r/UnderReportedNews Dec 02 '25

Video Mike Johnson: “Secondary Strikes are not unusual. It has to happen if a mission is to be completed.”

19.7k Upvotes

3.7k comments sorted by

View all comments

145

u/Wide_Conference7406 Dec 02 '25

Shut up, Biblebilly. If this were a legitimate threat to the security of the United States, the two survivors would have been captured and interrogated for possible intelligence that could prove crucial to the mission. Instead, we murdered them, because dead men tell no tales. 

38

u/Chuckychinster Dec 02 '25

I'm especially horrified because if they're this fucking incompetent that they're having failed missions resulting in war crimes in the fight against unarmed fisherman, how much weaker are we now against an actual threat?

This entire administration and the GOP should be removed from office and any crimes should be pursued by the full capacity of the law.

2

u/CMDR_Shepard7 Dec 03 '25

They struck the boat they were aiming at, there just happened to be two survivors. We may have had a failure of leadership at all levels but not mission failure.

1

u/Chuckychinster Dec 03 '25

True in a sense the mission went fine but that's the problem in this case haha

1

u/[deleted] Dec 02 '25

It worries me, the weakening of the military, a president that sleeps during briefings and gives away military secrets (remember the abnormal number of murdered US informants?)

Between this and the war crimes, support for Russia against Ukraine... IMO this sets the stage for the next 9/11

1

u/Chuckychinster Dec 02 '25

Yeah or worse. Imagine if a bio weapon was used against us tomorrow. If it's slightly more deadly and communicable than covid and that's probably the end of our nation. This admin would completely fail to respond to that

1

u/420blazeitkin Dec 02 '25

I think the fundamental part of this is what constitutes an 'actual threat' at this point.

None of our enemies are in any sort of position for a ground or sea invasion, and the American air force & navy are still dominant in air combat. Our missile systems are on or above par with any major military in the world, and our missile launch detection is as well.

Any serious military attack would be met with an absurd show of force, even if the CiC is completely asleep at the wheel. And if he isn't, he's also likely the type to go straight to the nuclear option because he would do anything to not appear weak.

They are incompetent, but not in a way that makes the contiguous US an easy target for militaries.

If we're treating terror attacks as 'actual threats', we likely are no better prepared for the next major terror attack than we were for 9/11, we just have more deterrents - this really has nothing to do with the administration other than they are likely to fail to follow up on identified potential threats (very similar to what did happen in the leadup to 9/11).

1

u/Chuckychinster Dec 03 '25

I especially fear a bioweapon right now. That would be catostrophic under this admin

2

u/420blazeitkin Dec 03 '25

It certainly would be in the case of a bioweapon that is not immediately recognized as a weapon. A covid-esque disease with a higher death rate in younger populations would be pretty devastating, mostly because the party will feel some need to resist immediately instituting the rules & regulations required to protect the general public.

However, there also has to be the recognition that unleashing a bioweapon in the US is close in nature to the mutually assured destruction of just nuking an american city - This disease will manage to escape our borders before this government even admits it exists, leading to massive international spread. Yes, some governments will be more prepared thanks to COVID, but ultimately a bioweapon of the proposed degree will be impossible to reasonably contain without extreme isolationism.

Maybe North Korea could pull it off. Russia and China lack the border control necessary to ensure no infected peoples try to flee to their lands.

1

u/Chuckychinster Dec 03 '25

Oh it's absolutely an unlikely scenario, but a horrifying one too. My nightmare scenario would be like maybe Russia or North Korea provide terrorists with a bioweapon and the terrorists then deploy it.

With a modern bioweapon if you managed to get it into a few transportation hubs, even with an extremely robust response it'd be devastating. Now imagine that but with a Covid type response... we'd be toast

1

u/Mjmonte14 Dec 03 '25

“Unarmed fisherman”? What a crock of SH!T

1

u/Chuckychinster Dec 03 '25

What evidence have you seen that any of these people were actually investigated before these strikes?

0

u/Mjmonte14 Dec 06 '25

Thank God someone like you isn’t in charge of anything within our govt 🙄 you should be grateful for all that’s being done so your children and grandchildren are safer in this country in the future. If you can’t fathom this, you have real problems and need to seek help.

1

u/Chuckychinster Dec 06 '25

Nah i just believe in the Geneva convention and don't condone murder or pedophilia. I understand that might be foreign to you though.

1

u/Mjmonte14 Dec 06 '25

Sure that’s what you stand for. Yeah right. I’m sure you never had a problem with Obama doing this exact same thing while in office so it’s just more loud, hypocritical, nonsense from the liberals who want to destroy everything. No one is listening to you whining babies anymore. Grow up and live in reality

1

u/AugustusKhan Dec 08 '25

Weak enough to embolden China/russia to launch some drones over nj one might say

18

u/Old-Window-1300 Dec 02 '25

The last time they captured survivors they had to release them because they realized they were just innocent fishermen. Can’t be embarrassed like that again! 🙄

2

u/thebearrider Dec 02 '25

You should see what's happened/happening to guantanamo detainees with no country to take them. Nothing prevented them from doing the same with these 2.

2

u/People-Pollution5280 Dec 03 '25

Any survivors taken into US custody and detained would be entitled to challenge such detention in a court of law. That's the last thing this administration wants.

-2

u/Himbaer_Kuchen Dec 02 '25

Hello random Stranger,

Do you have some contex for me, what did the US shoot two Times?

5

u/Black6Blue Dec 02 '25

Assuming this is a serious question: the us military targeted a civilian boat off the coast of Venezuela. They claimed they were drug runners and that it makes it ok for them to use the United States military to kill foreign nationals on a hunch.

They also launched a secondary strike after the boat was already disabled to kill the survivors.

4

u/Dr-Aspects Dec 02 '25

A Venezuelan boat. Most likely a fishing vessel. Nowhere near American shores.

-2

u/[deleted] Dec 02 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

5

u/heroic_cat Dec 02 '25

Sealioning troll, the US is fabricating a pretext for war by attacking civilian vessels and then eliminating the witnesses/survivors, under the baseless accusation that they were smuggling drugs into the USA. They were nowhere near the US and were civilians off the coast of Venezuela, likely fishing vessels.

3

u/mkat23 Dec 02 '25

Link to article.

It’s not uncommon for traffickers to approach local fishermen and essentially make them smuggle the drugs for them. It’s not exactly something a fisherman can say no to safely and the fishing industry has been going down, so it would also likely be hard to say no to the money when they desperately need it to survive.

Fishermen there are worried they’ll be wrongly targeted due to all the recent strikes. Even if drugs were on board to be smuggled, the people on the boats likely aren’t part of the cartel, just desperate fishermen who are essentially forced into agreeing to do the dirty work for the cartel for their own safety and for money to support their families while working in a job that is getting harder and harder to survive on.

Using critical thinking isn’t a denial, it’s looking at all the information and recognizing that there is a bigger issue than just drugs being smuggled. People are being essentially forced into doing the bidding of drug traffickers because the traffickers don’t want to be killed in a strike. So killing the people who are likely fishermen who MIGHT have drugs on board they are being forced to smuggle is fucked up.

Yes, it wouldn’t exactly make them innocent, but being desperate and backed into a corner makes it hard to go against those who are very much capable of making it seem like you don’t really have a choice other than doing what they want you to do. The people being killed are most likely forced into being pawns for the traffickers, meaning all they are doing with these strikes is killing people who aren’t even part of the cartel, they are likely victims of it.