So now the US can sink any ship on the high seas, no questions asked, no evidence given? Usually, terms like "state sponsored terrorism" are thrown about when dealing with such events.
this post was submitted on 22 Oct 2025
698 points (99.4% liked)
World News
50459 readers
1779 users here now
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
- Blogsites are treated in the same manner as social media sites. Medium, Blogger, Substack, etc. are not valid news links regardless of who is posting them. Yes, legitimate news sites use Blogging platforms, they also use Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube and we don't allow those links either.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF OCTOBER 19 2025
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. 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.
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.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
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.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Start blowing up American boats see how they like it
I guess if Putin and Israel can do it why not the us. Who's going to stop us. We watched a genocide for the last two years, whos going to stop the us from bombing fisherman
- Lie that someone is a threat (without evidence)
- Justify killing him based on #1 (without due process)
- Claim that anyone opposing #1/#2 is aiding the enemy
- Justify killing that opposition based on #3/#1
Fascism 101
Murderous fascists gonna murder fascistly.
I'm not entirely sure about that, providing the photos USA showed are accurate (they might not be under this administration.) that wasn't a fishing boat, it was an expensive looking speed boat. Speed Boats are expensive in the world of boats, where everything is expensive.
But also a boat like that isn't making a crossing from Colombia to USA on a single tank of fuel and any storage is going to be needed for product, so it also seems very unlikely they were trafficking drugs.
Trump is a murderer and a vandal. And a rapist. And an insurectionist. He's probably jaywalked too.
I can't tell if you're deliberately trying to cheapen him being a rapist of children or if that was just a mid joke :(
The worst part is that he isn't even just a child rapist. Partaking in and supporting something like Epstein's Island as somebody with that much wealth is so insanely disgusting, so far past the normal disgusting of ruining a single child's life like that.
We literally don't have a term for that besides "a billionaire".
Like, we don't know what happened there for decades.
Who is missing? What happened to them? Etc. because in that place, by those people, anything went, the law did, does, and will not apply, ever. Other than Jeffrey Epstein, there have been literally no consequences. It has been protected.
Trump is an active participant in that, and we are all the lambs under his party.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Why did they just take his life like that?
Wrong place, wrong time, wrong color, wrong nationality :(
Wrong facial expression
The cruelty is the point
Yep. The cruelty was always the point.
The Trump administration has said the U.S. is in a "non-international armed conflict" with drug cartels, arguing that the narcotics they smuggle kill tens of thousands of Americans every year, constituting an "armed attack."
Ah yes because nothing says "fighting the baddies" like blowing up another country's citizens to advance your imperialist and neo-colonialist agenda. When you're not killing brown people from the desert, you're killing brown people from the jungle.
Even if we don't believe that (which I don't) the dudes on the boats are not kingpins and commanders, they are one step above literal slaves, their choices are pretty much:
1: Drive the boat and don't get caught or tell anyone, or 2: get necklaced as soon as your wife is done getting necklaced
Because they’re racist, unaccountable, and don’t value humanity.
Make Headlines Have Propositions/Articles Again! (or whatever grammatical components are necessary to make headlines easier to parse; less garden path-y)
Colombian WHO WAS killed in A U.S. [MILITARY?] strike was on a fishing trip, wife claims
I have a suggestion:
Colombian WHO WAS killed ~~in~~ by A U.S. [MILITARY?] strike was on a fishing trip ~~, wife claims~~
The US military didn't provide any credible evidence, they are basically starting a terrorist blockade of waters, while the only "fact" we have is the wife statement. Under normal circumstance the wife statement should be treated as fact unless proven otherwise.
Well, as some pointed out, U.S. provided a picture of the boat, which was not a fishing boat, but an expensive speedboat. So there is some evidence against the wife's claim. On the other hand, a speedboat shouldn't have enough fuel to reach the U.S. So both stories seem suspicious.
The US provided a picture claiming to be of the boat in this specific event.
The standard of evidence for whatever imagery the US Administration provides to the Press is well, well, below what a Court would consider admissable as "evidence", so there is no evidence against the wife's claim - that could be any speedboat at any time: no trail of evidence links that picture of a speedboat to this specific event.
There is also no evidence for the wife's claim - she said stuff, which can just as easilly be true as it can false.
The unbiased take on this is that two sides are making claims which are not backed by anything that qualifies as evidence: she could easilly be lying, whilst the picture of a boat provided by the US Administration can have been taken anywhere and at any time and be totally unrelated to their murder of this guy ("murder" because this was a purposeful killing which was not a Lawful Execution following a Court Judgement nor was it done in self defense, so it fits the legal definition).
And this is without even going into the detail that it's the side which has murdered somebody who has at least the moral duty (this being the US, the Rule Of Law for purposeful extra-judicial extra-territorial killings is literally non-existent) of backing it up with actual evidence (real, proper stuff, not "picture of random speedboat with no evidenciary trail linking it to the actual event")
Court would consider admissable as "evidence",
What does that have to do with how a newspaper should write a headline? Since there is no evidence for the wife's claim (and at least some small evidence against), the news correctly reports it as just her claim.
The unbiased take on this is that two sides are making claims which are not backed by anything that qualifies as evidence
Didn't I just write that in less detail? I guess I should have added "weak" evidence? I thought the word "some" already made it clear it was far from enough evidence.
Well, as some pointed out, U.S. provided a picture of the boat, which was not a fishing boat, but an expensive speedboat. So there is some evidence against the wife’s claim. On the other hand, a speedboat shouldn’t have enough fuel to reach the U.S. So both stories seem suspicious.
The part of your post I emphasized is literally false. Not half-truth as you're now implying by calling it "weak evidence", literally it is a false statement.
A falsehood is not a counter-argument to whatever you were arguing against, even if it's not done maliciously but simply because you yourself were decieved by one side using more showmanship for their claims and likely your own subconscious bias favoring the statements of "authorities" over those of "random poor-looking south american person"
When the US Administration says that the specific "expensive speedboat" in the photo they showed was the boat in that event, they are verbally making a claim with no backing proof whatsoever and without any proof linking it to the actual event that photo has no evidenciary characteristics AT ALL - it's literally a random picture of an "expensive speedboat" plus somebody's "trust me this was the boat involved", no stronger or weaker than the wife's "trust me my husband was out fishing" unless you have a bias that predisposes you to trust the US Administration more than a colombian woman.
"He says" is not "some evidence against" a "she says" claim.
What do you mean it's false? Evidence that does not hold up in court of law is still evidence. There is nothing false about that sentence.
If I take a photo of my car for insurance after a car crash, it is evidence. Even if it is not perfectly provable that it is my car or that it is from that day and not previous accident, it is still evidence. Evidence does not have to be perfect or prove the case on it's own to be considered evidence.
Fair enough: as per one of its dictionary definitions "Evidence" is "The means by which an allegation may be proven, such as oral testimony, documents, or physical objects" so that photo can be said to be "evidence", just like the woman's words can be said to be "evidence", just like anything at all no matter how flimsy which any side claims or implies that "may prove the allegation".
My bad, "evidence" is not "proof" (which was how I read it) and you never claimed it was "proof", so my mistake.
So strictly speaking your statement was correct, even whilst not actually countering the point of the poster you were responding to: they claimed that there was no "credible evidence" whilst you pointed out (correctly as you just showed me) that there was "evidence", which is not the same as "credible evidence".
I'll try henceforth to keep in mind that saying that "there is evidence" means absolutelly nothing at all about a case beyond somebody having claimed that something they provided may prove an allegation on that case (in other words, claiming something is "evidence" is an allegation about an allegation, so that by itself doesn't prove or disprove anything further than the initial allegation by itself).
I would say that our discussing here shows that at the original point to which you replied to still stands: the US Administration has shown no credible evidence. They've provided what they claim is "evidence", but then again a Trump recording saying "it's true" could also be claimed to be "evidence" per the dictionary definition of the word.
this just in sale of speedboat now illegal because they are drug
Civilian MURDERED in TERRORIST ATTACK conducted by the US ARMED FORCES was on a fishing trip
load more comments
(2 replies)
Colombia should take this to the ICC, it won't so shit, but they should anyway.
The US not only withdrew its signature of the Rome Statute in 2002 (along with Israel) it also has a law that says they'll invade the Hague should a US war criminal ever be tried there.
Normal non-terrorist stuff.
Thanks Bush.
Oh I know that, hence that it won't do shit, as you rightly indicated, rule of law, with bug guns. Just another average day for countries like the US and Israel.
we have unmarked masked paramilitary randomly renditioning folks over here. we are a fucked up shithole country at this point. Every country needs to be prepping their military and diplomatic ties assuming the us may be an aggressor. Europe, japan, india, canada, south korea, australia, argentina, taiwan, brazil should think about a nato alternative.
Whenever all this ends in half a century or whatever. There should probably be some kind of more generalized non-proliferation pact. To prevent a single nation from leap frogging every other by multiple factors.
It's a rogue state at this point. The most powerful one on earth. Who could stop them even if they wanted to.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Because they're pedophile fascists who need distractions from their inability to effectively govern.
Imagine breaking down while fishing, raising your engine, and setting up a distress call and being excited to see an American vessel approaching to help.
It then stops, trains its guns on you, and fires explosive shells.
Big picture he is trying to start a pointless war and then use it as a justification to Crack down on people in the US that say it's wrong to declare martial law as there are insurectionist among the people.
This will do away with due process for everyone and allow him to throw anyone he wants into prison.
The end goal will be to remain on office under the pretense that America is at war and it's own people cannot be trusted to elect another leader for the time being
Only until someone else will aim just a little more to the right.
Imagine someone shooting a missile to an US yacht and then saying "drug smugglers!".
load more comments
(1 replies)
From drone strikes on sheep herders to stop "terrorists" to strikes on fishermen to stop "drugs". Taking all bets on what profession is the US gonna start bombing next, the excuse, method of bomb delivery and location. It's like Clue, but awful.
Smart money is on airstrikes on uber drivers in Chicago to stop Antifa.
There was a time during the war on terror when the US could have punished the the neocons who fabricated reasons to invade Iraq, the policymakers who sanctioned waterboarding and torture, and illiberal measures like the Patriot Act. But there were no consequences and so here we are with a lawless criminal regime running amok at home and abroad, sanctioning genocide and threatening and bombing countries without even the pretence of legitimacy.
He's going to bomb penguins in Antarctica from a satellite because they look better in a tux than him.
Also that one island with penguins not paying their tariffs
Because they have the fascist brain disorder and are a danger to all living.
The article missed to mention the man in question had old (10 years ago) charges about stealing 264 guns to the police that were going to be used as evidence against a paramilitar group: link in Spanish.
Obviously, this doesn't justify the bombing against a stranded civillian target with a broken boat asking for help.
"recent"... TEN years ago.
My bad, I read months. Will fix my comment.
Political theater for the benefit of their propaganda machines.
view more: next ›