We’re talking about their actions at this very moment. Not them as an organization. I am saying that this action is justified, nobody here is supporting the Houthis as an organization.
If Kim Jong Un decided to block to Red Sea to support Palestinine instead of the Houthis it would be just as morally correct.
If America did it I would support it too.
It’s about getting water, food and medicine to little children who are getting their legs amputated without anesthetics as if it’s a SAW movie.
A blockade without willingness to fire (even on civilian vessels) is toothless and therefore ineffective. I’m not sure if I’d call what they’re doing a blockade tho, and their justifications linking attacked ships to Israel are… strenuous at times
The second ship with bio gas supposedly only went to Italy, but later came out that after the stop in Italy it had a transport to israel planned.
I’m not going to to claim that every single ship was israeli. I have not looked into other vessel attacks since then. But at least the first big two that reached to news were in fact directly linked to israel despite initial claims that they weren’t.
Maybe they’re not only supporting Palestinians against israeli oppression but also the Ukranians against Russian Oppression. The unbeatable moral highground.
In all seriousness, no idea. If I were to guess they have a green list and someone forgot to put them on. See my newer comment
If its indistinguishable from random attacks to the victims and anyone else at sea the (internationally coordinated) response should be one appropriate to random attacks on sea vessels
Right after the international response appropriate to israel committing genocide of course. That obviously has far more priority for us western nations that care so much about human rights.
Those do not “put huge numbers of civilian lives at direct risk”?
But the Houthis making it so that undetectable chess-tournament cheating equipment from Alibaba arrives a month later is what actually crosses the line of “putting civilians at risk”.
Their action may have a consequence you’re a fan of, but it doesn’t mean that’s their primary goal nor objective nor even purposeful. History is full of people who claim lofty ideals they happen to align quite well with profitability, and when you examine them, you find they’re remarkably inefficient about achieving their supposed “goal”.
Ask yourself, if you had all the resources they had at your disposal, would you be doing the same things if your goal was to help Palestinians?
They pretty much confirmed what I was thinking. His response to very fair questions was just bluster and deflection and obfuscation.
I’m a numbers guy. I want to know the facts. This guy has given none, in addition to several demonstrable lies. Every insurgency likes to claim all the people are with them, but that seems decidedly false here. Especially considering that Yemeni Jews feel unsafe with the Houthis, and their leader said through his fascicles: “Arab countries and all Islamic countries will not be safe from Jews except through their eradication and the elimination of their entity.”
We’re talking about their actions at this very moment. Not them as an organization. I am saying that this action is justified, nobody here is supporting the Houthis as an organization.
If Kim Jong Un decided to block to Red Sea to support Palestinine instead of the Houthis it would be just as morally correct.
If America did it I would support it too.
It’s about getting water, food and medicine to little children who are getting their legs amputated without anesthetics as if it’s a SAW movie.
The action of attacking random ships in international waters?
This is piracy, and it puts huge numbers of civilian lives at direct risk and increases the chance someone else will also do it in future.
The entire international community has a duty to stop this by almost any means.
Their reasons for attacking civilian shipping in international waters could not be less important to the situation.
A blockade without willingness to fire (even on civilian vessels) is toothless and therefore ineffective. I’m not sure if I’d call what they’re doing a blockade tho, and their justifications linking attacked ships to Israel are… strenuous at times
It’s not a blockade as they’re no where near Israel. They don’t have the ability to enforce a blockade of Israel, just to attack random ships
This is false. The first ship they hijacked was claimed to not be israeli related but turned out to be owned by israeli businessman Rami Ungar
The second ship with bio gas supposedly only went to Italy, but later came out that after the stop in Italy it had a transport to israel planned.
I’m not going to to claim that every single ship was israeli. I have not looked into other vessel attacks since then. But at least the first big two that reached to news were in fact directly linked to israel despite initial claims that they weren’t.
The russian oil tanker?
Actually came across it, here’s the supposed real reason:
Maybe they’re not only supporting Palestinians against israeli oppression but also the Ukranians against Russian Oppression. The unbeatable moral highground.
In all seriousness, no idea. If I were to guess they have a green list and someone forgot to put them on.See my newer commentIf its indistinguishable from random attacks to the victims and anyone else at sea the (internationally coordinated) response should be one appropriate to random attacks on sea vessels
Right after the international response appropriate to israel committing genocide of course. That obviously has far more priority for us western nations that care so much about human rights.
The action of blocking humanitarian aid to millions of starving civilians in Gaza
The action of blocking medicine to hospitals in Gaza which means that little girls are having their legs sawed off without anesthetics for amputation.
The action of those little Palestinian girls having their heads shot off by an israeli tank while lying in the hospital after having their legs amputated
Those do not “put huge numbers of civilian lives at direct risk”?
But the Houthis making it so that undetectable chess-tournament cheating equipment from Alibaba arrives a month later is what actually crosses the line of “putting civilians at risk”.
Their action may have a consequence you’re a fan of, but it doesn’t mean that’s their primary goal nor objective nor even purposeful. History is full of people who claim lofty ideals they happen to align quite well with profitability, and when you examine them, you find they’re remarkably inefficient about achieving their supposed “goal”.
Ask yourself, if you had all the resources they had at your disposal, would you be doing the same things if your goal was to help Palestinians?
The Houthis answered your question themselves in this 2 minute interview https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4HguzMRW1M
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://www.piped.video/watch?v=z4HguzMRW1M
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
They pretty much confirmed what I was thinking. His response to very fair questions was just bluster and deflection and obfuscation.
I’m a numbers guy. I want to know the facts. This guy has given none, in addition to several demonstrable lies. Every insurgency likes to claim all the people are with them, but that seems decidedly false here. Especially considering that Yemeni Jews feel unsafe with the Houthis, and their leader said through his fascicles: “Arab countries and all Islamic countries will not be safe from Jews except through their eradication and the elimination of their entity.”