, 10:04 am » wrote: ↑

29 Nov 2025, 10:04 am

NO.  Using the same authority that Obama used to drone America citizens who where deemed terrorists, these guys are deemed terrorists.

The core meaning is to judge or view someone or something in a specific way, similar to words like "consider," "believe," or "regard". 

 

 

Huey » 29 Nov 2025, 10:04 am » wrote: ↑

29 Nov 2025, 10:04 am

NO.  Using the same authority that Obama used to drone America citizens who where deemed terrorists, these guys are deemed terrorists.

---------------------------------------------------

• Motivation: The primary motivation for most drug runners is profit, not political ideology. While their actions may have political consequences, the intent is not necessarily to achieve a political goal through terror.
• Legal distinction: The legal definitions of "drug trafficking" and "terrorism" are distinct. While the two often overlap, the legal classification depends on specific actions, intent, and jurisdiction. Some jurisdictions may not legally consider all drug runners as terrorists.

Huey » 29 Nov 2025, 1:32 pm » wrote: ↑

29 Nov 2025, 1:32 pm

You would have to take that up with Obama, Granny.

nothing to do with obama.

---------------------

• Motivation: The primary motivation for most drug runners is profit, not political ideology. While their actions may have political consequences, the intent is not necessarily to achieve a political goal through terror.
• Legal distinction: The legal definitions of "drug trafficking" and "terrorism" are distinct. While the two often overlap, the legal classification depends on specific actions, intent, and jurisdiction. Some jurisdictions may not legally consider all drug runners as terrorists.

jerra » wrote:

02 Feb 1970, 10:15 am

Huey » 29 Nov 2025, 10:04 am » wrote: ↑

29 Nov 2025, 10:04 am

NO.  Using the same authority that Obama used to drone America citizens who where deemed terrorists, these guys are deemed terrorists.

---------------------------------------------------

• Motivation: The primary motivation for most drug runners is profit, not political ideology. While their actions may have political consequences, the intent is not necessarily to achieve a political goal through terror.
• Legal distinction: The legal definitions of "drug trafficking" and "terrorism" are distinct. While the two often overlap, the legal classification depends on specific actions, intent, and jurisdiction. Some jurisdictions may not legally consider all drug runners as terrorists.

Granny Vapors, you really, really need to get informed.  The narvos are now categorized as TERRORIST, hence the term narco terrorist.  

Keep reaching.  You make this way too easy.  

jerra » wrote:

02 Feb 1970, 10:15 am

Huey » 29 Nov 2025, 1:32 pm » wrote: ↑

29 Nov 2025, 1:32 pm

You would have to take that up with Obama, Granny.

nothing to do with obama.

---------------------

• Motivation: The primary motivation for most drug runners is profit, not political ideology. While their actions may have political consequences, the intent is not necessarily to achieve a political goal through terror.
• Legal distinction: The legal definitions of "drug trafficking" and "terrorism" are distinct. While the two often overlap, the legal classification depends on specific actions, intent, and jurisdiction. Some jurisdictions may not legally consider all drug runners as terrorists.

Trump is using the same bi partisan AUMF that Obama used to drone Americans.

Repost for the retards:

Granny Vapors, you really, really need to get informed.  The narvos are now categorized as TERRORIST, hence the term narco terrorist.  

Keep reaching.  You make this way too easy.  

 

Huey » 29 Nov 2025, 1:35 pm » wrote: ↑

29 Nov 2025, 1:35 pm

Granny Vapors, you really, really need to get informed.  The narvos are now categorized as TERRORIST, hence the term narco terrorist.  

Keep reaching.  You make this way too easy.

no proof that they are involved in any attacks-----------


However, the best-known example of narcoterrorism is Escobar's vicious attacks on the Colombian government. In the 1970s, Colombian drug traffickers routinely smuggled marijuana into the United States in suitcases onboard commercial airliners.

jerra » wrote:

02 Feb 1970, 10:15 am

Huey » 29 Nov 2025, 1:35 pm » wrote: ↑

29 Nov 2025, 1:35 pm

Granny Vapors, you really, really need to get informed.  The narvos are now categorized as TERRORIST, hence the term narco terrorist.  

Keep reaching.  You make this way too easy.

no proof that they are involved in any attacks-----------


However, the best-known example of narcoterrorism is Escobar's vicious attacks on the Colombian government. In the 1970s, Colombian drug traffickers routinely smuggled marijuana into the United States in suitcases onboard commercial airliners.

 

Granny Vapors thinks she is a lawyer.  Drugs is an attack.

 

MR-7 » 24 Nov 2025, 4:01 pm » wrote: ↑

24 Nov 2025, 4:01 pm

Calling for mutiny or coup based upon political ideological differences alone should be prosecuted, especially when leadership being the source.

He clearly broke the law and should have known better. 18 U.S.C. § 2387 — Activities Affecting Armed Forces General: (a)Whoever, with intent to interfere with, impair, or influence the loyalty, morale, or discipline of the military or naval forces of the United States: (1)advises, counsels, urges, or in any manner causes or attempts to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty by any member of the military or naval forces of the United States; or (2)distributes or attempts to distribute any written or printed matter which advises, counsels, or urges insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty by any member of the military or naval forces of the United States—

no spam

**** kelly. He is a treasonous piece of ****.

So when does Pete get locked up?

Huey » 29 Nov 2025, 2:13 pm » wrote: ↑

29 Nov 2025, 2:13 pm

Granny Vapors thinks she is a lawyer.  Drugs is an attack.

Poof the magic Huey.  Autorotates into the sea.

And Frolics..

youtu.be/NBh16Nttu7U?si=9zPgdLoqzy4xVGrP

Crystal Method - Vapor Trail
With the B2 cover.. Channel Speedracer392..
 
 

JohnnyYou » 29 Nov 2025, 3:03 pm » wrote: ↑

29 Nov 2025, 3:03 pm

So when does Pete get locked up?

For what Johnny?

 

JohnnyYou » 29 Nov 2025, 3:03 pm » wrote: ↑

29 Nov 2025, 3:03 pm

So when does Pete get locked up?

https://www.cnn.com/2025/11/28/politics ... -caribbean
e US military carried out a follow-up strike on a suspected drug vessel operating in the Caribbean on September 2 after an initial attack did not kill everyone on board, sources familiar with the matter told CNN.That September strike was the first in what became a regular series of attacks on alleged drug boats.While the first strike appeared to disable the boat and cause deaths, the military assessed there were survivors, according to the sources. The second attack killed the remaining crew on board, bringing the total death toll to 11, and sunk the ship.Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth had ordered the military prior to the operation to ensure the strike killed everyone on board, but it’s not clear if he knew there were survivors prior to the second strike, one of the sources said.
 

MR-7 » 29 Nov 2025, 3:05 pm » wrote: ↑

29 Nov 2025, 3:05 pm

For what Johnny?

For blowing up Johnny's drugs.....he's pissed off.