img

  • Stealing gas? Why, that's highly illegal to be stealing gas, Cory and Trevor.

    parent

    Fuck man I gotta rewatch trailer park boys don't I.

    parent root

  • If somali pirates did it they would be indicted. Its all about venezuelan law and if they can enforce it.

    parent

    [deleted]

    parent root

    Sanctions. If you’re going to mindlessly parrot the Trump administration’s bullshit, and least use the correct terminology.

    parent root

    I was using voice to text on that one. I don’t see that that’s funny but either way it’s not administration bullshit. These boats have all been tagged for years and they have heavy sanctions against their country anyway oil should not be leaving Venezuela.

    parent root

    This is like saying “I declare this action isn’t theft” while stealing something though. Who made the US the supreme decider?

    parent root

    Real (oversimplified) answer is our naval superiority decided we can enforce unilateral sanctions on anyone too weak to do anything about it. You might notice that we don’t seize Chinese shipping vessels (typically) because there’s an unspoken rule against fucking with other powerful nations like that.

    parent root

    That’s the million dollar question that pisses the world off they act like they are the world police.

    parent root

    Oh, I get it, so by that logic, if Australia puts sanctions on the US, does that mean we can just take whatever we want from you, whenever we want? I mean, if you've got sanctions on you, why not just hijack US ships?

    parent root

    You could certainly try.

    parent root

    Correct if there is a country in violation of them then yes.

    parent root

    And who decides that? US?

    parent root

    In March 2015, the U.S. administration under Barack Obama imposed asset and visa sanctions against 110 Venezuelan individuals, and eight entities.

    parent root

    Listen, just because you don't know what sanctions are doesn't mean you can pretend your way through a conversation about international diplomacy on the internet.

    parent root

    Cool, I'm going to sanction you right now. Give me your car and all your money, or I'm striking your mailbox with a Missile. See how this works?

    parent root

    Except that’s not how it works.

    parent root

    gestures at headlines

    No that is indeed how it appears to work now. You see the problem? I feel like we’re close to a breakthrough with you

    parent root

    Ooooo you're soooo close to getting it. So close!

    parent root

    According to your own logic that is in fact how it works

    parent root

    This is why everyone hates you guys so much, and I mean seriously hate you guys because you offer nothing good to humanity whatsoever.

    parent root

    Who is your guys exactly

    parent root

    MAGA

    parent root

    Can’t forget the Russian/Israeli/Pakistani Bots

    parent root

    Why are your nose, lips and tongue brown, and and the rest of your face so orange?

    parent root

    Username does not check out

    parent root

  • bully them, wait for an adversary reaction, then attack them seems to be the plan.

    parent

  • In the old days, we were the ones liberating freighters from the lawless pirates and hijackers. See also Captain Lewis, the Maersk Alabama, and Navy SEALS <2009>.

    Now, we're the ones doing the piracy.

    parent

    Look at me. I’m the [pirate] now!

    parent root

    [removed]

    parent root

    Are you on the planet with us?

    parent root

    Are you? Or do you just go by memes

    parent root

    I know you don't share this reality with us since you are MAGA. Imagine being conned and still falling for new cons from the same guy 😂😂😂😂😂

    parent root

    Ohh that you are very wrong. You see just because you don’t agree with someone doesn’t mean they are “MAGA”

    In fact I support AOC. So try again.

    parent root

    Sweet cheeks, do us all a favor. Either learn how international law really works, instead of listening to propaganda, or go back to the topics you know about best. Sex, your dick, and nudity.

    parent root

    Nah, I don't think he knows where the clit is.

    parent root

    Fair point. In none of his comments does he mention anything about actually pleasing his wife or other lovers. Just how much he fucks. And from his endless comments about his friend-with-benefits, it sounds like she takes control most of the time. That might mean that's just what she enjoys, but also that would track with someone who isn't exactly skilled, and she would need to take control to make sure she gets her pleasure out of the encounter, too.

    Quantity does not necessarily equal quality.

    Finding a woman's clit should be basic Lover Skill 101. The bonus points are knowing how to find the G spot.

    parent root

    [°] why is it hard for some people?

    parent root

    I can get not being able to find the G spot. At least that's on the inside, and if you don't know what to look for, well...

    But the clit? That's on the outside. Not hard to find if you're actually looking at the parts, and maybe need to shift a bit of hair out of the way.

    Love the diagram, by the way. Spot on (pun intended).

    parent root

    I honestly think some dudes are disgusted by pussy, they just want to stick their dicks not look at it.

    parent root

    That's sad. Pussies are pretty, and just as much fun to play with as dick.

    Kinda makes you wonder where their minds go, if they find pussies that disgusting. What are they imagining their dick is in, if not the pussy?

    parent root

    Probably their bros since they are probably still in the closet. Just look at Tate. Actually now it's a good moment since he got beat up.

    parent root

    [removed]

    parent root

    lol you know nothing about that. Probably a Fuentes fan

    parent root

    Take a long, deep whiff of the inside of your colon

    parent root

    Why do you think it was meant to be insulting? I simply listed off a few things that you seemed to be knowledgeable about. I actually found the anecdote about your dick being a model for a sex toy to be amusing, in a good way. Seriously, there was no need to flip your shit here. If you'd had more conventional hobbies, I would have listed those.

    parent root

  • This reeks of desperation. 

    parent

    Oil grab more like it, dude is robbing everyone everywhere all at once

    parent root

    Desperation, shitty diaper...potato, potaato. Everything about the orange shit-stain reeks.

    parent root

  • Simply provoking to start a war indirectly with China

    parent

  • Its the US. They can do whatever they want always because they are big and have nuclear weapons. Reminds me of another country actually. 

    parent

    First letter Russia?

    parent root

  • Is he trying to start a war as a last gasp at not being impeached and prosecuted

    parent

    Declare war > initiate wartime powers > Project 2025 becomes way easier

    Hell, they could probably even suspend elections and declare martial law in blue states at that point

    parent root

    All US presidents are war criminals, it's part of the job.

    parent root

  • So if the US does it it’s fine and totally legal, but if Yemenis or Somalis do it it’s piracy? Got it!

    parent

  • BP is paying for this, they lost a ton of stolen profit when they kicked them out of the country.

    parent

  • He is literally trying to start a war to protect himself and other frequenters of Epstein Island from justice, by trying to use it as an excuse to stay in power.

    parent

  • Yeah but you're not stealing it with a nuclear carrier battle group

    parent

  • Trump's excuse is that he gives himself permission, maybe we should try that as well?

    parent

  • Calling it gas is funny. What happens if you steal democracy though MADURO

    parent

  • Antifa HR Director….that’s fantastic.

    parent

  • Can Venezuela just start shooting back already

    parent
  • parent

    Which is fair, but they should have to publicly account for each ship.

    parent root

    You do understand that military navy ships do not need a registration - thus are by your definition "stateless vessels without recent ratings" and are fully legal to seize?

    You see, just because the US says "We sanction, we arrest, we apes, we strong" doesn't mean any shit in international laws and waters. Sure they can enforce it with Visa, Mastercard and guns & missiles by Raytheon - but it has nothing to do with legality.

    parent root

    This is commonly misunderstood, this seizure is not legal and international law says stateless vessels are allowed to be boarded and searched, not seized. A domestic sanction evasion also doesn’t fall under universal jurisdiction, the US cannot seize a stateless vessel in international waters even if they are sanctioned.

    Here’s it explained by my gpt bot.

    “Step 1 — Restate the scenario precisely

    You are describing cases where the United States seizes oil tankers linked to Venezuela, asserting: • ❗ False flag • ❗ Domestic U.S. warrant • ❗ Sanctions evasion • ❗ No flag-state consent • ❗ No port-state or territorial-waters nexus • ❗ No universal-jurisdiction crime (piracy, slavery, etc.)

    We evaluate only that fact pattern.

    ⸻

    Step 2 — What international law requires (baseline)

    On the high seas, a seizure is lawful only if at least one of the following exists: 1. Universal jurisdiction crime (piracy, slave trading, etc.) 2. Treaty-based boarding authority 3. Flag-state consent 4. Territorial / port-state jurisdiction 5. Stateless vessel, plus a recognized enforcement basis

    A domestic warrant alone never satisfies this list.

    ⸻

    Step 3 — Does “false flag” save the seizure?

    Partially — but not fully.

    What false flag does: • Removes exclusive flag-state protection • Allows boarding and inspection • Allows jurisdictional inquiry

    What false flag does NOT do: • ❌ It does not create universal jurisdiction • ❌ It does not authorize seizure for non-UJ crimes • ❌ It does not globalize domestic sanctions law

    Statelessness is a jurisdictional opening, not a seizure license.

    ⸻

    Step 4 — Is sanctions evasion sufficient once the ship is stateless?

    No. Categorically no.

    As established earlier: • Sanctions evasion is not a universal-jurisdiction crime • It binds only the sanctioning state and its nationals • It does not override high-seas freedom of navigation

    Therefore:

    Statelessness + sanctions evasion ≠ lawful high-seas seizure

    Something else must be doing the legal work.

    ⸻

    Step 5 — So what is the U.S. actually relying on?

    In practice, the U.S. relies on unstated or downstream jurisdictional hooks, such as: • Planned or eventual entry into a cooperating port • Constructive territorial nexus (insurance, dollar clearing, U.S. banks) • In rem forfeiture theory (treating the cargo as criminal proceeds) • Anticipated enforcement via third states • Or simply non-opposition by other naval powers

    Critically: • These hooks are often implicit, not announced • Courts examine them after the seizure, not before • Weak or sanctioned states rarely litigate effectively

    ⸻

    Step 6 — By strict legal definition: what is the seizure?

    By black-letter international law: • ❌ It is not a clean universal-jurisdiction seizure • ❌ It is not justified by sanctions alone • ❌ It is not justified by a domestic warrant alone

    It is best classified as:

    A contested or gray-zone enforcement action that is tolerated rather than clearly lawful

    Or more bluntly (Axiom candor):

    Legally incomplete, but practically uncontested

    ⸻

    Step 7 — Why this hasn’t collapsed the system (yet)

    Because: • Venezuela lacks naval leverage • Flag states involved are weak or complicit • No major maritime power is willing to escalate • The U.S. carefully avoids claiming universal jurisdiction in its filings

    This keeps the precedent informal, not doctrinal.

    ⸻

    Step 8 — Bottom line (precise and final)

    If the U.S. is seizing Venezuelan-linked tankers on the high seas based only on a domestic warrant and sanctions evasion, then by international-law standards the seizure is not fully lawful.

    It persists because it is not meaningfully challenged, not because it is doctrinally sound.”

    parent root

  • Yeah but the petrol in the USA is not sanctioned and profiting Iran

    parent

  • Wait until you hear what the Ukrainians are doing to oil tankers.

    parent

    the country invaded by their neighbor and currently at war? how is this at all related to the united states stealing oil tankers from a country we're not at war with?

    parent root

    Where is the oil in these tankers headed?

    parent root

    good question, where were those tankers headed and why are we attacking a country we're not at war with?

    parent root

  • Not the flex you think it is

    parent

  • The law says they can take them. So what is the question here ?

    parent

    No, it doesn't. At all. Imagine shilling for a wannabe dictator government, actual loser activity lmfao

    parent root

    Here’s why it isn’t legal, format by AI

    Step 1 — Restate the scenario precisely

    You are describing cases where the United States seizes oil tankers linked to Venezuela, asserting: • ❗ False flag • ❗ Domestic U.S. warrant • ❗ Sanctions evasion • ❗ No flag-state consent • ❗ No port-state or territorial-waters nexus • ❗ No universal-jurisdiction crime (piracy, slavery, etc.)

    We evaluate only that fact pattern.

    ⸻

    Step 2 — What international law requires (baseline)

    On the high seas, a seizure is lawful only if at least one of the following exists: 1. Universal jurisdiction crime (piracy, slave trading, etc.) 2. Treaty-based boarding authority 3. Flag-state consent 4. Territorial / port-state jurisdiction 5. Stateless vessel, plus a recognized enforcement basis

    A domestic warrant alone never satisfies this list.

    ⸻

    Step 3 — Does “false flag” save the seizure?

    Partially — but not fully.

    What false flag does: • Removes exclusive flag-state protection • Allows boarding and inspection • Allows jurisdictional inquiry

    What false flag does NOT do: • ❌ It does not create universal jurisdiction • ❌ It does not authorize seizure for non-UJ crimes • ❌ It does not globalize domestic sanctions law

    Statelessness is a jurisdictional opening, not a seizure license.

    ⸻

    Step 4 — Is sanctions evasion sufficient once the ship is stateless?

    No. Categorically no.

    As established earlier: • Sanctions evasion is not a universal-jurisdiction crime • It binds only the sanctioning state and its nationals • It does not override high-seas freedom of navigation

    Therefore:

    Statelessness + sanctions evasion ≠ lawful high-seas seizure

    Something else must be doing the legal work.

    ⸻

    Step 5 — So what is the U.S. actually relying on?

    In practice, the U.S. relies on unstated or downstream jurisdictional hooks, such as: • Planned or eventual entry into a cooperating port • Constructive territorial nexus (insurance, dollar clearing, U.S. banks) • In rem forfeiture theory (treating the cargo as criminal proceeds) • Anticipated enforcement via third states • Or simply non-opposition by other naval powers

    Critically: • These hooks are often implicit, not announced • Courts examine them after the seizure, not before • Weak or sanctioned states rarely litigate effectively

    ⸻

    Step 6 — By strict legal definition: what is the seizure?

    By black-letter international law: • ❌ It is not a clean universal-jurisdiction seizure • ❌ It is not justified by sanctions alone • ❌ It is not justified by a domestic warrant alone

    It is best classified as:

    A contested or gray-zone enforcement action that is tolerated rather than clearly lawful

    Or more bluntly (Axiom candor):

    Legally incomplete, but practically uncontested

    ⸻

    Step 7 — Why this hasn’t collapsed the system (yet)

    Because: • Venezuela lacks naval leverage • Flag states involved are weak or complicit • No major maritime power is willing to escalate • The U.S. carefully avoids claiming universal jurisdiction in its filings

    This keeps the precedent informal, not doctrinal.

    ⸻

    Step 8 — Bottom line (precise and final)

    If the U.S. is seizing Venezuelan-linked tankers on the high seas based only on a domestic warrant and sanctions evasion, then by international-law standards the seizure is not fully lawful.

    It persists because it is not meaningfully challenged, not because it is doctrinally sound.

    parent root

  • Not if you are Dominic toretto

    parent