US Strikes Drug-Carrying Boat from Venezuela, Killing 11 Tren de Aragua ‘Narcoterrorists’
President Donald Trump on Tuesday released dramatic video showing a U.S. military strike that destroyed a small boat carrying narcotics and alleged members of the Tren de Aragua gang off the coast of Venezuela.The video, shared by Trump on Truth Social, captured a missile strike that obliterated the vessel, which erupted into flames in international waters. Trump said 11 narco-terrorists were killed in the operation.
“No U.S. Forces were harmed in this strike,” Trump wrote. “Please let this serve as notice to anybody even thinking about bringing drugs into the United States of America. BEWARE!”
See video on Truth Social
Now what will the evil Maduro say?
On August 7, US Attorney General Pam Bondi announced a $50 million reward for information leading to the arrest of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, who has been facing formal drug trafficking charges from the Justice Department since 2020.
Bondi declared that Maduro “is one of the most powerful drug traffickers in the world and a threat to the national security” of the United States
12 comments:
11 guys on a boat smuggling cocaine is insane normally traffickers load up on the product/drugs not 2,000 kilos of humans?
@9:19...not being a trafficker, I have no idea what is normal transportation of drugs for them.
3 U.S. citizens on board. 1 from Alabama and 2 from Tennessee.
How about a link, at 10:34. The report says "Based on recent news reports, no U.S. citizens were on board the vessel struck by the U.S. military in the southern Caribbean on September 2, 2025
. President Trump stated that 11 "terrorists" were killed and that no U.S. forces were harmed in the strike"
So if Mexico destroys a boatload of American citizens who are transporting guns into Mexico, that's cool? Or is the United States the only country permitted to exercise this extrajudicial killing of "terrorists" authority?
This was a targeted killing of terrorists who were trafficking drugs to our counry in international waters...permissible under the right of anticipatory self-defense.
ANON@12:20....The news article we are reacting to is about vicious drug traffickers that have no right to life, and should be thankful for this quick and painless end. You have no business trying to deflect and fault the war on drugs.
I'm just asking a question, Danny. If Mexico nukes a boat of American gun runners out in the Gulf of Mexico as they make their way into Veracruz is that okay under Lynn's "right of anticipatory self-defense?"
I mean, if Trump flexes, isn't Mexico allowed to flex, too?
That's great! Now, if we can only get the American doctors to stop prescribing psycho-tropic drugs to our little ones, maybe we could work our way back to normal.
Coward afraid to use his own name at 4:28.....America is the superpower, and Mexico is the 3rd world shithole country that exists with our good graces. So they get to do NOTHING, other than ask us to do an interdiction for them. As Mexico contributes to the drug war, they should feel lucky we don't declare them as an enemy we should put down. America should terminate every drug boat it sees as likely trafficking to America. Drug dealers have no right to life, they are enemy combatant terrorists, and the only right they have...is to die.
Historical reality…. For as long as there have been organized societies, conflict has been driven by control of resources, security, and strategic advantage — not by abstract moral purity. Examples across eras: Ancient city states fought over fertile land and trade routes. European empires waged wars for colonies, gold, and naval dominance. Modern conflicts — from oil in the Middle East to rare earth minerals in Africa they all still follow the same logic.
Morality is often the language used to justify war, but the engine is self-interest. This is not cynicism — it’s realism.
Regarding Mexico in this example…. The U.S. is a global superpower with unmatched military reach; Mexico is not. International relations are not symmetrical — power differentials matter. The U.S. targeting a drug running vessel is an act against a direct, ongoing criminal enterprise that fuels violence, addiction, and instability.
Mexico’s hypothetical is based on suspicion without proof, and in a domain (arms sales) where the U.S. is not systematically undermining Mexican sovereignty. Complicity factor: Mexico’s government and institutions have long been infiltrated by cartels. That makes them part of the problem, not a neutral actor.
Across history, appeasement has rarely produced peace.
o Neville Chamberlain’s concessions to Hitler in 1938 didn’t prevent WWII.
o U.S. withdrawal from certain conflict zones has often emboldened hostile actors rather than pacifying them.
Criminal logic: Cartels and traffickers operate on profit and fear, not goodwill. Showing “niceness” is interpreted as weakness, not virtue. Strategic deterrence: The credible threat and occasional use of overwhelming force is what keeps hostile actors in check.
I’m not saying war is good. I’m saying it’s a constant in human history, and pretending otherwise is dangerous. Nations act in their own interest — always have, always will. The difference is whether you face that reality and act from a position of strength, or indulge in wishful thinking that gets people killed.
The world isn’t a college seminar where everyone plays nice if you just ‘model kindness.’ It’s a competitive arena where the strong set the rules. The U.S. didn’t become a superpower by asking permission from cartels — and it won’t stay one by pretending they’re misunderstood neighbors.
“History doesn’t reward the ‘nice’ — it rewards the strong who act in their own interest, and the rest get ruled by them.”
Keep doing it until all these drugs are stopped from coming into the usa!
Post a Comment