Should we not badmouth the people guarding a monstrous dictator like Maduro? Whyever not?
We bombed houses; what do you think?
Really? We’re going to start retroactively rationalizing this illegal, unwise, and unjustifiable act of international criminality by leaning into vilification of the other country’s leader? Really?
Can we badmouth the Secret Service for defending a monster like Trump? Or is it only brown-skinned tyrants whose bodyguards we can condemn?
Sorry, so if I think Trump shouldn’t have done this, I have to pretend that Maduro was a good guy and the Cuban regime troopers guarding him were saints?
I don’t think the Secret Service has done anything wrong, but I think it’s very fine to be critical of people who have, like ICE agents.
Trump isn’t comparable to Maduro, but if he seized power on Jan 6 2020 becoming an illegitimate dictator as Maduro did in his own country, I think it would be more than acceptable to criticize anyone who has a role to play in that process including the Secret Service.
Yes. That’s exactly what I’m saying. That’s a completely reasonable and rational position to take. 
Then I don’t know what you want me to say. I don’t think this was a wise move to take, but I’m not going to whitewash how terrible Maduro was or act like regime thugs sent by Cuba are deserving of respect.
Killing people who pose no threat to you is wrong, even if they’re bodyguards for tyrants. There were no “enemy combatants” here - because Venezuela never posed any threat to us, and of course we were never in any military conflict until Trump started one. And, of course, killing civilians is wrong, and reports are that civilians were killed, though we don’t have a number yet.
Maduro was a dictatorial fascist who was oppressing the people of Venezuela.
It was legally, morally, and from the standpoint of realpolitik wrong for Donald Trump to unilaterally attack Venezuela and abduct him without Congressional approval when his regime posed no threat to the US.
Both of these things can be true.
I agree!
There’s a long history of rulers using a small but elite group of foreigners as their personal bodyguards - the Varangian Guard in the Byzantine Empire, the Scottish Guard in France, and of course, the Swiss Guard in the Vatican. These forces are invariably referred to as “mercenaries”, although in their day, mercenaries were often the best-trained troops available.
What they aren’t is part of a nation’s military or police force. That’s the whole point - they’re outside the chain of command and directly loyal to the ruler, so that they could protect him from military coups.
That says it all. Preoccupied with how this plays on on social media. It’s all just a reality show to them.
Of course it is. And there’s no secret why. To keep the felon happy during his first reality show, the director had to constantly tell him how wonderful he is, what a great job he’s doing, and a whole boatload of other fawning comments to him. All of this was to keep him from leaving the network holding the bag. Why wouldn’t he see anything differently now?
Yes, it was an abduction, a kidnapping, and I’m sick of the media using the mealy-mouthed euphemisms “captured” or “arrested.” It legitimizes what happened.
Supposedly the BBC is under orders to not call it a kidnapping.
That’s been making the rounds, can’t verify it though.
Gunfire reported in the capital. Second coup?
To me kidnap is taking someone and then demanding a ransom or something in exchange for their return. Capture is taking someone by force which could include kidnapping so a more general term. I don’t really see the problem with using the more general word.
Or we’re attacking again, maybe to kidnap or murder their defiant Vice President.
Doubt it, it’s mostly ground level and not seeing any airstrikes so far.