Trump is saying that he's going to go in and just kill all the Venezuelans.

@Jackaloftheazuresand You can show how you got the Intel without giving away private info. The Trump administration didn't post any evidence because they don't have any.

@SatanBurger okay so what type of evidence would you suspect them to have if they did and what type would you choose to be shared?

@Jackaloftheazuresand but extrajudicial killings at sea? Does the War Powers Act cover that? CIA assassination inland? It's all the same, of course. Not saying whether its legal is one answer about legality that's bipartisan and readied the Washington government for further extrajudicial killing. Yum!

@Jackaloftheazuresand Well I asked Perplexity this question because I'm not a lawyer and don't know, however I do know they have shared information in the past so there must have been a way.

I got this and I'm inclined to agree:

What “Intel” Can Be Shared Without Disclosure:

Under U.S. law, classified intelligence can be summarized or substituted with generic descriptions to protect sensitive sources while providing oversight or public understanding.

The ClassifiedInformation ProceduresAct allows the government to present unclassified summaries, admissions of fact, or redacted evidence instead of revealing operational details that could endanger personnel or compromise national security

In principle, the administration could safely release:

The nature of the evidence (e.g., “signals intelligence indicated cartel coordination”)

Declassified sensor data snippets or mission footage already cleared for public release

Redacted excerpts of operational analysis proving that the target vessel met engagement criteria (location, track, communications origin)

Summary reports or statements confirming that intelligence met a threat threshold—without exposing informants or capabilities

@SatanBurger So it sounds like what is wanted would be to know what type they have and the communication domestically that shows this went through some government system.

The data snippets I can foresee that being used to avoid tracking in the future which I suppose is why they'd say it should be declassified data which I don't think we'll get that criteria met for the very subject matter revolves around that idea to begin with(what's safe to declassify)

It's a bit compromising on that first half because just telling what was collected now gives the cartels an idea of what to avoid and where they should focus their strategies rather than having to cover all their bases or take random swings at concentrating on one aspect or another. But the second one seems totally fine. I don't know if people will think that's enough or that they'll trust it because they are wary of the administration already

@Jackaloftheazuresand There has to be some transparency because of what happens when govt is not which is authoritarian stuff so we can't just have govt doing what it wants to people.

This is my best guess from what I know, Trump was given authorization to murder people in ocean areas that are primarily used by cartels generally. This happened before the fisherman got murdered.

In a news post, his friend said his engine was having trouble, that's why he was stagnant in the first place. I'm guessing that if there was information it was pure heresay and Trump killed the fisherman on a rumor.

I really don't think Trump had any evidence though which is why he isn't speaking on it.

@SatanBurger What we have is that they are telling us they are doing it so at least they aren't hiding the action itself. And I think that's about all you can hope for unless they accomplish their goal in some overly victorious way.

On the life of this fisherman, his wife doesn't even know if he was killed so apparently the very same Colombian government dispensing the claim has not confirmed it to her in any way. The claim that his boat was having problems comes from them and it's just based on his engine being in an upward position with a supposed distress signal. There's something to be said here about why we trust Colombia when they don't disclose why or how they know this especially with this supposedly being just a civilian so what's their excuse for not being transparent. If they were aware of him where were they? I wouldn't trust them over our own government especially since Colombia's GDP for cocaine alone is 2-4% which is comparable to the US construction industry.

https://colombiaone.com/2025/10/22/colombian-killed-us-strike/?utm_source=chatgpt.com

@Jackaloftheazuresand the Obama administration started warring on Venezuela way more than sixty days ago, the War Powers Act sounds technical, erudite, smartified, but it's not applicable.

@Jackaloftheazuresand If it was a distress signal that's how Columbia knew, I can't say that he was stranded knowing this information but why else would someone raise a distress signal. Most importantly criminals aren't going to raise no distress signals. I wouldn't if I was transporting drugs.

I trust Columbia simply because Trump has proven to be a pathological liar. I'm not saying this to call him names, it's a literal label. I can name the many things he's been deceptive about and I am in no way calling him that just because.

It's that with people like Trump, it's best to believe who they say they are the first time around instead of just seeing what you want. A liar may tell the truth but they'll embellish it too. Trump has been fairly consistent in doing this and if you observe, you can have a best guess as to what happened.

Does Trump maybe think that he's legit killing criminals? I mean it still doesn't change that he murdered an innocent person but I can believe he thinks that.

Pathological liars are good at lying simply because they believe their own lies though. And the only reason I know how to spot one is because my best friend growing up was one. They have specfic traits and not generalized.

The cartel nonsense is an excuse to uphold white nationalism because us whites are going to be a minority in 2050.

There are plenty of other solutions to drugs and the border that you could do but he takes an extreme route because he doesn't care about drugs entering our country.

This is all very logical if you are able to notice patterns.

So logically, Trump killed a fisherman on bad Intel and rich people are very rarely prosecuted but it would be nice to see that.

@SatanBurger Here's the thing about that signal. The official statement from Petro has two interpretations "The Colombian boat was drifting and had a distress signal on because it had one engine up." or "The Colombian boat was adrift and had its distress signal up due to an engine failure." I have to reiterate my question of where was the rescue team if they were aware of a signal? There were no teams en route to him. So it looks like they are just saying having your engine up is the signal and they learned this after the fact from footage or images perhaps. A smuggler is just as capable of having an engine failure which causes him to lift his engine but this doesn't mean he contacted authorities for assistance.

Petro is a liar himself. He plays the same game as Trump where he goes online and speaks his mind only to be corrected later. He got tricked that a supposed friend of his, Laura Restrepo, was dead and she had to come and refute it. He posts photos of one event claiming they are another. And misreported the rescue of real children who were still lost in the Amazon.

@Jackaloftheazuresand Trump is not doing the actions of someone who has proper intel period:


And

https://reason.com/2025/10/22/trump-allegedly-misidentified-a-colombian-fisherman-as-a-venezuelan-narcoterrorist/?itm_source=parsely-api

@Jackaloftheazuresand That's exactly what pathological liars do. If you accuse them of something they will never defend their position, they leave it open ended so that we can gaslight ourselves. Trump is trying not to implicate himself but he just did with the admittance that there's a potential for deadly mistakes and that fishermen shouldn't choose to go fishing.

Why would he say that if the evidence was concrete that these people were narcos? He was lying.

@SatanBurger I'd suggest that it's because it won't matter, you spend your time justifying yourself to bad actors and all it does is open you up to further attack.

The author of this is making assertions by saying this is an admission of lethal mistakes. Trumps remarks can be read as saying that fishers won't risk going into these waters because they think they'll be killed. It is not plainly stated that they would be or that their beliefs are realistic. The worst thing one can say here by adhering to what is strictly said is that Trump doesn't care about the hit to the industry and the livelihoods of the fishermen who will seek less plentiful locations out of their fear. That's the real devil in the details.

So why would he say that, because if you're a smuggler you won't go into the waters either because you'll die for being one.

@Jackaloftheazuresand I have an issue with a few things but not really what you're saying, just generally. One is we don't know the Intel Trump is supposedly saying he had, if any. I mean if your loved one was in that same situation and you knew they weren't a drug smuggler, would you appreciate it if people just took someone else at their word? It's highly doubtful.

Two, outright murder has never worked. We had public executions at some point, yet the same criminals so it doesn't actually solve anything. I'm practical and that's not practical, it's irrational to meet what you campaigned on. Poverty is sky rocketing, with that you'll have more drug use.

@Jackaloftheazuresand Obama started the attacks on Venezuela way more than sixty days ago and therefore talk about the "War Powers Act" seems like lies. The big kids all agree to lie together? Seems like ya do.

@SatanBurger again, Obama began the aggression against Venezuela way more than sixty days ago. Talking about the War Powers Act is disingenuous.

@SatanBurger I'm seeing the argument too. And I won't tell you that he is being truthful. It's just not something that we know but we don't know a lot when it comes to anyone telling us things. Reporters rarely have to reveal their sources and even when they do they take personal accounts as gospel. One of the things that has been a barrier for a personal matter is that I believe certain things about a family member but I also know that I am in the dark for what is really going on, I am not omniscient. I've had to realize that my emotions are fickle, I would be annoyed but I'd also be asking everyone to take my word and I'm aware of that.

We've advanced in surveillance and enforcement capability since those times, we've also never been allowed to go full bore but no, you're right it doesn't solve criminality.

@Jackaloftheazuresand I'll respond when I'm not at work but you haven't said anything I wholly disagree with. I still think Trump is lying or at best, his intel is bad.

@Jackaloftheazuresand Love how his cult pretend the war powers act is a "do whatever I want" free pass.

It is also unconstitutional if the SCOTUS was a serious legal entity because it directly contradicts the constitution.

@Jackaloftheazuresand People also conveniently ignore the War Powers act requires an emergency like Pearl Harbor.

@PicturesOfABetterTomorrow It pretty much is, provided they meet the criteria I gave. These are subjective interpretations of what constitutes an emergency, attack, or invasion. You know this, I know this, stop playing dumb. I'm not going to tolerate your games any longer. If you want to speak to me further you have to bow to my will first by baring your sin.

Answer for your homophobic sexual harassment of me