this post was submitted on 07 Dec 2025
323 points (98.8% liked)

politics

26585 readers
1881 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

A new, disturbing detail in the “drug boat” controversy that has enveloped Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth over the past week calls the purpose of the entire operation into question.

According to an exclusive report from CNN, the alleged narco-trafficking boat that the U.S. military targeted on September 2 in a “double tap” strike, which killed 11 people, wasn’t even heading to the U.S.

Navy Admiral Frank “Mitch” Bradley, who was in charge of the operation, reported to lawmakers that the boat they struck was actually en route to link up with a larger boat that was heading to Suriname, a country east of Venezuela, two sources with direct knowledge of his remarks said.

Bradley also said that it was still possible that the alleged drug shipment could have eventually ended up in the U.S., the sources told CNN—rather dubious justification for a strike that left several people dead.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] moonshadow@slrpnk.net 1 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago) (2 children)

Yeah, who likes going fast anyways? I would bet everything in my pockets that most of the drugs in this country come in on regular container ships with the rest of the freight, and long skinny ass-haulers with multiple outboards are the default toy of wealthy Floridians since time immemorial. I can extrapolate that to Venezuela a lot easier than I can dream up a scenario where it makes sense to ship fent precursors over from China and run a bunch of pills up the coast on speedboats. Talk to a cop or a junkie, whichever fits your politics. Either one will tell you that's just not how it works

edited to leave this completely unrelated pic here, no reason

[–] Auli@lemmy.ca 1 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (1 children)

Hey go fast boats are a standard in the movie industry it must be true. Yah I'm with you reality is much more boring they are bringing in containers of drugs there is no way the amount of drugs the US uses are coming in on small ships.

[–] boonhet@sopuli.xyz 1 points 4 hours ago

You need the go-fast boat to race the other guys to the drug smuggler's boat. Haven't you played GTA Vice City?

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 1 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago) (1 children)

Yeah, who likes going fast anyways?

If you like going fast you don't build a vessel like this. You dint need to carry cargo if you're just going fast. You need to explain what the cargo is if you want to pretend like they aren't drug boats. They aren't fishing boats, and other cargo doesn't need to be transported like this, and it isn't fuel efficient so it must be something that can't take other routes.

I would bet everything in my pockets that most of the drugs in this country come in on regular container ships with the rest of the freight...

I'm not making any claim about where most of the drugs come in. How does that have anything to do with the conversation. Even if it is true, it doesn't mean these aren't drug boats.

I can extrapolate that to Venezuela a lot easier than I can dream up a scenario where it makes sense to ship fent precursors over from China and run a bunch of pills up the coast on speedboats.

It's not fentanyl. IIRC, most of that comes in through Mexico, but I might be wrong about that. I believe it's mostly cocaine coming through Venezuela.

Again, this doesn't matter. The fact we're having this discussion proves my point. It's better to just talk about the legality. It being a drug boat doesn't make it a legal target. Why even bring that into the discussion. All it'll ever do is distract from the actual crimes being committed.

Just to be clear, I'm a leftist (anarchist). I'm very against this administration, and I'm also generally pro legalization of any drug. That doesn't mean I need to be stupid and pretend drugs aren't being smuggled. There's a hell of a lot of evidence ships like these, and others, have been used to smuggle drugs. Technically all of that could have been staged, but I doubt it. There are drugs being smuggled through Venezuela and you'd have to be very ignorant to think that isn't happening. Hell, there are drugs being smuggled through the US. None of that has anything to do with these acts being illegal though, so don't shoot yourself in the foot by arguing about it.

Edit: On the image you posted, in case this makes you think I'm more reasonable, this is a comment I made a while back: https://lemmy.zip/comment/23085761

I agree with you it's bad. However, drugs are being smuggled. This isn't really something that can be denied. It's happening everywhere all the time. It just isn't relevant. It's illegal no matter what, even if these are drug smugglers or not.

[–] moonshadow@slrpnk.net 2 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

Man the only thing us having this discussion proves is that you're either putting a whole lot of effort into justifying US intervention for a self professed leftist or see this conversation as something to win. The "crime" here is regime change in Venezuela for a shitton of oil and we're here arguing about the plausibility of some set dressing for the manufacture of consent. Check out this factory fresh drug smuggling boat. Definitely not a rich man's sportfishing plaything, purpose built by brown commie narcoterrorists to destroy our freedom

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 1 points 25 minutes ago (1 children)

That's not what they looked like. Here's some of these boats:

Notice it's not really built for comfort. There's no cover for the pilot or passengers, and there's a large cargo area. It's very different than what a civilian boat looks like.

Anyway, I don't know how many times I have to say this. It being a drug boat or not doesn't make it legal to destroy. It doesn't justify anything whether it's a drug boat or not. It's just a lot easier to convince people of the right thing if you don't start from crazy conspiracies. There are drugs being smuggled. This isn't a secret. Arguing that there aren't drugs being smuggled makes you sound equally as reasonable as someone saying that aliens actually blew up those boats. There's a lot of evidence to the contrary that needs to be explained.

[–] moonshadow@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 minute ago

Those are incredibly similar boats to the one I posted, just older shittier and viewed through a gun cam. They get whipped out of Florida by hurricanes and repurposed all over the Caribbean. The bare minimum to call this a conversation is not putting words in my mouth, no shit people smuggle drugs, if you've never done it you're a huge nerd. There is absolutely not some shadowy organization building "drug boats" as an attack on America and absolutely no excuse for us to be down there blowing shit up, legal minutia about rules of engagement aside