might actually be an achievement if it wasn't a defenseless cargo ship crewed by civilians.
Wake me up when they pick a fight with a vessel that can fight back... cowards
That's not the point of terrorism. You don't pick fights with those that can fight back. You do it to make others fear you. And the fact that a lot of ships are going around the horn of Africa instead of through the Red Sea means the their terrorism is working.
It's a legitimate military strategy to disrupt trade and supply.
I don't condone this by any means but "terrorism" is not a synonym for "violence we don't like".
This is terrorism, it's asymmetric warfare by a military that controls a territory the size of Ireland.
The west has been involved in bombing Yemen for years now.
We call it strikes against "terrorists" and "rebels" but if you live there it's just war.
It's worth noting that there are only 2 ways a war ends. A negotiated peace, or one side being wiped out. I'd rather we didn't wipe out a large part of a country. So I'd like us to skip straight to diplomatic talks.
Our first demand would likely be to de-escalate and cease violence.
The first demand from the Houthis would probably be to stop supplying Saudi Arabia with weapons to use against them. And also to cease violence.
Beyond that it gets complicated. Not a simplistic story of terrorists and bogeymen.
Houthis: No
now what?
The Houthis already make demands. No side of any conflict just says "no"
But by all means if they did say no to stopping violence when we stop bombing Yemen there is a time to fight back.
Unfortunately it's happened the opposite way around.
Yemen have asked the West and Saudi Arabia to stop bombing them and we've said "no". So the Houthis have started fighting back.
so according to your logic we're bombing them for literally no reason? Just coz...
"Felt cute, might bomb some houthis today"
Do you know why we've bombed innocent people in Yemen? We haven't just bombed Houthi rebels.
That definition makes Israel terrorists against the Palestinians, which is... Spot on, actually.
I really wish they'd stop referring to the Houthis as "rebels". Like, it is technically correct. They are rebelling against the globally recognized government in the country they live in. But it gives the impression that this is a rag tag group of dudes with a few AKs instead of the reality which is that they are decently funded military with a territory the size of Ireland under their control.
They are called Ansar Allah. You're spot on about the rag tag look, though, and that's propaganda to make them seem illegitimate and hide the fact that they have widespread support in their country (which, incidentally, rose during the Saudi led and U.S. backed demolition of Yemen over the past 8 or so years). People who are paying attention will notice a discrepancy between words (rag tag Houthi rebels shoot rockets indiscriminately at passing ships) and actions (we need a 12 or however many country coalition to go after these guys and will probably end up continuing to bomb one of the poorest countries on the planet with the most advanced arsenal the world has ever seen).
I do like what another commenter said, though. Something along the lines of "let the Marshall Islands and Belize military go protect those ships, don't use our tax money to protect the property of tax evaders".
So if the term they use is correct but you don't like it, what would you like them to say?
Houthi militia, Houthi army, Houthi military...
You know, whatever.
Was it really a British ship, or was it a ship running under Liberian or Lagos or whatever cheap flag, but owned by a British company?
If it ran under the British flag, then it would have been the British marines' job to defend it. OK.
If it ran under the Flag of Panama, Liberia, Lagos, or whatever, it would have been their responsibility.
None of the tax evasion flags countries have a ship there to defend what would be their duty to defend. Instead, we finance and endanger our military to protect tax evaders' ships.
So it is high time Belize sends a proper response and defends ships running under their flag - it is their responsibility. That's what they get taxes or fees for from the ship owners.
"The private security firm Ambrey reported the British-registered, Lebanese-operated cargo ship had been on its way to Bulgaria after leaving Khorfakkan in the United Arab Emirates. "
This ship didn't have a damn thing to do with Israel.
I'm sure the assistant engineer had a smartphone with a bookmark to a webpage about something that was made by Israel. So there.
Not sure if you paid any attention the last months but the Brits joined America in their war on Yemen. They started bombing Yemen along with America to help israel's Genocide.
And Britain subsequently got put on the Blocked Countries list
It's truly astounding that you think Britain should just be able to bomb Yemen and not expect retaliation.
How do the cool libs say it again, FAFO?
This was a Lebanese operated, British registered ship. I think the Houthis, supposedly in opposition to Israel, just killed people from Lebanon... which is also in opposition to Israel.
This is yet another reason why you don't attack civilians. In a globalized world, people from any country can be working "under the flag" of another country. They just attacked civilians of a nation that has also been attacked by Israel.
Lebanon would be in full rights to attack the Houthis in retaliation. As you put it, they fucked around, and they may find out.
I think the Houthis, supposedly in opposition to Israel, just killed people from Lebanon… which is also in opposition to Israel.
The Houthis have not killed a single person so far during their entire blockade. All crews dismounted their ships on life boats
people from Lebanon… which is also in opposition to Israel
??????????????????
All crews dismounted their ships on life boats
That's surprisingly considerate.
Hope they rain down hell on these motherfuckers
In every official statement they say that their attacks will continue until "the Israeli aggression on the Gaza Strip stops, and medicine and food enter the Strip." With the entry of the international coalition to fight against Yemen, the Houthis announced that American and British targets in the Red Sea also were legitimate targets.
Their "demands" are pretty reasonable. They are a pretty shit (islamic) regime but they are "just" imposing sanctions against Israel.
The ICJ order states that Israel HAS to stop killing Palestinians and provide humanitarian aid. So Yemen imposing sanctions is legally absolutely justified. Instead the US and all the countries removing funding from UNWRA are making themselves complicit in genocide.
So it's the US and the UK who are the aggressors here. They have also attached the Houthis for a decade. Also note that the Houthies are not a proxy for Iran, and what they are doing here is in their own political interest to stay popular with their own people. Israel is really fucking up the region.
Load of malarkey. It's like saying Black Beard had a point and pirates are a good thing.
Any country supporting Israel deserves to have all it's ships sent to the bottom of the ocean.
How were they supporting Israel?
Does that ship not belong to a British corporation?
So belonging equals supporting and justifies destructive action?
So belonging equals supporting and justifies destructive action?
You mean... like belonging to a people living on land coveted by a white supremacist settler-colonial project justifies destructive action?
The answer you were looking for is "no, belonging does not equal supporting".
The answer you're looking for is "I need to stop being a genocide apologist."
You know this only works if you posted a question first, which you haven't, right?
But I do see a pattern. Everyone who is not in line with your simplistic world view is being accused of being in support of the genocide. Maybe you should learn how to differentiate.
You know this only works if you posted a question
I felt obliged to ask it for you since not being a genocide apologist seems outside of the realm of possibility for you.
learn how to differentiate.
There is no center here. If you oppose the only ones willing to lift a finger against genocidal white supremacism it's perfectly clear which side you are most comfortable on.
Correct, it's outside the realm of possibility. Because I'm not. Your desire to label everything a genocide apologist doesn't make it true. But apparently that's outside of your realm of possibility?
I oppose senseless violence. Attacking a cargo ship with absolutely no connection to Israel other than being registered by British company is pretty senseless - because it achieves absolutely nothing.
If you oppose the only ones willing to lift a finger against genocidal white supremacism it’s perfectly clear which side you are most comfortable on.
So, funny story. The British ship was Lebanese operated. Lebanon is opposed to Israel, and has been recently bombed by Israel even. In opposing a British registered ship, the Houthis have lifted a finger against nationals of a country attacked by Israel. They've unwittingly supported Israel.
Some rich British fucks lost a bunch of money. More Lebanese people lost their lives. Tell me, who have the Houthis done more damage to here? Perhaps they ascribe to the capitalist ideology that property is more important than human lives, and thus their attack was a net success? You seem to have fallen for this same logic.
Will you support Lebanon if they take revenge against the Houthis for their people? Or do you only reserve that support if it's against Israel? There's a reason why only fools support violence against civilians.
Its true. Even in wars there is a rule of law. Attacking civilians is forbidden. But that thought of sparing non-combattants doesn't seem to apply in this case in the eyes of some very just people who rightfully codemn a genocide. Dehumanizing as a response to dehumanization... It's ironic.
Terrorist .
Better a (so-called) "terrorist" than a fascist sympathizer.
might actually be an achievement if it wasn't a defenseless cargo ship crewed by civilians.
Wake me up when they pick a fight with a vessel that can fight back... cowards
That's not the point of terrorism. You don't pick fights with those that can fight back. You do it to make others fear you. And the fact that a lot of ships are going around the horn of Africa instead of through the Red Sea means the their terrorism is working.
It's a legitimate military strategy to disrupt trade and supply.
I don't condone this by any means but "terrorism" is not a synonym for "violence we don't like".
This is terrorism, it's asymmetric warfare by a military that controls a territory the size of Ireland.
The west has been involved in bombing Yemen for years now.
We call it strikes against "terrorists" and "rebels" but if you live there it's just war.
It's worth noting that there are only 2 ways a war ends. A negotiated peace, or one side being wiped out. I'd rather we didn't wipe out a large part of a country. So I'd like us to skip straight to diplomatic talks.
Our first demand would likely be to de-escalate and cease violence.
The first demand from the Houthis would probably be to stop supplying Saudi Arabia with weapons to use against them. And also to cease violence.
Beyond that it gets complicated. Not a simplistic story of terrorists and bogeymen.
Houthis: No
now what?
The Houthis already make demands. No side of any conflict just says "no"
But by all means if they did say no to stopping violence when we stop bombing Yemen there is a time to fight back.
Unfortunately it's happened the opposite way around.
Yemen have asked the West and Saudi Arabia to stop bombing them and we've said "no". So the Houthis have started fighting back.
so according to your logic we're bombing them for literally no reason? Just coz...
"Felt cute, might bomb some houthis today"
Do you know why we've bombed innocent people in Yemen? We haven't just bombed Houthi rebels.
That definition makes Israel terrorists against the Palestinians, which is... Spot on, actually.
I really wish they'd stop referring to the Houthis as "rebels". Like, it is technically correct. They are rebelling against the globally recognized government in the country they live in. But it gives the impression that this is a rag tag group of dudes with a few AKs instead of the reality which is that they are decently funded military with a territory the size of Ireland under their control.
They are called Ansar Allah. You're spot on about the rag tag look, though, and that's propaganda to make them seem illegitimate and hide the fact that they have widespread support in their country (which, incidentally, rose during the Saudi led and U.S. backed demolition of Yemen over the past 8 or so years). People who are paying attention will notice a discrepancy between words (rag tag Houthi rebels shoot rockets indiscriminately at passing ships) and actions (we need a 12 or however many country coalition to go after these guys and will probably end up continuing to bomb one of the poorest countries on the planet with the most advanced arsenal the world has ever seen).
I do like what another commenter said, though. Something along the lines of "let the Marshall Islands and Belize military go protect those ships, don't use our tax money to protect the property of tax evaders".
So if the term they use is correct but you don't like it, what would you like them to say?
Houthi militia, Houthi army, Houthi military...
You know, whatever.
Was it really a British ship, or was it a ship running under Liberian or Lagos or whatever cheap flag, but owned by a British company?
If it ran under the British flag, then it would have been the British marines' job to defend it. OK.
If it ran under the Flag of Panama, Liberia, Lagos, or whatever, it would have been their responsibility.
None of the tax evasion flags countries have a ship there to defend what would be their duty to defend. Instead, we finance and endanger our military to protect tax evaders' ships.
This says it's under the Belize flag.
https://news.usni.org/2024/02/20/british-owned-cargo-ship-damaged-by-houthi-missiles-crew-evacuated
So it is high time Belize sends a proper response and defends ships running under their flag - it is their responsibility. That's what they get taxes or fees for from the ship owners.
https://apnews.com/article/yemen-houthi-rebels-attack-israel-hamas-war-gaza-67cf1acc17f4e17d04075a99688e4da8
"The private security firm Ambrey reported the British-registered, Lebanese-operated cargo ship had been on its way to Bulgaria after leaving Khorfakkan in the United Arab Emirates. "
This ship didn't have a damn thing to do with Israel.
I'm sure the assistant engineer had a smartphone with a bookmark to a webpage about something that was made by Israel. So there.
Not sure if you paid any attention the last months but the Brits joined America in their war on Yemen. They started bombing Yemen along with America to help israel's Genocide.
And Britain subsequently got put on the Blocked Countries list
It's truly astounding that you think Britain should just be able to bomb Yemen and not expect retaliation.
How do the cool libs say it again, FAFO?
This was a Lebanese operated, British registered ship. I think the Houthis, supposedly in opposition to Israel, just killed people from Lebanon... which is also in opposition to Israel.
This is yet another reason why you don't attack civilians. In a globalized world, people from any country can be working "under the flag" of another country. They just attacked civilians of a nation that has also been attacked by Israel.
Lebanon would be in full rights to attack the Houthis in retaliation. As you put it, they fucked around, and they may find out.
The Houthis have not killed a single person so far during their entire blockade. All crews dismounted their ships on life boats
??????????????????
That's surprisingly considerate.
Hope they rain down hell on these motherfuckers
Their "demands" are pretty reasonable. They are a pretty shit (islamic) regime but they are "just" imposing sanctions against Israel.
The ICJ order states that Israel HAS to stop killing Palestinians and provide humanitarian aid. So Yemen imposing sanctions is legally absolutely justified. Instead the US and all the countries removing funding from UNWRA are making themselves complicit in genocide.
So it's the US and the UK who are the aggressors here. They have also attached the Houthis for a decade. Also note that the Houthies are not a proxy for Iran, and what they are doing here is in their own political interest to stay popular with their own people. Israel is really fucking up the region.
Load of malarkey. It's like saying Black Beard had a point and pirates are a good thing.
No. It's not like that.
Ever hear of the Barbary Wars? It's like that.
Good.
Why?
Why not?
Any country supporting Israel deserves to have all it's ships sent to the bottom of the ocean.
How were they supporting Israel?
Does that ship not belong to a British corporation?
So belonging equals supporting and justifies destructive action?
You mean... like belonging to a people living on land coveted by a white supremacist settler-colonial project justifies destructive action?
The answer you were looking for is "no, belonging does not equal supporting".
The answer you're looking for is "I need to stop being a genocide apologist."
You know this only works if you posted a question first, which you haven't, right?
But I do see a pattern. Everyone who is not in line with your simplistic world view is being accused of being in support of the genocide. Maybe you should learn how to differentiate.
I felt obliged to ask it for you since not being a genocide apologist seems outside of the realm of possibility for you.
There is no center here. If you oppose the only ones willing to lift a finger against genocidal white supremacism it's perfectly clear which side you are most comfortable on.
Correct, it's outside the realm of possibility. Because I'm not. Your desire to label everything a genocide apologist doesn't make it true. But apparently that's outside of your realm of possibility?
I oppose senseless violence. Attacking a cargo ship with absolutely no connection to Israel other than being registered by British company is pretty senseless - because it achieves absolutely nothing.
So, funny story. The British ship was Lebanese operated. Lebanon is opposed to Israel, and has been recently bombed by Israel even. In opposing a British registered ship, the Houthis have lifted a finger against nationals of a country attacked by Israel. They've unwittingly supported Israel.
Some rich British fucks lost a bunch of money. More Lebanese people lost their lives. Tell me, who have the Houthis done more damage to here? Perhaps they ascribe to the capitalist ideology that property is more important than human lives, and thus their attack was a net success? You seem to have fallen for this same logic.
Will you support Lebanon if they take revenge against the Houthis for their people? Or do you only reserve that support if it's against Israel? There's a reason why only fools support violence against civilians.
How exactly, with detail, does that make them a target?
Is the UK supporting genocide?
Yes? No?
Idk. I know the US is but if you would like to present some evidence about the UK, I would be willing to look at it.
What? Did you think British support for this white supremacist monstrosity simply ceased after they essentially created it way back when?
What other blatantly obvious history do you need updating on? You do know that COVID-19 is a thing, right?
You know, you are a dick.
Thank you for the information.
Good luck in life, I am blocking you
Terrorist .
Its true. Even in wars there is a rule of law. Attacking civilians is forbidden. But that thought of sparing non-combattants doesn't seem to apply in this case in the eyes of some very just people who rightfully codemn a genocide. Dehumanizing as a response to dehumanization... It's ironic.
Better a (so-called) "terrorist" than a fascist sympathizer.