By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The US military conducted another strike in the Caribbean targeting a vessel allegedly involved in narco-trafficking, resulting in the deaths of all four individuals on board, according to Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth. This marks the fourth such strike since September, all targeting boats the administration links to cartels designated as terrorist organizations, and occurred in international waters near Venezuela, potentially escalating tensions. Though the exact terrorist affiliation was not specified, officials claim the boat was transporting narcotics to the US, and the administration has declared an armed conflict with these cartels. Legal concerns have been raised by experts and lawmakers regarding the legality of these strikes, with officials indicating these actions will continue.
Read the original article here
US strikes another boat off Venezuela coast, killing four, Defense Secretary announces. The announcement of yet another U.S. military strike off the Venezuelan coast, resulting in the deaths of four individuals, has sent shockwaves through the discourse. The initial claim, delivered with the casual assuredness that often accompanies these pronouncements, is that the boat carried drug smugglers. But something about the statement just doesn’t sit right. We are being asked to accept this explanation, this justification for the loss of life, without any solid proof. The response of “Because we said so!” simply won’t cut it anymore. The most obvious and critical questions remain unanswered: how do we know they were drug smugglers? And if they were, why this level of force?
The core of the issue is a profound lack of transparency and accountability. The entire boat, we are told, was destroyed, removing any possibility of independent verification. No evidence can be examined. There’s no room for investigation, no possibility of due process. This deliberate erasure of potential evidence is, at best, deeply concerning and, at worst, indicative of something far more sinister. If there were actually drugs involved, why not intercept the boat, arrest the individuals, and dismantle the network? Why choose a course of action that results in the loss of life and the destruction of any chance of gathering intelligence?
The justification feels flimsy, almost like a pretense to cover for something else. Statements are made that the flow of drug boats has “completely stopped.” Well, if they have stopped, then there is no threat. Are we now hitting any boat in the area just in case it *might* be a drug runner? It is worth repeating: even if drugs were present, extrajudicial murder is not the appropriate response. The very concept of a trial, of evidence, of a functioning legal system, is being disregarded in favor of a quick, decisive, and deadly action. This isn’t simply an overreach; it’s a fundamental betrayal of the values the United States claims to uphold.
This situation raises serious questions about the motivations behind these strikes. Are we dealing with actual threats, or are we witnessing an escalation of actions designed to provoke a response? Some are speculating this is an attempt to start a war with Venezuela, perhaps for reasons connected to oil or some other ulterior motive. It’s disheartening to watch the situation unfold, knowing the potential implications. Such actions do not solve anything; in fact, they only complicate an already fraught geopolitical landscape.
This all raises the specter of a descent into barbarity, where the very concept of legal process is disregarded. These aren’t just strikes; they are extrajudicial killings, with no regard for established legal frameworks. The silence surrounding the deaths is deafening. And if there are even a few people that accept it, then we know this will happen again, and again.
The absence of transparency, the destruction of evidence, and the willingness to resort to lethal force without due process all point to a disturbing trend. The question is not if they are willing, but how far will they go. The response should be a resounding rejection of such actions, a demand for accountability, and a renewed commitment to the principles of justice and the rule of law. The world is watching, and what they see is not a nation upholding its values, but one potentially spiraling towards a dangerous precipice.
There’s a growing sense that this isn’t about preventing the flow of drugs; it’s about something else entirely. This constant hammering on a foreign country, without proof, is a recipe for disaster. It is difficult not to believe this administration is looking to ignite a conflict, disregarding international laws and the basic tenets of human rights. The silence of the international community is equally alarming.
It’s important to pause and consider the ramifications of these actions. Even if these individuals were involved in some illegal activity, the punishment does not fit the crime. There are alternative methods. It’s a reminder that we need to defend ourselves from our own government.
These actions, if left unchecked, will have far-reaching consequences. The time for passive observation is over. It’s a time to challenge the narrative, to demand answers, and to insist that the United States uphold the values it claims to represent. We must ask the uncomfortable questions, demand proof, and hold those responsible accountable. The lives of the four individuals lost in this strike, and the integrity of the United States, depend on it. The idea of “just blowing shit up because fuck you” shouldn’t be the standard for any country. This is a nation that has always been built on the backs of war criminals. It is time to seek a justice system.