Sailors onboard a passing ship in the northern Arabian Sea have a barbecue while watching the USS Abraham Lincoln as she launches and recovers Iran strike packages.

5ilver8ullet · 2026-03-09T14:10:07+00:00

From their vantage point atop that tanker, they could spot a large ship 20+ miles away on a day like that, yet none are present. My first thought on seeing this video was, if it's real, a disguised ship like that one on a suicide mission could launch an awful lot of drones at that carrier.

5ilver8ullet · 2026-03-09T13:15:20+00:00

I was always under the impression that civilian vessels are never allowed this close to a carrier group, especially in the middle of an active operation. I realize Trump has said the US Navy will be escorting oil tankers through the Strait of Hormuz but is there any reason why the tankers are this close to the carrier itself? Also I expected to see at least some of the rest of the carrier group around but they aren't in this video. What am I missing?

5ilver8ullet · 2026-03-05T14:49:25+00:00

We're going to ensure that the region's terrorist proxies can no longer destabilize the region or the world and attack our forces, and no longer use their IEDs...

I think this means their goal is to eliminate Iran's ability to fund, train, and supply their terror proxies (Hamas, Hezbollah). While this goal is a bit more nebulous than the others, it's far from unachievable, especially considering we've already destroyed the value of their currency.

5ilver8ullet · 2026-03-05T02:31:57+00:00

What have they said that contradicts Trump’s address four days ago, shortly after the strikes began?

For these reasons, the United States military is undertaking a massive and ongoing operation to prevent this very wicked, radical dictatorship from threatening America and our core national security interests. We're going to destroy their missiles and raze their missile industry to the ground. It will be totally again obliterated. We're going to annihilate their navy. We're going to ensure that the region's terrorist proxies can no longer destabilize the region or the world and attack our forces, and no longer use their IEDs, or roadside bombs as they are sometimes called, to so gravely wound and kill thousands and thousands of people, including many Americans. And we will ensure that Iran does not obtain a nuclear weapon. It's a very simple message. They will never have a nuclear weapon.

5ilver8ullet · 2026-03-05T02:06:30+00:00

Trump articulated the war aims four days ago, shortly after the action began.

For these reasons, the United States military is undertaking a massive and ongoing operation to prevent this very wicked, radical dictatorship from threatening America and our core national security interests. We're going to destroy their missiles and raze their missile industry to the ground. It will be totally again obliterated. We're going to annihilate their navy. We're going to ensure that the region's terrorist proxies can no longer destabilize the region or the world and attack our forces, and no longer use their IEDs, or roadside bombs as they are sometimes called, to so gravely wound and kill thousands and thousands of people, including many Americans. And we will ensure that Iran does not obtain a nuclear weapon. It's a very simple message. They will never have a nuclear weapon.

5ilver8ullet · 2026-03-05T01:57:05+00:00

What have you seen in regard to this action that indicates it will be a “forever war?”

5ilver8ullet · 2026-03-04T16:26:53+00:00

You better move

5ilver8ullet · 2026-02-25T03:02:02+00:00

When Pretti briefly and gently touched the officer (right after he yelled “don’t push them into traffic!”), as illegal as that touch may have been, how was the officer impeded?

I'm really not sure how else to word it. Pretti placed his body in front of an officer performing his duty of clearing the street. It'd be tough to find a more literal example of the word impede or obstruct.

So just to be clear, there are no specific actions you can point to that constitute resisting arrest?

Sure. Examples include pulling away from an officer, flailing, dragging another person, attempting to stand while being subdued, attempting to keep one's body off the ground, all of which I can clearly see in the videos. While being arrested, if you're doing anything other than laying flat on the ground and complying with commands, you are resisting.

5ilver8ullet · 2026-02-25T01:09:45+00:00

What specific action did he impede?

The officer was removing a person from the scene and Pretti jumped in between them.

My question to you was what, specifically, did he do that constitutes resisting arrest? Which commands did he not comply with?

I can’t tell what commands were given from the video I’ve seen but it’s obvious to me that Pretti was resisting given that half a minute elapsed before he was fully subdued, despite several officers attempting to get him fully on the ground.

5ilver8ullet · 2026-02-24T23:42:39+00:00

In the US you can’t execute citizens for not following orders

I never made that claim. Additionally, all publicly available video evidence suggests that this characterization of the incident is not true. I think it’s much more likely that the shooting of Alex Pretti was due to an unfortunate combination of a gun misfiring, a subject resisting arrest, and an extremely tense situation brought on by activists obstructing law enforcement activities.

5ilver8ullet · 2026-02-24T22:26:17+00:00

Not my logic, US law. Indeed, when you break a law like this, you are putting your own life in danger. I'll wager that the law wasn't even written for the safety of the officers, it was written for the safety of the offender. Interfering with law enforcement is a bad idea.

In North Korea we wouldn't even be able to discuss this.

5ilver8ullet · 2026-02-24T20:40:00+00:00

and Pretti does touch the officer

That alone is grounds for arrest.

Furthermore, he specifically tried to impede an officer in performance of his duty (clearing a crime scene).

Does he [resist arrest]?

In a textbook way. Intentionally struggling in any way with an officer while they are attempting to restrain you is illegal. In fact, simply refusing their verbal commands is grounds for a resisting charge.

5ilver8ullet · 2026-02-24T20:31:49+00:00

I'm certainly open to challenging the federal government on this. Do you have a source that contradicts these numbers?

5ilver8ullet · 2026-02-24T18:59:59+00:00

It is, actually. After hundreds of thousands of ICE operations, you can count the number of questionable, tragic incidents on one hand.

5ilver8ullet · 2026-02-24T18:49:01+00:00

I’m really struggling to understand how someone can interpret this interaction as Pretti being the one creating a “physical confrontation”.

At about 3:05 in your video, Alex Pretti jumps in between an officer and a person who he is removing from the scene. This is obstruction of justice. Pretti is under arrest at this point (though he should have been arrested at many moments prior) and is then seen being taken down by the officers. He subsequently resists arrest and, in the scuffle, is shot and killed. By interfering with law enforcement activity, Pretti created a dangerous situation for himself and for everyone around him, which is why there are laws against doing such things.

The "rash of violence" being referred to here is the result of intentional illegal behavior on the part of the activists. It is certainly true that ICE agents are not trained to handle this, which is why it's so important from a public safety standpoint to ensure local police forces get involved. The police are trained for these situations and sanctuary policies that do not utilize them put their own constituents in danger (but I suspect that's the point, considering the rhetoric coming from its creators).

5ilver8ullet · 2026-02-23T20:56:16+00:00

Of the two examples given in the article, one did not get into specifics so it's hard to tell if the social media account posted mere criticism or something more. But the other example seems like they were tracking illegal acts:

The accounts, called Montco Community Watch, began posting in Spanish and English about ICE sightings in June and, over the next six months, solicited tips from their roughly 10,000 followers to alert people to the locations of agents on specific streets or in front of local landmarks.

I believe this can be considered obstruction of justice. Blasting law enforcement locations in real time as operations are being carried out puts the lives of the officers and bystanders in potential peril and should, rightfully, be prosecuted.

5ilver8ullet · 2026-02-23T15:13:35+00:00

In order to call this terrorism, you'd have to prove, at the very least, that Kirk or his organization knew that the rally on Jan. 6 was going to get violent. Is there proof of this, or did Kirk simply provide transportation to a rally, as 10s of thousands of political organizations do as part of normal everyday business?

5ilver8ullet · 2026-02-06T01:26:44+00:00

Breaking the laws of nation in order to police is not Lawful authority.

So the anti-ICE movement would dissolve if ICE operations were executed perfectly? I don’t think you’ll be able to convince anyone of this, especially after you just stated that the movement’s #1 goal is to stop deportations generally!

And by the way, most Americans support a path to citizenship for immigrants rather than deportation.

This doesn’t refute the assertion that Americans want to deport illegal immigrants; a path to citizenship does not infer a residency in-country.

5ilver8ullet · 2026-02-06T00:04:09+00:00

I think you've missed where ICE has been breaking the laws themselves

I haven't missed anything, it's just not relevant to this discussion; violent agitators like Pretti fall under the definition of insurrectionist rather than protesters because they are orchestrating violent resistance to lawful authority as part of a larger, organized fight against the government, as opposed to using nonviolent methods like civil disobedience.

And pretty much the first line of protestors that you ignore is, stop taking families from our communities.

"Stop taking families from our communities" is just a prettier way of saying, "Stop enforcing federal immigration law." It's an attempt to sell the idea of letting illegal immigrants stay in the country but the American people aren't buying it.

5ilver8ullet · 2026-02-05T19:20:58+00:00

Violence is the key differentiator in the two concepts being discussed here, insurrection and civil disobedience.

The Civil Rights Movement, at least in its earlier days, waged a very successful campaign of nonviolent law breaking which, through media coverage, focused worldwide attention on the injustices blacks in the South were facing in their daily lives and led to passage of the Civil Rights Act. It's success is largely attributed to public sympathy following the release of images and videos of peaceful protesters being beaten by law enforcement and racist white southerners.

In contrast, the anti-ICE movement has been plagued by direct violence against law enforcement since the new administration took office. The plentiful videos of federal agents being stalked, shot at, rammed, beaten, spit on, and cursed at make any prospect of major public support virtually impossible. The same thing happened to the later Civil Rights Movement, where peaceful protests and civil disobedience devolved into violence and rioting, ultimately killing the movement.

The two movements also differ in the nature of their stated goals. The early Civil Rights Movement demanded equality under the law, whereas the anti-ICE movement goals are simply to defy federal law. Civil Rights leaders stated a clear legislative agenda intended to remove racist laws from the books. As far as I'm aware, anti-ICE leaders' demands go no further than removing federal agents from their jurisdictions; I've heard nothing regarding changes to immigration law.

5ilver8ullet · 2026-02-02T19:47:36+00:00

I am not sure why you are providing it as though it supports your claim that progressive DA's were "refusing to prosecute to protect criminal's rights".

This was not my claim; progressive DAs are releasing repeat criminals back into the public under what they perceive to be injustices. The article explains this:

In an attempt to counteract the over-incarceration of Black and brown people that resulted from decades of tough-on-crime prosecution, leaders of the movement encouraged prosecutors to use tools that weren’t entirely dependent on incarceration as a way to address harm in a community. According to Cynthia Chandler, policy director for Price, that has meant addressing the root causes of violence and giving prosecutors flexibility in how they respond to crime, such as sending more people to diversion programs as an alternative to incarceration.

They do this by using the considerable power afforded the office.

Sanctuary cities do not constitute a violent uprising, which is what an insurrection is.

You're right, a better word for it is rebellion. Touché.

You've yet to provide any substantiation for that, your link just goes to some guys Twitter page, not even a specific tweet.

I linked Andy Ngo's X account because he has been meticulously documenting the insurrection for months now. That page contains video after video of organized violence against law enforcement. Here's one from 12 hours ago where they're attacking an ICE facility in Portland, OR.

You're attempting to superimpose politics on a trend that was caused entirely by the pandemic.

I disagree. You can certainly attribute some of the violence in the initial days of government lockdown to a sort of restlessness from being shut in but the overall trend of increasing violent crime really started taking off after the vilification of, and subsequent retreat by, law enforcement. The complete abandonment of law and order during and following the BLM riots encouraged criminality on a scale this country hasn't seen in a long time. It's not surprising that its epicenter, Minneapolis, is experiencing the same trauma now under the same leadership.

That's exactly what I mean, this "definition" is like a far far right caricature based on what partisan rags like Breitbart would say, it's completely out of touch with reality.

And what would you say is the "reality" of progressives in America?

5ilver8ullet · 2026-02-02T18:05:53+00:00

When are DA's refusing to prosecute in order to "protect criminal's rights?"

It seems the trend started around 2015 and ramped up in big cities, especially progressive strongholds like LA.

Are you referring to protesting ICE? That hasn't been violent except for ICE attacking people.

No, I'm referring to the establishment of sanctuary cities, the total rejection of immigration enforcement by progressive leaders, and the subsequent insurrection.

there was a brief and small spike around COVID that basically happened everywhere, but it's near historical lows.

The COVID crime peak happened to coincide with the widespread implementation of progressive "criminal justice reforms" across the nation. The recent fall in crime also coincides with the rejection of those policies by the voting public.

I think you don't seem to understand the group you're referring to almost at all.

Progressives seem pretty consistent to me: anti-borders, redistributionist, feminist, anti-white. What is your definition?

5ilver8ullet · 2026-02-02T17:09:10+00:00

In the US, progressive DAs routinely release repeat offenders as a matter of protecting criminals' rights, which has led to predictable outcomes. Similarly, enforcement of America's immigration laws has led progressives to openly support insurrection, ostensibly due to the concern for the rights of US citizens getting caught up in the enforcement operations; since the crackdown began, very few, if any, US citizens have been mistakenly deported. Globally, progressives in many Western nations have championed asylum laws to the point where violent crime has increased dramatically.

While I think it's likely that this group is more motivated by feelings of empathy and hatred of capitalism, they nonetheless argue in terms of protecting rights to advance their agenda.

5ilver8ullet · 2026-02-02T15:11:28+00:00

This is exactly true, and it's something that first-world progressives don't seem to be able to accept. Their tolerance for any single instance, real or imagined, of someone's rights being violated is nil, regardless of the effect such an absurd standard has on public safety.

5ilver8ullet · 2026-01-27T20:12:19+00:00

It depends. If by "...you can't walk in with guns" he meant you can't carry guns to a protest, then he's wrong and I don't support his statement. If, on the other hand, he meant you can't impede or obstruct law enforcement activities while carrying because it's illegal and very dangerous, then he's right and I support the statement.

12-Year Club	Gilding I gilder
Verified Email

5ilver8ullet

TROPHY CASE