|
Ships that do not want to be attacked by the Houthi forces can simply not enter their waters without their consent and/or economically support their enemies. There's a reason the Houthis are still referred to as 'rebels' and terrorists' despite being the defacto gov't of Yemen. Either treat with them country to country and negotiate trade through their legal waters or go to war with them. Complaining that your shipping is being attacked when you're ignoring their legal instructions is pretty rich. I think I remember a certain flotilla that was boarded and Turkish citizens shot to death in Gazan waters by a military enforcing a blockade.
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2024 21:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 05:14 |
|
|
adebisi lives posted:As an American Leftist I'm outraged by Iran's behavior and calling my representatives in congress to demand they knock off the unconditional support for Iran and vote against any future weapon shipments. ugh don't even waste your time, I Street controls policy in washington
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2024 21:31
|
|
|
Tangy Zizzle posted:Ships that do not want to be attacked by the Houthi forces can simply not enter their waters without their consent and/or economically support their enemies. And what exactly do you consider their "legal waters"? Because unless you are counting everything in the straight from shore to shore, the vast majority of the ship they've attacked where not in their territorial waters. Even less so if we don't count costal regions they don't control. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2024 22:05
|
|
|
Tangy Zizzle posted:Ships that do not want to be attacked by the Houthi forces can simply not enter their waters without their consent and/or economically support their enemies. This is an example of a bad angle of attack. You want to critique what the US is doing to Yemen, and I agree what's happening is not good, but "these ships are going through Yemen's waters and are therefore legally subject to attack" is a bad way to go about it. First as shown above, a lot of these attacks are outside Yemen's waters. Second, they have not been attacking US or Israeli ships exclusively, so that takes away legitimacy for the Houthi's actions as well. But even if the attacks were only in Yemen's waters and against specific nation's vessels, the Houthis are not the sole political body with legal claim to those waters. Even if the world was to treat the Houthis as a state actor, that state and it's legal ownership including rights to decide who passes through their waters, is disputed. So there is no world where the Houthis can declare a legal blockade over Yemen's waters. I get it, you're feeling moral outrage so a bunch of these details seem unimportant. But if you want to convince anyone to help your cause in anything, you need to realize people who aren't feeling what you feel will be looking for inconsistencies like this to assess whether you're being realistic in your critique. With the amount of disinfo and hyperbolic rhetoric going around in this era, we need to find a fine balance between motivating people but also using facts and consistent logic as best as we can.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2024 22:22
|
|
|
Tangy Zizzle posted:I think I remember a certain flotilla that was boarded and Turkish citizens shot to death in Gazan waters by a military enforcing a blockade. That was a war crime, OP.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2024 00:20
|
|
|
ummel posted:Defending a mountain area against risk averse attackers, yeah sure. I mean yeah? They had a military objective, and they achieved it. If a country could call them up and say "1v1 me in an open field, bro" then maybe they'd be better off fighting the Houthis, but anyone dealing with Houthi forces has to realize that they're a tenacious and capable force operating from home turf that suits them. Between that and being able to reroute trade and capturing a ship and its crew, they're not impotent, even if they have less sea power than a lot of other forces do.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2024 00:29
|
|
|
On that note, I feel like "Sauds almost captured their last port" is a bad barometer for how the war went, considering that we currently have an ongoing example of a militant force without any imports, whos citizens are being starved to death, and still have not been defeated. It kind of reeks of "We almost won Vietnam, we just had to be ready to kill literally everyone!" cope, and if any thread is going to underestimate the efficacy of a guerilla force, it really should not be The Middle East Thread. Yemen won, UAE/Sauds/US lost. We're pretty good at losing wars, we'll get over it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2024 04:26
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:On that note, I feel like "Sauds almost captured their last port" is a bad barometer for how the war went, considering that we currently have an ongoing example of a militant force without any imports, whos citizens are being starved to death, and still have not been defeated. This is because of the global pressure that prevents Israel from carpet bombing the living poo poo out of everything [to an even higher degree]. It has nothing to do with the Gazan militant force. Unless you count them being smart enough to hide within the civilian population to prevent said carpet bombing, I guess.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2024 04:30
|
|
|
Kalit posted:This is because of the global pressure that prevents Israel from carpet bombing the living poo poo out of everything [to an even higher degree]. It has nothing to do with the Gazan militant force. Unless you count them being smart enough to hide within the civilian population to prevent said carpet bombing, I guess. buddy do you legit think israel is restraining itself when it comes to attacking gaza? they are simply running into the hard limits of air power; to actually complete a destruction of hamas, or a total genocide of palestine, they need to send in warm bodies
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2024 04:42
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:buddy do you legit think israel is restraining itself when it comes to attacking gaza? Obviously? Otherwise they would have destroyed every hospital to begin with.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2024 05:03
|
|
|
Ikasuhito posted:And what exactly do you consider their "legal waters"? Because unless you are counting everything in the straight from shore to shore, the vast majority of the ship they've attacked where not in their territorial waters. Even less so if we don't count costal regions they don't control. ok - while the US and other countries can determine an EEZ of 200 miles - Yemen (who recently forced Saudi and US forces into ending their air war against them) isn't permitted to control / interdict / warn away global shipping from approaching within 20 miles of it's shores? The tankers attacked were on course to, or had already, violated their announced economic blockade of the Israeli red sea port. Those that decided to run the blockade were attacked. Not saying that the Houthis are right - but if the US / World Powers want unlimited right to ship their goods past a belligerent they should declare war on them and invade. Otherwise they should be treating with Yemen's government to negotiate passage of goods that serve their interests. There are no 'innocent civilians' that are running an economic blockade - they are smugglers / enemy vessels and in many wars they are considered fair targets.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2024 12:39
|
|
|
Tangy Zizzle posted:ok - while the US and other countries can determine an EEZ of 200 miles - Yemen (who recently forced Saudi and US forces into ending their air war against them) isn't permitted to control / interdict / warn away global shipping from approaching within 20 miles of it's shores? EEZ governs resource extraction, not ship passage. Blockading a country is a hostile act, you would expect a military response.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2024 13:16
|
|
|
Xakura posted:EEZ governs resource extraction, not ship passage. Granted re: EEZ Sure, but I wouldn't call anyone brazenly still entering threat range 'innocent civilians' A lot of the framing of this thread is so weird - The Saudis and the US have not negotiated a full peace with Yemen so they can and have reopened hostilities - but to frame it as "Yemen bad" is wrong. It's a country enforcing an economic blockade on another to coerce them to change their present course of action. That the US/Western Powers are calling it terrorism is rich. Also - has anyone been hurt by the attacks?
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2024 13:24
|
|
|
Tangy Zizzle posted:
The feelings of everyone who thinks the freedom of navigation and global commerce are the principle moral standards of the universe and that a ship forced to round the cape of good hope is a crime against humanity.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2024 13:29
|
|
|
Xakura posted:EEZ governs resource extraction, not ship passage. Someone should let Israel know.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2024 13:30
|
|
|
Tangy Zizzle posted:Also - has anyone been hurt by the attacks? I’d say getting kidnapped/held hostage would be harmful
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2024 14:02
|
|
|
Tangy Zizzle posted:ok - while the US and other countries can determine an EEZ of 200 miles - Yemen (who recently forced Saudi and US forces into ending their air war against them) isn't permitted to control / interdict / warn away global shipping from approaching within 20 miles of it's shores? This is basically the case. Yemen is party to the UN conventions on the law of the seas which govern this sort of thing. A country that has signed this treaty isn't legally allowed to blockade trade routes and attack shipping. I think there is a caveat however. Blockades can be legal if there's a formal state of war, which I haven't heard of but I don't think the Houthis would be shy about declaring on Israel. It's odd though because it isn't Israel that's being physically blockaded, it's a sea route a thousand km away. There might be some room for Yemen to legally interdict ships that are going to or from Israel in this circumstance.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2024 15:45
|
|
|
If you were allowed to just seize or attack all ships passing through an EEZ, Russia would lose their loving mind, and for good reason. It would mean Russia simply would have no access to the Atlantic Ocean at all, without going by way of the Pacific, and even then having to do very obnoxious routes due to the Japanese and US EEZs. An EEZ is explicitly not the same as denying every other person/country/nation on Earth from moving through waters within 200 miles of you; that would be so untenable that the idea of an EEZ would disolve either through lack of enforcement or outright war if that was what EEZ meant. Countries do have some authority to set up safe passage shipping lanes, so that you don't have giant tankers just bonking all around your fishing waters, but that's not really the same as saying "go over here to get shot at or abducted." 
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2024 16:20
|
|
|
quote:If you were allowed to just seize or attack all ships passing through an EEZ, Russia would lose their loving mind, and for good reason. It would mean Russia simply would have no access to the Atlantic Ocean at all, without going by way of the Pacific, and even then having to do very obnoxious routes due to the Japanese and US EEZs. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2024 16:36
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/Ian_Fraser/status/1748700957297316209 Ooops, I was misinformed. Apologies fuctifino fucked around with this message at 18:04 on Jan 20, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2024 17:28
|
|
|
fuctifino posted:https://twitter.com/Ian_Fraser/status/1748700957297316209 E: oops I was reading the demining operation subpage on the royal navy's website. Still, it's not the operation the was spun up in response to the recent attacks as it predates them by some years. What mlmp08 posted is more accurate. Kagrenak fucked around with this message at 18:19 on Jan 20, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2024 18:01
|
|
|
fuctifino posted:Operation Kipion is the name given to the joint action of protecting shipping from attacks by the Houthis. No, it isn’t. Operation Kipion is the name of British ops in the Gulf, Strait of Hormuz, and Indian Ocean.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2024 18:02
|
|
|
Count Roland posted:This is basically the case. Yemen is party to the UN conventions on the law of the seas which govern this sort of thing. A country that has signed this treaty isn't legally allowed to blockade trade routes and attack shipping. From my understanding on the way these laws work from the class I half slept through in the Navy sea passages and historically important routes such as the Red Sea have unique rules that limit the ability of nearby states to deny innocent passage of ships in EEZ or territorial waters they otherwise would have the right to. For example Lybia and the US Navy got into a few tiffs over one side claiming such a special rule existed there vs the standard EEZ and territorial waters distance. I believe the justification of the Houthis is something along the same lines as how unrestricted submarine warfare was legally justified, in that any sort of ship flagged by countries that might be aiding Israel are fair game. So the location of the ships aren’t releve. Dunno how seriously they have actually made any sort of legal claims, it’s really hard to actually find reporting directly translating their claims in English.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2024 23:23
|
|
|
Tangy Zizzle posted:ok - while the US and other countries can determine an EEZ of 200 miles - Yemen (who recently forced Saudi and US forces into ending their air war against them) isn't permitted to control / interdict / warn away global shipping from approaching within 20 miles of it's shores? If you have policy recommendations, I'd recommend taking a look at how these definitions work to better inform your opinions. Per convention, Yemen also as an EEZ out to 200 miles, except where it interacts with other EEZs. In short, territorial seas expand to 12 nautical miles (nm--not to be confused with statute miles), and denote sovereignty, though there are requirements to permit innocent and transit passages. These same rights are not granted for internal waters. Before the 20th century, territorial seas had been considered 3 nautical miles from land, because that was the max shot of a cannon. UNCLOS extended the range to 12 nm. I'm not sure on the reasoning for 12 nm, but at 100 feet/30m of height, you should see just over 12 and less than 13nm. Some countries disagree, usually to their own benefit. Now that the max range of terrestrial weapons is considerably further than 3 or even 12 nm, maybe it's time for a revision to the convention and the norm?  Source: https://www.marineregions.org/gazetteer.php?p=details&id=49076 Contiguous zones extend another 12 nm from territorial seas (24 nm in total). Here, nations may enforce some laws, (related to customs, taxation, immigration, and pollution) if the infringement started within or is about to occur within territorial waters. This means that you can't do the crime at 11.9nm and then dip out 0.1nm to safety.  Source: https://www.marineregions.org/gazetteer.php?p=details&id=49309 Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs) extend to 200nm from the baseline, though in cases where they would overlap, they default to the closer of the countries. Here countries control the resources, ostensibly so you can't fish out a country or build a bunch of oil platforms 13nm away from a country. Some countries disagree, usually to their own benefit.  Source: https://www.marineregions.org/gazetteer.php?p=details&id=8353 Note the especially strategic (and isolated) island of Socotra which gets its own whole 12/24/200. SMEGMA_MAIL posted:From my understanding on the way these laws work from the class I half slept through in the Navy sea passages and historically important routes such as the Red Sea have unique rules that limit the ability of nearby states to deny innocent passage of ships in EEZ or territorial waters they otherwise would have the right to. For example Lybia and the US Navy got into a few tiffs over one side claiming such a special rule existed there vs the standard EEZ and territorial waters distance. You're describing Innocent Passage which applies to all territorial waters and Transit Passage which applies to Straits to include the Bab-el-Mandeb. The government of Libya had decided the Gulf of Sidra was an enclosed bay, including seas 230nm away from land vice the more conventional 12nm. Gadaffi decided to take all comers and explain his theory by declaring a "Line of Death" which would invoke a military response. In 1973 and 1980 Libyan forces fired on unarmed military planes who managed to break away. In 1981, Libyan forces fired on armed military planes who fired back, scratching two Libyan fighters. In 1986, a Libyan boat lit up an American aircraft with it's fire control radar (the last step (or second to last step) before engaging a target with a missile) and was fired upon. After this, the Libyans locked on and fired missiles are more American aircraft, which ultimately resulted in 2 sunk Libyan vessels, 2 critically damaged Libyan vessels, several damaged or destroyed Surface to Air Missile sites, 72 dead Libyans and 6 dead Soviet technicians. In 1989, Libyan aircraft enforcing the line of death avoided utilizing weapons systems or responding to radio calls and instead flew directly at US aircraft, closing at just under Mach 1, wings dirty, adjusting their courses to continually close after US forces changed courses multiple times. At 12nm, the Americans fired on the Libyans but missed, who continued to close on collision course without radio contact. The Americans follow on shots would down the Libyans at 5 and 1.5 nm respectively. piL fucked around with this message at 19:44 on Jan 21, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2024 04:18
|
|
|
Thanks for the effort posts. Very informative.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2024 14:42
|
|
|
Count Roland posted:This is basically the case. Yemen is party to the UN conventions on the law of the seas which govern this sort of thing. A country that has signed this treaty isn't legally allowed to blockade trade routes and attack shipping. As far as I can tell, neither the Houthis or Americans are party to the UN Convention on the law of the seas. Calling this aggressive on the Houthi's part is fine. Framing it as criminal/terrorist behavior is another. Tangy Zizzle fucked around with this message at 17:36 on Jan 21, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2024 17:34
|
|
|
Tangy Zizzle posted:Calling this aggressive on the Houthi's part is fine. Framing it as criminal/terrorist behavior is another. What term would you use to describe launching missiles at civilian crewed ships, boarding them, and taking civilian workers from uninvolved countries like the Philippines hostage at gun point, to then hold ransom? Because that sounds rather accurately described as criminal/terrorist to me and most other people I'd wager.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2024 18:33
|
|
|
Blut posted:What term would you use to describe launching missiles at civilian crewed ships, boarding them, and taking civilian workers from uninvolved countries like the Philippines hostage at gun point, to then hold ransom? Why “terrorism” specifically? What other participants in this conflict do you consider terrorists or using terrorism?
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2024 18:39
|
|
|
Tangy Zizzle posted:As far as I can tell, neither the Houthis or Americans are party to the UN Convention on the law of the seas. There was talk up-thread of the Houthis being the government of Yemen, as they control the capital, and its merely the refusal of western nations to recognize them that prevents this from being the case. If the Houthis are the government of Yemen then they're bound by the treaty. And yes it is dumb and hypocritical the the US isn't a party to the treaty but hey what else is new.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2024 19:03
|
|
|
SMEGMA_MAIL posted:Why “terrorism” specifically? What other participants in this conflict do you consider terrorists or using terrorism? Taking Filipino civilians in international waters hostage at gunpoint for ransom, in order to possibly achieve a vague geopolitical aim, is the literal definition of the word terrorism: "the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims." What do other participants have to do with my post? I was responding to the poster who said this exact behaviour shouldn't be framed as "criminal/terrorist behavior".
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2024 20:32
|
|
|
Count Roland posted:There was talk up-thread of the Houthis being the government of Yemen, as they control the capital, and its merely the refusal of western nations to recognize them that prevents this from being the case. If the Houthis are the government of Yemen then they're bound by the treaty. The United States is absolutely bound by almost the entirety of UNCLOS, and likely bound by even the part it doesn't accept. The USA's own explicit opinio juris recognizes everything but the part xi as customary international law. Tangy Zizzle posted:As far as I can tell, neither the Houthis or Americans are party to the UN Convention on the law of the seas. Whether they've signed UNCLOS or not doesn't matter. Pirates as enemies of all mankind is literally the oldest customary international law and non-state entities are still bound by it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2024 21:20
|
|
|
Blut posted:What term would you use to describe launching missiles at civilian crewed ships, boarding them, and taking civilian workers from uninvolved countries like the Philippines hostage at gun point, to then hold ransom? They've been clear that ships are prohibited from passing through the red sea to do business with Israel. Targeting merchant ships is a completely legitimate tactic during conflict. That the international system uses third party workers to move material through the red sea and throughout the world is unfortunate but those shipping companies will pay for the release of those civilians or the home countries of those people are free to negotiate with the Houthi government for their release. One thing that hasn't really been mentioned is that companies/captains are risking their crews and cargos against their bottom lines because they haven't wised up to the fact that a naval blockade doesn't necessarily anymore require a navy. Yemen whether anyone likes it or not, has been clear in their expectations and warnings.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2024 23:57
|
|
|
Tangy Zizzle posted:They've been clear that ships are prohibited from passing through the red sea to do business with Israel. sooooo now its okay to bomb innocent third parties if it could even vaguely impact your enemy?
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2024 00:04
|
|
|
Tangy Zizzle posted:They've been clear that ships are prohibited from passing through the red sea to do business with Israel. Its been discussed at length in this thread over the past two pages exactly why whats happening is very much not "a completely legitimate tactic" by any definition of international laws and norms going back hundreds of years.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2024 00:15
|
|
|
TheDeadlyShoe posted:sooooo now its okay to bomb innocent third parties if it could even vaguely impact your enemy? I didn't say it was nice or ok but it's not terrorism - if anyone wanted them to stop they would negotiate with them?
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2024 00:46
|
|
|
Blut posted:Its been discussed at length in this thread over the past two pages exactly why whats happening is very much not "a completely legitimate tactic" by any definition of international laws and norms going back hundreds of years. norms going back hundreds of years hasn't really worked out for Yemen. I think international organizations and foreign belligerents need to wake up and start sending diplomats instead of missile strikes
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2024 00:47
|
|
|
double post
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2024 00:48
|
|
|
Tangy Zizzle posted:I didn't say it was nice or ok but it's not terrorism - if anyone wanted them to stop they would negotiate with them? Why should they? The west warned them and they refused to stop. By your own reasoning the US and Britain have every right to bombard and even starve them with a blockade until they give up.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2024 01:09
|
|
|
Most of them are signatories to the Genocide Convention, and should support measures to prevent a genocide. Of course, we know that the western nations are fine with genocide, but in a Rules Based International Order Vacuum, one would assume that'd take priority over petty amounts of trade, that this thread has argued is inconsequential for Israel anyways.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2024 01:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 05:14 |
|
|
Tangy Zizzle posted:norms going back hundreds of years hasn't really worked out for Yemen. I think international organizations and foreign belligerents need to wake up and start sending diplomats instead of missile strikes If you want to sit at the big table with the adults, you have to act like one.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2024 01:23
|
|
