|
Plastic_Gargoyle posted:The connection between the houthis and what is happening in Gaza appears to exist almost exclusively in the minds of the houthis, and in the minds of people thousands of miles away on the internet, so far as I can tell. Israel's Eilat Port sees 85% drop in activity amid Red Sea Houthi attacks www.reuters.com - Thu, 21 Dec 2023 posted:JERUSALEM, Dec 21 (Reuters) - Israel's Eilat Port has seen an 85% drop in activity since Iran-backed Houthi militants in Yemen stepped up attacks on shipping in the Red Sea, the port's chief executive said on Thursday. How Houthi attacks on ships in the Red Sea threaten Israel’s economy www.washingtonpost.com - Sat, 20 Jan 2024 posted:In just a few months, Yemen’s Houthis have taken an outsize bite out of global shipping — and have begun to threaten the economy of their stated target, Israel. www.voanews.com posted:An unidentified drone hit a civilian building in the southern Israeli city of Eilat on Thursday, causing light damage, Israel's military said, and Yemen's Houthi movement said it fired ballistic missiles toward the Red Sea port city. www.aljazeera.com posted:Houthis claim responsibility for drone attack on Israeli port city of Eilat, Red Sea commercial vessel.
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2024 06:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 06:05 |
|
|
Fwiw, the top three ports in Israel according to Wikipedia Haifa - 29.53 million tons Ashdod - 23.6 million tons Eilat - 2.6 million tons So Eilat is about 4% of capacity, losing 85% of 4% is a blip.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2024 08:42
|
|
|
Even if the Houthis substantially impacted the Israeli economy would Netanyahu end the war which is itself causing a lot of harm to the Israeli economy? Has the Israeli government made any noises to that effect? I actually thought conventional wisdom on this forum is that sanctions don't work and only hurt innocent civilians but it seems many support them and think they can be extremely effective.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2024 11:13
|
|
|
adebisi lives posted:The Biden administration has demonstrated it is willing to let a regional conflict spin out of control rather than condemn Israel and cease aiding the genocide. The Houthis are enacting a blockade to combat the genocide and the US bombing of Yemen is an escalation to the conflict where Biden is doubling down on support of Israel. I'm not taking it for granted that Biden would be willing to indefinitely bomb Yemen unless the blockade is threatening Israel's ability to keep murdering Arabs. It's not a blockade. The administration is talking about making the aid conditional quote:Biden administration discussing slowing some weaponry deliveries to Israel to pressure Netanyahu Voters don't seem to view FP as an important issue for them  https://news.gallup.com/poll/1675/most-important-problem.aspx
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2024 12:04
|
|
|
Israel's losing a wild amount of money per-day, their workforce is stagnant, over 200,000 citizens from the north & envelope evacuated & staying in hotels, 4% sounds small but this is the best possible time for any amount of damage to make an impact. Sanctions are a moronic tool for enabling coups, but they are effective as incentives; Iran was willing to forego nuclear weapons to ease sanctions & Integrate into the western economy. Israelis are not battle-hardened embargo-resistant guerillas in a massive country, a large swathe of them are settler-tourists uninterested in hardship. I doubt the majority of them would favor living a Venezuelan life in exchange for getting to continue their genocide. mobby_6kl posted:It's not a blockade. They're preventing Israeli ships & Israel bound ships from heading to Eliat, call it what you feel like. quote:The administration is talking about making the aid conditional Already denied: https://twitter.com/BarakRavid/status/1751631696158408755?s=20 quote:Voters don't seem to view FP as an important issue for them https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1751739588773593487?s=20 (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2024 12:26
|
|
|
Irony Be My Shield posted:Do you have a source on that? There's obviously sympathy for Gaza but I don't know if that would outweigh the fact that the Houthis are part of the Iranian/Shia axis which as far as I'm aware is not popular among any significant segment of Egyptian society. Saladman posted:The vast majority of people in the Arab world will give one gently caress about the Palestinians when it comes up in conversation, but then zero fucks in their day to day life because it doesn’t actually affect them in any way, except emotionally. It’s like with the average Western European and Russia post 2022. « gently caress RuZzia »if anyone mentions it, but Russia no longer comes up on a weekly or monthly basis, and it isn’t really in an average person’s headspace in Europe within the past 10-12 months. Just like if you went to any Arab Reddit in mid October it was full of posts about gently caress Israel go Palestine, and now Gaza probably gets like one thread a month that gets five comments if you go to r/Egypt and r/Algeria. Most people care about where they’re getting their next paycheck and how inflation is going, not about some distant geopolitical event. Even when it does affect them (see: Egypt) people are more likely to blame their government rather than the Houthis, as they’ll blame the proximal factor and not the source cause. Both of you are widely incorrect. Public opinion in Egypt is strongly in favor of Palestine and the resistance factions (including Hezbollah and Iran), Shia vs Sunni is not really an active discussion especially in a fully Sunni country with most of the populace not understanding the divide. Egyptians are engaging in a significant boycott against any Western-branded products that has continued since the attacks with no signs of stopping, to the point where Western aligned retailers and businesses announced layoffs and downsizing. Our economy was hosed long before the Houthis started threatening Israeli shipping and will remain hosed long after; it's not like people will now magically blame the Houthis instead of Sisi and his disastrous policies and fence-sitting / actively supporting Israel on the genocide.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2024 17:09
|
|
|
Ham posted:Both of you are widely incorrect. Public opinion in Egypt is strongly in favor of Palestine and the resistance factions (including Hezbollah and Iran), Shia vs Sunni is not really an active discussion especially in a fully Sunni country with most of the populace not understanding the divide. Egyptians are engaging in a significant boycott against any Western-branded products that has continued since the attacks with no signs of stopping, to the point where Western aligned retailers and businesses announced layoffs and downsizing. I take it you're from the MENA? I keep seeing the talking point about how the Houthis are actually hurting the Palestinian cause, or are "opportunists" seeking to justify piracy they were going to do anyway. But I've so far only seen this line exclusively from American, UK, and Israeli posters and news media, and while I'm no expert I do know for sure Houthi attacks almost entirely stopped during the ceasefire and then ramped up after. To me it seems a pretty dubious claim, because at least even from English language news it seems like the Houthis are taking actions that they expected to result in facing harsh retaliation, and it doesn't seem like their priority is capture ships as there isn't any opportunity for profit in scaring off traffic via launching missiles and loitering attack drones, and based on the behavior of ships transiting the region at least most ships seem pretty confident they won't be targeted if they are not percieved as being associated with Israel or the US. The only self-interested angle I can see is that they're hoping to gain legitimacy and popularity in the Arab world, which at least personally is getting into a pretty ridiculous level of purity testing and moralizing and doesn't invalidate their stated motivation at least in the specific context of the conflict with Israel and US unless we're going to like start both sides-ing WW2. Am I off the mark? What are you seeing the Arabic-speaking news world?
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2024 01:24
|
|
|
Ham posted:Both of you are widely incorrect. Public opinion in Egypt is strongly in favor of Palestine and the resistance factions (including Hezbollah and Iran), Shia vs Sunni is not really an active discussion especially in a fully Sunni country with most of the populace not understanding the divide. Egyptians are engaging in a significant boycott against any Western-branded products that has continued since the attacks with no signs of stopping, to the point where Western aligned retailers and businesses announced layoffs and downsizing. From what I know from my own relatives and friends in Egypt, the Houthis are viewed as opportunistic but the only ones with balls to try and at least do something. And you're right, the boycotts have resurrected some Egyptian products (sodas and stuff like that) and made them popular again. How long that will last, I don't know.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2024 02:51
|
|
|
SMEGMA_MAIL posted:I take it you're from the MENA? I keep seeing the talking point about how the Houthis are actually hurting the Palestinian cause, or are "opportunists" seeking to justify piracy they were going to do anyway. But I've so far only seen this line exclusively from American, UK, and Israeli posters and news media, and while I'm no expert I do know for sure Houthi attacks almost entirely stopped during the ceasefire and then ramped up after. To me it seems a pretty dubious claim, because at least even from English language news it seems like the Houthis are taking actions that they expected to result in facing harsh retaliation, and it doesn't seem like their priority is capture ships as there isn't any opportunity for profit in scaring off traffic via launching missiles and loitering attack drones, and based on the behavior of ships transiting the region at least most ships seem pretty confident they won't be targeted if they are not percieved as being associated with Israel or the US. The only self-interested angle I can see is that they're hoping to gain legitimacy and popularity in the Arab world, which at least personally is getting into a pretty ridiculous level of purity testing and moralizing and doesn't invalidate their stated motivation at least in the specific context of the conflict with Israel and US unless we're going to like start both sides-ing WW2. Ham is Egyptian iirc
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2024 03:56
|
|
|
"Sanctions don't work" depends wildly upon what you mean by "sanctions" and by "work." Generally it's a statement applied to the US's specific favorite type of sanctions for regimes it doesn't like, Targeted Sanctions that are supposed to only hit specific leadership figures because of their real or supposed criminal activities. In general the STATED role of these is to make it so those specific figures can't benefit from plundering the state they're part of, but in general they tend to be the figures best able to circumvent it, meanwhile the mere fact that those sanctions exist makes a lot of international commerce leery of engaging with the country in question so they do hurt the people they're explicitly not supposed to hurt. (The unstated role of these very much can be "hurt the general people in the hope that they'll blame their current government, something something revolt for a US friendly government", that generally doesn't actually work out like that either though.) "Capabilities degrading" sanctions where you're trying to cut off a country from specific material for war efforts on the other hand really can work. Definitely in that they degrade capabilities, although not necessarily as much as intended. What the Houthis are doing is not really either of those two things.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2024 05:08
|
|
|
SMEGMA_MAIL posted:I take it you're from the MENA? I keep seeing the talking point about how the Houthis are actually hurting the Palestinian cause, or are "opportunists" seeking to justify piracy they were going to do anyway. But I've so far only seen this line exclusively from American, UK, and Israeli posters and news media, and while I'm no expert I do know for sure Houthi attacks almost entirely stopped during the ceasefire and then ramped up after. To me it seems a pretty dubious claim, because at least even from English language news it seems like the Houthis are taking actions that they expected to result in facing harsh retaliation, and it doesn't seem like their priority is capture ships as there isn't any opportunity for profit in scaring off traffic via launching missiles and loitering attack drones, and based on the behavior of ships transiting the region at least most ships seem pretty confident they won't be targeted if they are not percieved as being associated with Israel or the US. The only self-interested angle I can see is that they're hoping to gain legitimacy and popularity in the Arab world, which at least personally is getting into a pretty ridiculous level of purity testing and moralizing and doesn't invalidate their stated motivation at least in the specific context of the conflict with Israel and US unless we're going to like start both sides-ing WW2. I am an Egyptian living in Egypt. Houthis were not heavily featured for a long time in public discourse other than state media following the Emirati/Saudi line when they began their assault on Yemen years ago. When the attacks on shipping started, they were celebrated widely as a direct extension of the boycotts against Western products and ties and as active support for Palestine, I have not seen any discourse in Egypt where they are seen as opportunistic aside from state media angles hurting from the decreased shipping through Suez.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2024 10:29
|
|
|
One difficulty discussing the Red Sea attacks is you can applaud the idea of trying to apply pressure to get the US to push Israel to stop loving genociding Gaza while also saying "uhhh you do know what you're doing is absolutely illegal under international law" Having a discussion where one party is discussing what is *legal* and the other is discussing what is *moral* never goes well, in my experience. You end up with the legal issue posters getting called evil monsters by the moralists, who look like idiots to the legalists in turn.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2024 11:37
|
|
|
Ham posted:Both of you are widely incorrect. Public opinion in Egypt is strongly in favor of Palestine and the resistance factions (including Hezbollah and Iran), Shia vs Sunni is not really an active discussion especially in a fully Sunni country with most of the populace not understanding the divide. Egyptians are engaging in a significant boycott against any Western-branded products that has continued since the attacks with no signs of stopping, to the point where Western aligned retailers and businesses announced layoffs and downsizing. Huh, I guess you are a lot closer to the conflict though than Tunisia, and I Ieft Egypt at the end of 2018. I don't think I ever heard anyone talk about Palestine when I was there, but it makes sense it would be much higher on the discussion agenda today. In Tunisia people were pissed for like a month, then forgot. I'll be back there next month for 3 weeks, so I guess I'll see if it's on the news as I haven't been there since October, but it's not making the social media rounds anymore and I haven't seen anyone I actually know post about it for a while. I think Kais Saied would blame the Houthis for Tunisia's miserable economic mess if he could (instead, he blames black people - yes actually), but I guess Sisi doesn't think he can get away with that in the court of public opinion.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2024 11:37
|
|
|
Rust Martialis posted:One difficulty discussing the Red Sea attacks is you can applaud the idea of trying to apply pressure to get the US to push Israel to stop loving genociding Gaza while also saying "uhhh you do know what you're doing is absolutely illegal under international law" I mean look at how long Israel has been giving the middle finger to international law and international agreements
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2024 14:50
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:They are inadvertently pointing out how toothless most international law is Sure, but oddly the ICJ ruling, while not ordering a ceasefire, is still more than nothing, and might yet improve things. I am a foolish optimist.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2024 15:22
|
|
|
Rust Martialis posted:Having a discussion where one party is discussing what is *legal* and the other is discussing what is *moral* never goes well, in my experience. You end up with the legal issue posters getting called evil monsters by the moralists, who look like idiots to the legalists in turn. This happens all the time in I/P conflict chat and it is so annoying. When the other side breaks international law it's a travesty but when your own side does well it's not a big deal.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2024 17:28
|
|
|
Count Roland posted:This happens all the time in I/P conflict chat and it is so annoying. When the other side breaks international law it's a travesty but when your own side does well it's not a big deal. I think you can make a reasonable argument that in that case, the power imbalance makes Israel more culpable for breaches of international law, since they're the ones who have created a situation where most of the most effective and reliable acts of resistance against them are criminal. Like, for instance, hostage-taking is bad and illegal, but it's also demonstrated itself to be Palestinian militants' only actually-effective currency when negotiating with Israel (since they've been denied most legitimate forms of leverage through criminal means).
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2024 17:55
|
|
|
Count Roland posted:This happens all the time in I/P conflict chat and it is so annoying. When the other side breaks international law it's a travesty but when your own side does well it's not a big deal. I made the realization years back in the Trayvon Martin thread. Some posters want to discuss the actual law, and some don't give a poo poo about law, and react to discussions of law with insane virulence. Also I made a rule never to believe anything about a controversial case until I see the written decision. It's like a law of nature, the first reports will be "JUDGE SAYS ALL BLACKS ARE CRIMINALS" and then you see the decision and no, the judge didn't say anything like that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2024 18:08
|
|
|
Rust Martialis posted:I made the realization years back in the Trayvon Martin thread. Some posters want to discuss the actual law, and some don't give a poo poo about law, and react to discussions of law with insane virulence. It doesn't help that "international law" is a nebulous legal discipline with very little in the way of agreed-upon, written rules and code. It's often conflicting with the real world differences in socioeconomic and military power between countries. It applies when enough people with enough actual power want it to apply. It doesn't apply when that is not the case.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2024 18:53
|
|
|
Rust Martialis posted:One difficulty discussing the Red Sea attacks is you can applaud the idea of trying to apply pressure to get the US to push Israel to stop loving genociding Gaza while also saying "uhhh you do know what you're doing is absolutely illegal under international law" I mean most of the arguments I’ve seen of people trying to find angles to justify the US strikes in Yemen were couched in morality or at least a sort of implied “this law or norm about commerce and freedom of the seas is absolute and moral.” The thing about actual lawyers vs legal cranks is that unlike say mathematics vs cranks the only real difference between sovereign citizen nonsense and accepted serious case law isn’t the result of some rigorous fundamental proof but just what the highest court or legislative body or the jurisdiction says it is. In the case of international law, it’s even more muddled.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2024 18:57
|
|
|
Ham posted:I am an Egyptian living in Egypt. Houthis were not heavily featured for a long time in public discourse other than state media following the Emirati/Saudi line when they began their assault on Yemen years ago. Thanks! I kinda figured it was a disingenuous talking point just based on the people I’ve heard it from, but I wanted to be sure there wasn’t actually some serious debate in the Arabic media world about it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2024 19:09
|
|
|
As far as I can see, the claim the Houthis only attacked Israeli owned/operated ships or ships headed to an Israeli port prior to the US bombing campaign is completely false. Does anyone have a solid source that supports it with evidence or is it just wishful thinking or what? List of ships from: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Red_Sea_crisis
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2024 21:47
|
|
|
Eric Cantonese posted:It doesn't help that "international law" is a nebulous legal discipline with very little in the way of agreed-upon, written rules and code. It's often conflicting with the real world differences in socioeconomic and military power between countries. It applies when enough people with enough actual power want it to apply. It doesn't apply when that is not the case. It is an entirely moot point most of the time because nobody involved in the given conflict gives a poo poo so it's just posters trying for sick burns. Rent-A-Cop fucked around with this message at 22:10 on Jan 30, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2024 22:08
|
|
|
Rust Martialis posted:As far as I can see, the claim the Houthis only attacked Israeli owned/operated ships or ships headed to an Israeli port prior to the US bombing campaign is completely false. Does anyone have a solid source that supports it with evidence or is it just wishful thinking or what? This was first brought up weeks ago. I don't think people itt are going to be convinced at this point. How's about we discuss the 3 US soldiers killed in Jordan. Where we do think the US will strike in retaliation? My bet would be eastern Iraq.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2024 22:08
|
|
|
Count Roland posted:This was first brought up weeks ago. I don't think people itt are going to be convinced at this point.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2024 22:23
|
|
|
Rust Martialis posted:As far as I can see, the claim the Houthis only attacked Israeli owned/operated ships or ships headed to an Israeli port prior to the US bombing campaign is completely false. Does anyone have a solid source that supports it with evidence or is it just wishful thinking or what? IIRC, the other ships they were going after were headed for Saudi ports, or operated under Saudi flags, which, well... fair enough. Don't forget that the Houthis have recent and intimate experience of genocide to guide their policy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2024 22:35
|
|
|
I guess Iran is also a potential target, albeit an unlikely one.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2024 23:14
|
|
|
Count Roland posted:This was first brought up weeks ago. I don't think people itt are going to be convinced at this point. A wedding, usually.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2024 23:15
|
|
|
Rust Martialis posted:As far as I can see, the claim the Houthis only attacked Israeli owned/operated ships or ships headed to an Israeli port prior to the US bombing campaign is completely false. Does anyone have a solid source that supports it with evidence or is it just wishful thinking or what? Many, many times. The mods are apparently applying their discretion to not enforce the rules on some repeatedly refuted claims.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2024 23:15
|
|
|
Darth Walrus posted:IIRC, the other ships they were going after were headed for Saudi ports, or operated under Saudi flags, which, well... fair enough. Don't forget that the Houthis have recent and intimate experience of genocide to guide their policy. that was one of the reasons why it was weird and dumb to wake up to the fierce new call for Critical Support and Solidarity for the ultrareligious conservative freaks who do nazi salute poo poo not the only one, but one of them
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2024 23:23
|
|
|
As far as I'm aware, the only examples of a ship not Israeli owned or headed towards Israel or mistaken for an Israeli ship being attacked that was provided were....ships belonging to Saudi Arabia, Saudi docks, or mistaken for a Saudi ship. At a time when they were at war with Saudi Arabia. Of course, now that the US is bombing Yemen the criteria has expanded to include US and British ships; it appears that the Houthi have a consistent record of targeting ships either violating the genocide conventions or going to war with Yemen. As for violating laws: laws are a means to an end, not inherently sacrosanct texts. If laws currently allow the world to financially support a genocidal state without penalty, then they are unjust laws.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2024 00:30
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:As far as I'm aware, Amy actual evidence please? This is D&D.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2024 01:06
|
|
|
Rust Martialis posted:Amy actual evidence please? This is D&D. How exactly would you like me to prove "nobody has shown an example that wasn't related to Israel, Sauds, or misidentification"
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2024 01:12
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:How exactly would you like me to prove "nobody has shown an example that wasn't related to Israel, Sauds, or misidentification" Provide your evidence showing they were all related. It's you making the claim.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2024 01:30
|
|
|
Rust Martialis posted:Provide your evidence showing they were all related. It's you making the claim. Misidentification: https://www.tradewindsnews.com/casualties/-misinformation-led-to-swan-atlantic-being-targeted-by-terrorists-owner-claims/2-1-1573303 Only ships believed to be heading to Israel, with Israeli connection, or US/British: https://maritime-executive.com/article/china-and-russia-get-a-free-pass-through-houthis-red-sea-blockade Ships related to the US military: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/jan/24/us-navy-cargo-ships-houthi-missile-attack-yemen Is there a specific vessel you'd like me to address?
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2024 01:39
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:Misidentification: I mean, the Wikipedia article lists quite a few from before the bombing campaign. I excluded the ones mentioning any Israeli owners. 3 Dec - Number 9 (Panama/UK) 3 Dec - Sophie II (Panama/Japan) 11 Dec - Strinda (Norway) 13 Dec - Ardmore Encounter (Marshall Islands/Bermuda) 14 Dec - Maersk Gibraltar (Hong Kong) 15 Dec - Al Jasrah (Liberia/Germany) 15 Dec - MSC Palatium III (Liberia/Switzerland) 18 Dec - Swan Atlantic (Cayman Islands/Norway) 18 Dec - MSC Clara (Panama/Switzerland) 23 Dec - Blaamanen (Norway) 23 Dec - M/V Saibaba (Gabon/India) 30 Dec - Maersk Hangzhou (Singapore) Your first article says one was a mistake. Ok. The second article you seem to have mis-linked? It doesn't say what you posted - just that Russia, China and other countries are not targetted. A quote from the article: quote:“Our goal is to raise the economic costs for [Israel],” Houthi spokesman Muhammad al-Buheiti told Izvestia last week. “As for all other countries, including Russia and China, their shipping in the region is not threatened." Is there a different article you meant to link? The last one is from late January and was about ships being actively escorted and carrying US military cargo, after the bombing campaign started. So not seeing how it applies to the bulk of the ships above. You do cross off more ships if you include "headed to/from a Saudi port" so you should probably add that to your list. You didn't mention it but maybe it's stated somewhere else by the Houthi leadership.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2024 02:08
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Many, many times. The mods are apparently applying their discretion to not enforce the rules on some repeatedly refuted claims. Regarding Rule I.A.3. (the last 3 words of that rule are key here) This rule does not mean that you must have first read and fully absorbed each and every single post in a thread after you make an argument before you can ever weigh in again with that same argument, to ensure that no one at some point well after you posted then said something to someone else that contradicted your point without your knowledge. It means that if you are specifically addressed, usually with a quoted reply relatively soon (a page or two) after yours, and that reply has effort and sources saying you are wrong, then you should not carry on as if that refutation specifically addressed to you as the poster of your putatively wrong post never happened. That is annoying and is why it is a rule. There are narrow exceptions like we don't always let a newbie Kramer in with their hot take on how Bernie was robbed in 2016 during the height of election season. Rigel fucked around with this message at 04:59 on Jan 31, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2024 04:55
|
|
|
Rigel posted:Regarding Rule I.A.4. Except the same posters have been addressed, and these aren't newbies. They're active in discussion when the claims were previously refuted. So the most charitable interpretation possible is that the mods are using their discretion to choose to not apply the rules to some repeatedly refuted claims. Alternatively, you are applying the scope of refutation so narrowly that a false claim can be repeatedly reintroduced by just having a new user do it or making even the smallest variance on the claim, even if it has already been addressed in the prior refutation. Either way, this approach maximizes the burden on both good faith users and moderators, prevents the discussion of new information or the development of shared knowledge, and actively prevents the purported educational purpose of the subforum as the same false claims must be disproven again, and again, and again- as is happening, now. Regardless, I look forward to helping you understand the consequences of your lack of moderation. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 05:21 on Jan 31, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2024 04:58
|
|
|
Rust Martialis posted:3 Dec - Number 9 (Panama/UK) Maersk Hangzhou - Yemen claims it was heading to Eliat - Maersk claims it was heading to Port Suez MV Saibaba - No destination listed in the sources I could find - Tracking sites suggest that it mainly travels to Russia through the Suez canal - Articles say Gabon-owned, specifics are paywalled on trackers Blaamenen - Press release suggests they were behind Saibaba, and were not the target - United States CENCOM recorded it as a near-miss anyways MSC Clara - Yemen says they did not respond to calls Swan Atlantic - Yemen says they did not respond to calls MSC Palatium III - Has gone to Israeli ports in the past (though one was not listed in their destinations for that particular trip) M/V Al Jasrah - Owned by Hapag Loyd, which has offices in Israel Maersk Gibraltar - Operated by an Israeli subsidiary of Moller-Maersk Ardmore Encounter - Israeli businessman Idan Ofer held shares in Ardmore Shipping, however they were sold a couple months prior to the attack. Strinda - An Israeli seaport listed the Strinda as an incoming vessel. Operators of Strinda say that this was incorrectly listed. Sophie II - Not finding any ties at the current moment. CENCOM gave the vague statement that it was crewed by 'eight countries' without disclosing said countries. That seems suspicious to bring up, but that's entirely conjecture. Number 9 - Operated by ZIM (Israeli business) until 2021 None of this is to say "it's okay that they made mistakes", but it mostly seems to enforce two points: that Yemen is broadly targeting any boat with Israel ties past or present, and they are in fact actively targeting boats with Israel ties or otherwise are not heeding warnings. quote:The second article you seem to have mis-linked? It doesn't say what you posted - just that Russia, China and other countries are not targetted. A quote from the article: They're not being targeted specifically because those nations' ships largely are not heading to Israel. As your own list notes, there have been ships from China or with Russian crewmembers, who have been attacked for either having Israel ties or were heading to Israel. As the article notes, many Chinese ships have been using their transponders to signal that they are not associated with Israel, just as many others have, and has been endorsed by the Houthis, and we've yet to see a report on any of those ships being targeted. quote:The last one is from late January and was about ships being actively escorted and carrying US military cargo, after the bombing campaign started. So not seeing how it applies to the bulk of the ships above. Affirms that Yemen is being selective in their targets, even if their criteria is broad. It was a shot in the dark considering that your demand essentially amounted to "Prove Yemen aren't indiscriminately targeting ships." Neurolimal fucked around with this message at 05:59 on Jan 31, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2024 05:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 06:05 |
|
|
Rust Martialis posted:One difficulty discussing the Red Sea attacks is you can applaud the idea of trying to apply pressure to get the US to push Israel to stop loving genociding Gaza while also saying "uhhh you do know what you're doing is absolutely illegal under international law" We probably could use an enhanced vocabulary here that has probably already been defined and that I'm not really ready to propose the specifics of. From where I stand, the biases of the "moral observer" tends towards the blaringly obvious situations of the case specific, while the biases of the "legal observer" tends towards broader implications, but both interweave with moral and legal value. To the "legal observer", the background of why all these laws and norms have been established is at stake. To them, a violation of laws and norms risks further violation of those laws and norms, and all sorts of 19th and 20th century horrors: extraterritorial claims, blockading of islands, intentional or exacerbated famine Ex: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 78, 9, 10, 11, 12, isolation, hoarding and economic collapse, the death of globalization and death of the peace brought by not needing to disable enemies to secure resources but instead having confidence that they can trade for what they need. To the "moral observer," all of these terrible things are both preventable and happening to a specific person here and just because some action is appropriate in this case doesn't mean it's appropriate in all other cases! To the "legal observer," the "moral observer" suggestions risk plunging the rest of the world into those horrors. To the moral observer, the legal observer denies those horrors or suggests the afflicted individuals accept these horrors. Neither is really acceptable to the other. Rent-A-Cop posted:Yeah it doesn't help that "International Law" is just whatever the most heavily armed guy in the room says it is 99% of the time. I think it's slightly more nuanced than that. First, I like adding "norms" to any general reference of the "international law," even though it's kind of redundant. Half of the "laws" are not formalized--i.e. are really just norms. But it's important to note that many of the considerations and agreement are not agreed on by all parties, but have significance and apply the same. If a new country forms, or a new regime emerges, just because that country or regime didn't agree to the "International Congress of Don't Do This Thing That Most Countries Agreed to Do Because They Don't Like It When Other Countries Do it To Them of 1969" (ICDDTTTMCADBTDLIWOCDTT-69), doesn't mean it isn't in everyone else's best interest to incentivize the new country/regime to comply. If incentives (or disincentives) are prohibited on the basis of international agreement, then noncompliance with international agreement will engender noncompliance with international agreement. Norms. Second, "International Law" is often what the most heavily armed groups (plural) in a room say 99% of the time, caveated by whatever they need to garner support that supports their particular aims. See the two different languages of NATO*, Mongolian independence**, as examples. Many of the international laws are effectively concessions by the "heavily armed people." The "heavily armed people" concede that they will not do this thing as long as the others agree not to. This helps explain some of the reactions from the "legal observers" described above. The motivation for each to abstain from the prohibited actions and to abstain from using their force is the compliance of others to abstain from the prohibited actions and to abstain from using their force. Breaking the contract for a few threatens to encourage others to break the contract, who then include that risk as part of their moral calculation. This unactualized risk is part of how they're considering the moral weight of a situation. The value of that risk is difficult to calibrate, hence trolley problems. Which is worse, 26,000 dead with no intervention, or 26,000 with intervention? Which is worse, no intervention, or intervention that risks increasing the dead by some magnitude? I think a lot of the disagreement between "moral observers" and "legal observers" on this topic are really differences in this calibration based on their own biases--this valuation of risk. The most valuable discourse within these constraints is that which recognizes this impasse, but has the power to inform regardless. Rent-A-Cop posted:It is an entirely moot point most of the time because nobody involved in the given conflict gives a poo poo so it's just posters trying for sick burns. Absolutely true, no notes. * many will already know that there are two official languages of NATO: one whose speaking nations (Canada UK, and US) contribute 75% of funding and 47% of personnel, and is considered the international language of world trade, with the other (spoken by France, Belgium and Luxembourg) contributing 5% of funding and 7% of personnel. This is because the NATO proponents needed to appease the French to keep the whole thing from breaking down. Germany contributes slightly more funding than France and Türkiye contributes twice as many personnel as France, but neither gets official language privilege.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2024 08:56
|
|