Middle East Thread: Clarissa Explains the Fall

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Middle East Thread: Clarissa Explains the Fall

Darth Walrus: Feb 13, 2012

Staluigi posted:

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

To clarify, I'm referring to the Saudi invasion of Yemen, which was genocidal as fuuuck. Used starvation as a weapon of war on a scale debatably grander than what's presently happening in Gaza.

# ? Jan 31, 2024 09:14

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 24, 2024 14:30

Rust Martialis: May 8, 2007; At night, Bavovnyatko quietly comes to the occupiers’ bases, depots, airfields, oil refineries and other places full of flammable items and starts playing with fire there

piL posted:

* 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 Canada, France, Belgium and Luxembourg)

# ? Jan 31, 2024 12:32

Count Roland: Oct 6, 2013

Darth Walrus posted:

To clarify, I'm referring to the Saudi invasion of Yemen, which was genocidal as fuuuck. Used starvation as a weapon of war on a scale debatably grander than what's presently happening in Gaza.

Killing people, including by methods such as starvation, does not constitute genocide.

I'm not even sure who the genocide would be aimed against. There's multiple peoples in Yemen who are pretty distinct. And the Houthis are more of a political party, they're not an ethnic group.

There's always wiggle room here but I personally try to preserve the word genocide for only the very exceptional cases. The killing going on in Gaza is also not in itself a genocide imo. However when the killing is paired with mass displacement and public comments by Israeli ministers of migration out of Gaza the argument becomes much stronger.

# ? Jan 31, 2024 15:23

Owling Howl: Jul 17, 2019

Neurolimal posted:

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.

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.

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."

Targetting any ship which have at some point in the past visited Israel or is owned by a company that may have stock owned by an Israeli or for whatever reason have offices in Israel makes the criteria so broad that it's completely useless. They can hit any ship and work backwards to find some tie to Israel to justify it. Consequently it will not just affect Israel - it will generally raise costs for seborne trade through the Red Sea. I appreciate that it will be marginally inconvenient for Israel but it should be weighed against the cost to people in ie Sudan and Ethiopia who rely on it to not die.

# ? Jan 31, 2024 18:06

Rust Martialis: May 8, 2007; At night, Bavovnyatko quietly comes to the occupiers’ bases, depots, airfields, oil refineries and other places full of flammable items and starts playing with fire there

Neurolimal posted:

Maersk Hangzhou
- Yemen claims it was heading to Eliat
- Maersk claims it was heading to Port Suez

Result: it sailed to Port Suez after the attack. Seems to support Maersk more than Yemen's claim. Error at best, or else just making it up.

quote:

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

Result: No apparent reason for attack known. Could just be... a fuckup?

quote:

Blaamenen
- Press release suggests they were behind Saibaba, and were not the target
- United States CENCOM recorded it as a near-miss anyways

Result: No apparent reason for attack known.

quote:

MSC Clara
- Yemen says they did not respond to calls

No evidence. (No reason to believe Yemen's statement without evidence any more than believing the USA for blowing up that guys car in his home driveway on the way out of Afghanistan.)

quote:

Swan Atlantic
- Yemen says they did not respond to calls

No evidence.

quote:

MSC Palatium III
- Has gone to Israeli ports in the past (though one was not listed in their destinations for that particular trip)

Result: ship was not going to Israel or Israeli-owned but was attacked anyhow. Random or error.

quote:

M/V Al Jasrah
- Owned by Hapag Loyd, which has offices in Israel

Result: no evidence why it was targeted except the German company have offices in Israeli ports. Pencil this one as "Israeli-linked".

quote:

Maersk Gibraltar
- Operated by an Israeli subsidiary of Moller-Maersk

Got evidence on that Israeli-operated claim please?

https://www.portnews.it/en/missile-almost-hits-maersk-gibraltar/

"The Maersk ship is owned by Greater China Intermodal Investments and operated by Seaspan Ship Management. There are no apparent ownership links with Israel. The vessel has no scheduled calls in Israel."

So you're saying Seaspan is Israeli? Or Greater China Intermodal Investments is Israeli? I clicked on Seaspan and they're fully owned by Atlas Corp. So is Atlas Israeli? I don't see any links.

https://www.seaspancorp.com/company/corporate-overview/

quote:

Ardmore Encounter
- Israeli businessman Idan Ofer held shares in Ardmore Shipping, however they were sold a couple months prior to the attack.

Result: Attacked despite not actually being linked to Israel - call this one an error I guess.

quote:

Strinda
- An Israeli seaport listed the Strinda as an incoming vessel. Operators of Strinda say that this was incorrectly listed.

So I guess this probably counts as another fuckup.

quote:

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.

So no evidence it was Israeli or headed to Israel. Fuckup again.

quote:

Number 9
- Operated by ZIM (Israeli business) until 2021

Presumably NOT operated by ZIM now? So fuckup again?

quote:

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.

They're not being targeted specifically because those nations' ships largely are not heading to Israel. As your own list notes, ther GTe 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.

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."

What it actually shows is of the (quick count) 12 ships mentioned above, one was attacked because Hapag-Lloyd has offices in Israeli ports, none of the rest were headed to Israel, or Israeli owned or operated - with the possibly exception of one Maersk ship. Possibly a couple were attacked for not responding to warnings, but there's no evidence for or against it. And the rest were basically fuckups by the Houthi who attacked ships that had no reason to expect to be attacked because they weren't Israeli or headed there. And for quite a few of those there's no reason to think the Houthi thought they were Israeli-linked.

So maybe one or two were Israeli-linked (waiting for evidence on Maersk Gibraltar). The rest? Apparently not.

Imagine the poor crews thinking "well we're not owned or managed by Israelis and we're not headed to an Israeli port" and getting attacked anyway. Poor bastards.

Ed: vvvv seriously gently caress the Saudis for the poo poo they did in Yemen

Rust Martialis fucked around with this message at 19:04 on Jan 31, 2024

# ? Jan 31, 2024 18:47

Darth Walrus: Feb 13, 2012

Count Roland posted:

Killing people, including by methods such as starvation, does not constitute genocide.

I'm not even sure who the genocide would be aimed against. There's multiple peoples in Yemen who are pretty distinct. And the Houthis are more of a political party, they're not an ethnic group.

There's always wiggle room here but I personally try to preserve the word genocide for only the very exceptional cases. The killing going on in Gaza is also not in itself a genocide imo. However when the killing is paired with mass displacement and public comments by Israeli ministers of migration out of Gaza the argument becomes much stronger.

The discrete entity that the Saudi Invasion was genocidal against was the Yemeni population as a whole. It involved engineering a famine that the UN described in 2020 as 'the largest humanitarian crisis in the world', with 80% of its population of 34 million requiring humanitarian assistance and over half suffering from dangerous food insecurity. You're nitpicking one of the worst war crimes of the 21st century, which also served as an obvious point of solidarity between the Yemeni population and Gazan Palestinians.

# ? Jan 31, 2024 18:59

Neurolimal: Nov 3, 2012

Rust Martialis posted:

No evidence. (No reason to believe Yemen's statement without evidence any more than believing the USA for blowing up that guys car in his home driveway on the way out of Afghanistan.)

No evidence.

None of the press releases have disputed this.

Swan Atlantic, if you remember from prior links, was also the ship mischaracterized by a ship traffic aggregator, as being Israel-affiliated; it seems that a lot of headaches could be avoided if Yemen's de facto government was respected when calling passing ships.

quote:

Result: No apparent reason for attack known.

Because it wasn't attacked.

quote:

Result: ship was not going to Israel or Israeli-owned but was attacked anyhow. Random or error.

They're going to be suspicious of ships that have docked at Israel prior.

quote:

Got evidence on that Israeli-operated claim please?

https://www.portnews.it/en/missile-almost-hits-maersk-gibraltar/

"The Maersk ship is owned by Greater China Intermodal Investments and operated by Seaspan Ship Management. There are no apparent ownership links with Israel. The vessel has no scheduled calls in Israel."

So you're saying Seaspan is Israeli? Or Greater China Intermodal Investments is Israeli? I clicked on Seaspan and they're fully owned by Atlas Corp. So is Atlas Israeli? I don't see any links.

https://www.seaspancorp.com/company/corporate-overview/

Looks like the site I drew from misread A.P Moller-Maersk operating in Israel as having operated the ship, SP Global has the correct version:

https://www.spglobal.com/commodityi...pe-route-option

quote:

For example, while A.P. Moller-Maersk operates in Israel, the Maersk Gibraltar is owned by Hong Kong-based Seaspan Corp. The ship is not scheduled to call in Israel, according to A.P. Moller-Maersk’s website.

So chalk it up to Moller-Maersk having offices in Israel.

quote:

Result: Attacked despite not actually being linked to Israel - call this one an error I guess.

They're going to be suspicious of a company that up until a few months ago had a prominent Israeli stockholder.

quote:

So I guess this probably counts as another fuckup.

On the part of the seaport, yes. This isn't the first one, either; Israel should be more thorough considering that their ports are a scarlet letter right now.

quote:

Presumably NOT operated by ZIM now? So fuckup again?

They're going to be suspicious of a boat that up until recent was owned by an Israeli company.

Keep in mind that the question was never "was every target correct", it was on whether the Houthis are specifically targeting Israel-related vessels. Of over 30 attacks, a handful do not have immediately identifiable Israeli history, ties, beligerance towards state calls, or ties to US military operations. We can finally say with high confidence, and lower this wretched multi-page talking point into its grave, that the Houthis are targeting specific ships.

Neurolimal fucked around with this message at 19:37 on Jan 31, 2024

# ? Jan 31, 2024 19:32

Count Roland: Oct 6, 2013

Darth Walrus posted:

The discrete entity that the Saudi Invasion was genocidal against was the Yemeni population as a whole. It involved engineering a famine that the UN described in 2020 as 'the largest humanitarian crisis in the world', with 80% of its population of 34 million requiring humanitarian assistance and over half suffering from dangerous food insecurity. You're nitpicking one of the worst war crimes of the 21st century, which also served as an obvious point of solidarity between the Yemeni population and Gazan Palestinians.

Yes, I am. There is no number that is passed that makes something a genocide. It is intent to destroy a nation, that is a group of people, by displacing or killing. Even within that definition I try to keep it pretty narrow, so as to not over use the term.

Recent ones include those targeting the Rohingya, Yazidis and people in Darfur.

The Saudi war on Yemen war terrible, and they are guilty of numerous war crimes. But there was no organized attempt to exterminate a people.

# ? Jan 31, 2024 19:34

TheDeadlyShoe: Feb 14, 2014

Neurolimal posted:

Keep in mind that the question was never "was every target correct", it was on whether the Houthis are specifically targeting Israel-related vessels. Of over 30 attacks, a handful do not have immediately identifiable Israeli history, ties, beligerance towards state calls, or ties to US military operations. We can finally say with high confidence, and lower this wretched multi-page talking point into its grave, that the Houthis are targeting specific ships.

I mean if you take your #s at their face, lets say, 25 out of 30 were totally legitimate targets, despite being civilian cargo ships crewed by innocents. I do not see the logical difference between that and someone saying 'look only 1 out of 5 terrorist gatherings bombed were weddings'.

TheDeadlyShoe fucked around with this message at 19:39 on Jan 31, 2024

# ? Jan 31, 2024 19:37

Neurolimal: Nov 3, 2012

TheDeadlyShoe posted:

i mean if you take your #s at their face, lets say, 25 out of 30 were totally legitimate targets. what's the difference between that and someone saying 'look only 1 out of 5 terrorist gatherings bombed were weddings'. (there isn't one.)

If you want to argue that the Houthis need better identification for their blockade, that's certainly up for discussion. My focus right now is on whether or not the Houthis are opportunistically attacking anyone, or attempting to impose restrictions on specific ships. I feel confident in saying it's the latter case.

# ? Jan 31, 2024 19:39

Rust Martialis: May 8, 2007; At night, Bavovnyatko quietly comes to the occupiers’ bases, depots, airfields, oil refineries and other places full of flammable items and starts playing with fire there

Neurolimal posted:

Keep in mind that the question was never "was every target correct", it was on whether the Houthis are specifically targeting Israel-related vessels. Of over 30 attacks, a handful do not have immediately identifiable Israeli history, ties, beligerance towards state calls, or ties to US military operations. We can finally say with high confidence, and lower this wretched multi-page talking point into its grave, that the Houthis are targeting specific ships.

Actually the evidence shows that of the attacks in December, most were against ships with no Israeli connections at all.

# ? Jan 31, 2024 19:40

Darth Walrus: Feb 13, 2012

Count Roland posted:

Yes, I am. There is no number that is passed that makes something a genocide. It is intent to destroy a nation, that is a group of people, by displacing or killing. Even within that definition I try to keep it pretty narrow, so as to not over use the term.

Recent ones include those targeting the Rohingya, Yazidis and people in Darfur.

The Saudi war on Yemen war terrible, and they are guilty of numerous war crimes. But there was no organized attempt to exterminate a people.

Except for the organised attempt to kill or cripple the entire country through engineered starvation via an illegal blockade, you mean?

This may be one of the weirdest pieces of genocide denial I've ever seen on these forums.

# ? Jan 31, 2024 19:42

Neurolimal: Nov 3, 2012

Rust Martialis posted:

Actually the evidence shows that of the attacks in December, most were against ships with no Israeli connections at all.

So long as you don't count prior Israeli ownership, offices in Israel, prior Israeli stockholders, and public website misidentification, sure.

# ? Jan 31, 2024 19:42

mlmp08: Jul 11, 2004; Prepare for my priapic projectile's exalted penetration; Nap Ghost

Neurolimal posted:

prior Israeli stockholders,

This one is funny. Anyone who owns the most basic-rear end IRA fodder mutual fund probably owns some small part of a company co-owned by another stockholder from Israel or owns stock in major multinational industries with offices in dozens of countries.

Your guilt by association meter is so broad that it becomes useless.

Sorry Indian shipping crew, a retired grandma with Israeli family bought some mutual funds, so now you are all Israeli agents.

mlmp08 fucked around with this message at 19:50 on Jan 31, 2024

# ? Jan 31, 2024 19:48

Rust Martialis: May 8, 2007; At night, Bavovnyatko quietly comes to the occupiers’ bases, depots, airfields, oil refineries and other places full of flammable items and starts playing with fire there

Neurolimal posted:

So long as you don't count prior Israeli ownership, offices in Israel, prior Israeli stockholders, and public website misidentification, sure.

Yeah, no actual connection to Israel. Basically, most attacks were indistinguishable from random ones - they weren't Israeli-owned, they weren't headed to Israeli ports. You've put forward some post-hoc rationalizations but the fact is if you're right and they only attacked ships they thought were Israeli, they were usually wrong, and were attacking just random uninvolved ships out of the blue. So they're either lying or incompetent.

# ? Jan 31, 2024 19:55

Neurolimal: Nov 3, 2012

mlmp08 posted:

This one is funny. Anyone who owns the most basic-rear end IRA fodder mutual fund probably owns some small part of a company co-owned by another stockholder from Israel or owns stock in major multinational industries with offices in dozens of countries.

Your guilt by association meter is so broad that it becomes useless.

Sorry Indian shipping crew, a retired grandma with Israeli family bought some mutual funds, so now you are all Israeli agents.

Idan Ofer has a net worth of 15.2 billion dollars, for what it's worth. He ain't no pensioner.

Rust Martialis posted:

they were usually wrong,

Weird way to refer to two instances of an Israeli seaport & a ship traffic monitor misidentifying ships, but it's clear that you're not going to roll over on this, so I'll let the facts speak to any lurkers in the thread.

# ? Jan 31, 2024 19:59

mlmp08: Jul 11, 2004; Prepare for my priapic projectile's exalted penetration; Nap Ghost

Neurolimal posted:

Idan Ofer has a net worth of 15.2 billion dollars, for what it's worth. He ain't no pensioner.

What is your personal cutoff on when a company becomes Israeli based on the nationality of some of its stock owners? Is it $1 or do you have some amount of money after which you declare a company Israeli enough?

# ? Jan 31, 2024 20:04

Neurolimal: Nov 3, 2012

mlmp08 posted:

What is your personal cutoff on when a company becomes Israeli based on the nationality of some of its stock owners? Is it $1 or do you have some amount of money after which you declare a company Israeli enough?

Let's mutually agree on owning no less than one company, or having physical offices in Israel. Seems like a good starting point. I'll get Houthi on the horn.

# ? Jan 31, 2024 20:05

mlmp08: Jul 11, 2004; Prepare for my priapic projectile's exalted penetration; Nap Ghost

Neurolimal posted:

Let's mutually agree on owning no less than one company, or having physical offices in Israel. Seems like a good starting point. I'll get Houthi on the horn.

Do you mean offices like the headquarters or like at least one brick and mortar storefront/building/warehouse?

# ? Jan 31, 2024 20:10

Neurolimal: Nov 3, 2012

mlmp08 posted:

Do you mean offices like the headquarters or like at least one brick and mortar storefront/building/warehouse?

What if an Israeli urchin accidentally drops a dollar bill, which is then carried on the wind across the sea into the lap of a humble steamboat operator?

I feel like this sort of "when will the chaos end?" slippery slope discussion should be kept dry for an occasion murkier than Idan Ofer, Shipping Magnate, son of Israel's former Richest Citizen.

# ? Jan 31, 2024 20:13

Rust Martialis: May 8, 2007; At night, Bavovnyatko quietly comes to the occupiers’ bases, depots, airfields, oil refineries and other places full of flammable items and starts playing with fire there

Neurolimal posted:

Weird way to refer to two instances of an Israeli seaport & a ship traffic monitor misidentifying ships, but it's clear that you're not going to roll over on this, so I'll let the facts speak to any lurkers in the thread.

Ah, the lurkers support you in email, are we at that stage?

If you come up with any actual links to Israeli ownership or that some of those attacked ships were headed to Israeli ports, please post it.

I live in Copenhagen, I should print out your post claiming Maersk is Israeli and go over to their offices and let them know. I bet they were unaware.

# ? Jan 31, 2024 20:16

mlmp08: Jul 11, 2004; Prepare for my priapic projectile's exalted penetration; Nap Ghost

Neurolimal posted:

What if an Israeli urchin accidentally drops a dollar bill, which is then carried on the wind across the sea into the lap of a humble steamboat operator?

I feel like this sort of "when will the chaos end?" slippery slope discussion should be kept dry for an occasion murkier than Idan Ofer, Oil Baron & Shipping Magnate.

I am responding to your words; if you don�t like that I�m asking for specificity you could refine your own arguments.

You said an Israeli person owning stock in a company or a company having �offices� in Israel makes that company Israeli-affiliated and any employee or contractor working deliveries for them or sailing on a ship that ever in prior history did so is game for lethal targeting. Hell, you included companies with zero Israeli investors that may have had prior Israeli investors at some time in history. I am trying to figure out what you meant by that.

If you would like to retreat from that position, feel free. In the meantime I was trying to see if you were serious or just imprecise or glib in your argument.

This is why I am asking for more specificity in what you mean:

Neurolimal posted:

So long as you don't count prior Israeli ownership, offices in Israel, prior Israeli stockholders, and public website misidentification, sure.

# ? Jan 31, 2024 20:20

Neurolimal: Nov 3, 2012

I don't think your argument merits a serious response. Idan Ofer is a prominent billionaire Israeli. We're not talking about an 80 year old Canadian-Israeli dual-citizen knitting in Toronto. The titanic leap required for this is inherently laughable. It's so far out of the boundaries of the discussion that it's orbiting Neptune and pow-wowing with Martians.

We dont need to establish a blanket judgement here, because that's not the scope of the argument. "Are the Houthis targeting ships with Israel ties", the answer is unambiguously "Yes." If they did target a Venezuelan luxury yacht that was once sneezed on by an Italian who collects nationalities like trading cards, then sure, let's have that discussion.

# ? Jan 31, 2024 20:52

Vernii: Dec 7, 2006

Neurolimal posted:

I don't think your argument merits a serious response. Idan Ofer is a prominent billionaire Israeli. We're not talking about an 80 year old Canadian-Israeli dual-citizen knitting in Toronto. The titanic leap required for this is inherently laughable. It's so far out of the boundaries of the discussion that it's orbiting Neptune and pow-wowing with Martians.

We dont need to establish a blanket judgement here, because that's not the scope of the argument. "Are the Houthis targeting ships with Israel ties", the answer is unambiguously "Yes." If they did target a Venezuelan luxury yacht that was once sneezed on by an Italian who collects nationalities like trading cards, then sure, let's have that discussion.

Just to reaffirm this post, the latest iteration of this argument was yet again the repeated allegation that the Houthis are being indiscriminate in their choice of targets. They very clearly have a target selection process involving ships operated by enemy states (Israel, US, UK, Saudi Arabia) or doing business with those states. Their selection process may not be accurate or competent, but it does exist, which was the entire point of the argument to begin with. Everything past this point is goal shifting.

# ? Jan 31, 2024 21:15

Count Roland: Oct 6, 2013

Please let's move on. I tried to derail this by saying the Saudi's war in Yemen wasn't a genocide but only one person bit.

We can talk about continuing US/UK strikes in Yemen.

Or upcoming US strikes... somewhere, in response to the Jordan attacks.

How's about general economic woes in the region, exacerbated by the Houthi attacks on shipping. Egypt relies on passage through their canal as a source of dollars. Their economy is in bad shape and they have several large debts due this year. Lebanon is in shambles since a few years now.

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

# ? Jan 31, 2024 21:28

Grip it and rip it: Apr 28, 2020

Terms mean what I want them to mean in the moment and will be abandoned whenever that definition becomes inconvenient.

# ? Jan 31, 2024 21:42

Paladinus: Jan 11, 2014; heyHEYYYY!!!

To me personally 'an Israeli used to own part of the company that owns the ship' is very tenuous, but I'm not sure it means Houthis actually attack random ships. For them, for a variety of reasons, justified or not, that level of connection may not be tenuous at all. Since the discussion right now is about their intent rather than about how justified they are in their attacks, I think the only way to show they only bother with post-hoc justification after attacking random ships would be to similarly pick some random ships that operate in the region and come up with similar 'evidence'. It wouldn't surprise me if literally 95% of all ships that sail past Yemen have/had some indirect/past connection to Israel, but it's not something that is easy to google exactly.

# ? Jan 31, 2024 21:45

Rust Martialis: May 8, 2007; At night, Bavovnyatko quietly comes to the occupiers’ bases, depots, airfields, oil refineries and other places full of flammable items and starts playing with fire there

It's like giving the USAF credit for only *wanting* to kill ISIS combatants but they ended up bombing Yet Another Wedding.

Then saying, well, you know, someone at the wedding was probably related to someone in ISIS, or came from the same village, or lent him money once.

# ? Jan 31, 2024 21:59

Paladinus: Jan 11, 2014; heyHEYYYY!!!

Rust Martialis posted:

It's like giving the USAF credit for only *wanting* to kill ISIS combatants but they ended up bombing Yet Another Wedding.

Then saying, well, you know, someone at the wedding was probably related to someone in ISIS, or came from the same village, or lent him money once.

Again, as I said, I personally don't consider justifications provided by the Houthis to be enough to consider most ships they attacked valid targets. But the discussion at hand is about their motivations and intentions. It's not about giving them credit for anything.

# ? Jan 31, 2024 22:07

Josef bugman: Nov 17, 2011; Pictured: Poster prepares to celebrate Holy Communion (probablY)

This avatar made possible by a gift from the Religionthread Posters Relief Fund

Rust Martialis posted:

It's like giving the USAF credit for only *wanting* to kill ISIS combatants but they ended up bombing Yet Another Wedding.

Then saying, well, you know, someone at the wedding was probably related to someone in ISIS, or came from the same village, or lent him money once.

The difference is that one side has not killed anyone yet and seems to be better prepared to not kill people but instead to harm stuff instead of people. There is usually more forgiveness given for that than for harming people. Surprising as that may be.

Again this is the moral argument. If you just go "well yes, but they aren't being selective enough" thats an argument you could make, but the sheer contrast between one side and the other is almost too much of a contradiction.

# ? Jan 31, 2024 22:09

Saladman: Jan 12, 2010

Neurolimal posted:

Let's mutually agree on owning no less than one company, or having physical offices in Israel. Seems like a good starting point. I'll get Houthi on the horn.

So a huge multinational company that has a branch office in Israel is fair game for Houthi missiles (sorry, Filipino and Indian crews actually working on board)? That would include pretty much every multinational company in the entire world. By your logic Emirates would also be considered Israeli enough for Houthis. And UPS and FedEx and etc etc.

# ? Jan 31, 2024 22:54

Rust Martialis: May 8, 2007; At night, Bavovnyatko quietly comes to the occupiers’ bases, depots, airfields, oil refineries and other places full of flammable items and starts playing with fire there

Josef bugman posted:

The difference is that one side has not killed anyone yet and seems to be better prepared to not kill people but instead to harm stuff instead of people. There is usually more forgiveness given for that than for harming people. Surprising as that may be.

Again this is the moral argument. If you just go "well yes, but they aren't being selective enough" thats an argument you could make, but the sheer contrast between one side and the other is almost too much of a contradiction.

I'm wasn't originally making a moral argument, I mean, Israel is committing deliberate genocide, the moral question is mostly settled if it's reasonable to oppose that. If they were actually only hitting Israeli ships I probably wouldn't be part of this discussion, I'd be cheering them on from the sidelines. The problem I have is: they're not just hitting Israeli ships, they've clearly been regularly attacking ships with no Israeli involvement, cargo, ownership or destination. I posted the list from Wikipedia up thread . Apart from the most tenuous, incidental justifications that could be conjured up with 20/20 hindsight, most of the ones from December weren't demonstrably linked to Israel. I was trying to establish what the actual impact of the attacks have been, and if they're really hitting what people claimed they were aiming at. Result: they sure weren't in December.

At that point you then get to ask a moral question like: what limits there are on justifiable use of violence by a group who claim to be acting to oppose genocide. If 99% of your attacks are against valid targets, is that ok? What if only half were? What if most attacks ended up hitting unrelated third parties? Should you keep going, even if only a minority of the attacks are actually against the genocidaires? What moral or legal rights do other countries have to try to get you to stop if you keep attacking?

# ? Jan 31, 2024 22:59

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Hieronymous Alloy posted:

Look I am going to keep robbing gas stations until America ceases its support of genocide

What

# ? Jan 31, 2024 23:03

Gnumonic: Dec 11, 2005; Maybe you thought I was the Packard Goose?

Count Roland posted:

Killing people, including by methods such as starvation, does not constitute genocide.

I'm not even sure who the genocide would be aimed against. There's multiple peoples in Yemen who are pretty distinct. And the Houthis are more of a political party, they're not an ethnic group.

There's always wiggle room here but I personally try to preserve the word genocide for only the very exceptional cases. The killing going on in Gaza is also not in itself a genocide imo. However when the killing is paired with mass displacement and public comments by Israeli ministers of migration out of Gaza the argument becomes much stronger.

Since you seem to be familiar with international law, could you clarify your claim? Specifically, are you claiming that:

1. Saudi bombings in Yemen do not constitute a genocide because they were not targeted a group protected under the genocide convention?
2. Saudi bombings in Yemen do not constitute a genocide because they were not commited with genocidal intent?

As I'm sure you're aware, the genocide convention prohibits:

quote:

any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Yemenis as such constitute a national group, but perhaps you believe that since the bombings (which, due to many direct attacks on the food supply, can reasonably be inferred to aim at bringing about famine, which would seem to obviously fall under provision c and d) were only aimed at a sufficiently small subset of the group as to not count. Why does the subset of the Yemeni population not count as "part" of the group of Yemeni nationals, in your view?

The Houthi movement was originally lead by members of the Zaidi sect of Shia Islam, which constitute a distinct religious group, which presumably have protection under the convention. If you are making the claim that Saudi actions in Yemen do not constitute a genocide because the victims do not amount to a protected group under the genocide convention, could you please explain why you believe the convention only applies to ethnic groups, despite the seemingly obvious text of the treaty.

Maybe that's not what you mean though. Perhaps you're denying that the Saudi/US bombing campaign does not constitute a genocide because it lacks the requisite element of genocidal intent. If you believe this, could you kindly clarify the criteria, as you understand them, for ascriptions of genocidal intent?

As ICJ Judge Nolte's comments on the Israel-South Africa case appear to indicate (see paragraphs 11-12) that the court endorses the criteria employed by the UN fact-finding (see A/HRC/39/CRP.2, starting on page 358), which state:

quote:

1415. Direct evidence of genocidal intent will rarely exist. In its absence, genocidal
intent can be inferred from circumstantial evidence, that is, �all of the evidence taken
together�.For genocidal intent to be established to the criminal standard of �beyond
reasonable doubt�, any inference drawn from circumstantial evidence must be the only
inference that could reasonably follow from the acts in question. The factors relevant to
a determination of genocidal intent include:

1) evidence emanating from or relating to an accused: including various forms of
communication to show the possible formation of intent, including discrete words
and utterances by the accused, and evidence tending to show that the accused
ordered attacks on the targeted group.

2) evidence relating to others: the words and deeds of others acting with or at the
behest of the accused.

3) contextual evidence in the form of plans, policies and preparation: the existence of a
genocidal plan or policy is not a legal requirement but proof of such plan has been
considered relevant to establishing intent. The existence of such plan or policy
may be inferred from various indicia: government involvement in attacks; the
involvement of public officials or soldiers carrying out the attacks; existence of
execution lists targeting the protected group; the dissemination of extremist
ideology; the screening and selection of victims on the basis of their membership in
the protected group.

4) contextual evidence in the form of modus operandi: where acts of a consistent
character have been systematically directed against a protected group.

5) evidence of breadth and scale: the breadth and scale of attacks, as well as whether or
not the attacks were widespread, are relevant to an inference on the formation of intent. In
some instances, one particularly brutal attack, targeting several thousand members of a group,
can indicate the existence of intent.

6) other factors: such as whether bodily injuries were extensive, whether property
belonging to members of the targeted group was targeted, whether derogatory
language was used by an accused or by others against members of the targeted
group.

I do not think there is much dispute that high quality evidence available to the public (see the citations in the "Causes" section of the wikipedia article on the famine) to establish that:

3) The systematic and sustained targeting of food supply & distribution mechanisms, combined with the absence of any stated or reasonably inferred military value to those strikes, implies a concrete plan to subject the Yemeni people to severe famine
4) Again, the sustained and systematic targeting of food supply & distribution over the course of many years licenses a reasonable inference to the modus operandi - i.e., to starve the Yemeni people
5) I don't think anyone will dispute the breadth and scale, as the UN & other humanitarian aid agencies have declared the Yemeni famine to be the worst in the world since at least the North Korean famine of the 90s
6) Given the widespread & intentional destruction of the Yemeni people's means of survival (farms, fishing boats, food storage facilities) the widespread damage to property cannot, I think, be reasonably contested

Perhaps the absence of direct evidence for 1) and 2) suffices to rule out genocidal intent, but it doesn't obviously imply the absence of such intent (as noted, intent often has to be inferred from the circumstances). Given that the ICJ endorsed the criteria employed here, it seems at least plausible that an inference of genocidal intent can be derived from the established facts. C.f. Judge Nolte's response, esp. 13-14, which seems to admit that an inference of genocidal intent from "acts" or a "pattern of conduct" is a reasonable inference in the absence of any other plausible motive. If you mean to imply that the case for genocide intent is much stronger in the case of the Israel/Palestine on the grounds that the first two criteria are prima facie satisfied by the remarks of Israeli leaders, I would agree with you, but that does not preclude the reasonable inference of genocidal intent in the case of Yemen.

As far as I can tell, to establish - as you appear to claim - that a genocide definitively did not occur in Yemen, you would have to provide some other reasonable motive on the part of the Saudi/US that could be reasonably inferred from their actions. Their stated aim appear to be to assist the people of Yemen against the Houthi rebellion. However, their airstrikes and blockade effected famine throughout Yemen, not just amongst the rebels or in rebel-controlled areas, which (I think) conclusively undermines any reasonable inference to their stated aim. At any rate, it would be eminently unreasonable to infer that starving a people, to such an extent as to constitute the most severe famine in 30 years, somehow benefits them.

Self-defense cannot reasonably be inferred as the intent behind their actions because, as far as I am aware, all Houthi-lead attacks on Saudi territory took place after the Saudi/US coalition began their bombing campaign. Moreover, the operative standard for self-defense in international law is a "halting-and-repelling" standard under which a total blockade aimed at bringing about famine could not be justified.

Since you think it's obvious that there was no genocide in Yemen, you should be able to clearly explain how a non-genocidal intent behind the Saudi bombing campaign and blockade can be reasonably inferred from the facts and circumstances of that bombing campaign & blockade. Please do so.

I kindly ask that you actually engage with the details of the norms/criteria/principles of international law. You made an extremely contentious and strong claim, which significantly bears on the subject matter of this discussion, without providing any rational or evidentiary basis for that claim.

Note that I am not arguing that a genocide did in fact occur. I am asking you to provide a justification for your (flippant, dismissive) claim that it surely did not.

# ? Jan 31, 2024 23:17

mlmp08: Jul 11, 2004; Prepare for my priapic projectile's exalted penetration; Nap Ghost

Neurolimal posted:

We dont need to establish a blanket judgement here, because that's not the scope of the argument. "Are the Houthis targeting ships with Israel ties", the answer is unambiguously "Yes."

So do you think they just miss a lot? That�s possible, that they have a goal, but they�re not very good at it to the point of being indiscriminate?

Cause otherwise if you think they�re carefully targeting Israel, we�re back to your chosen distinction of what counts as a valid target being so broad that it is useless if it means any ship in any way related at any point in history to an Israeli business, even in the most tangential and years-old way.

# ? Feb 1, 2024 00:17

Count Roland: Oct 6, 2013

Gnumonic posted:

[snip]

Note that I am not arguing that a genocide did in fact occur. I am asking you to provide a justification for your (flippant, dismissive) claim that it surely did not.

I appreciate your very detailed and nicely formatted response. I'm bound to disappoint: mine will be short and I don't intend to adhere to your guidelines on how to frame my response.

You ask about identification of groups. Yes the Houthis are mostly made up of a certain sect of Shia muslims. And yes they exist within the nominal borders of the state called Yemen. The Houthis are however a political entity first and foremost. Really its a sort of tribal confederation; the name comes from a guy named al-Houthi of the Houthi tribe. After his killing the group formed under him along theocratic lines (similar to Hezbollah). International law re: genocide doesn't cover political groups so far as I know.

As far as intent goes, the famine is a good argument. I'd argue it was mostly incompetence on the part of the Saudis. They weren't able to effectively find and strike the Houthis so they instead hit whatever they could-- mostly civilian infrastructure, transportation and homes. War crimes, no doubt. As I believe is using starvation as a weapon of war. I don't think there's anything though that calls out starvation as being inherently genocidal. So starvation as a weapon of war can be a genocide in one case, but not in another (it is always a war crime).

Your general framing of the argument is about asking me to show why it isn't a genocide. Which is a good debating tactic-- always hard to prove a negative and all that. Really, it's that sentiment I'm arguing against. If we took your numerous arguments and applied them to other conflicts we could tease genocide out of a great many of them. For example:

quote:

Why does the subset of the Yemeni population not count as "part" of the group of Yemeni nationals, in your view?

Why indeed? There are of course no strict definitions here: everyone belongs to one group or another, and war typically involves killing/destroying some particular group. Throw in some war crimes (which are regrettably common) and all manner of conflicts could be construed as being a genocide of one sort of another. And perhaps they should! There is a great deal of genocidal intent during wars, even if most leaders are smart enough to keep this part quiet. I'm operating under the perhaps misguided belief that the term genocide is still uniquely awful, that it transcends the normal horrors of war, that it requires separate, special laws which countries are bound to enforce on the matter. I think that by calling everything a genocide instead of only those very clear-cut cases, the term becomes watered down until it and war-crimes are synonymous, and equally brushed aside. Perhaps I'm overly cynical.

# ? Feb 1, 2024 01:21

TheDeadlyShoe: Feb 14, 2014

Per CNN, a Houthi missile came close enough to a US warship that it engaged its CIWS to destroy it. Like a mile or so

# ? Feb 1, 2024 01:37

Saladman: Jan 12, 2010

Neurolimal posted:

We dont need to establish a blanket judgement here, because that's not the scope of the argument. "Are the Houthis targeting ships with Israel ties", the answer is unambiguously "Yes."

You know, this line of thinking is also exactly the excuse Israel is using to level Gaza. "A Hamas member once lived in this building. Someone in this building at some point received a call from a Hamas militant. UNRWA should be shut down because 12 out of 12,000 of its employees in Gaza were involved in war crimes."

If you use the absolute most tenuous of links like "this freighter sailed to Israel once several years ago" and "this freighter was partially owned by an Israeli billionaire who sold his share three years ago" - and those are literally two of the freighters you yourself cited as "having Israeli ties". Every building in Gaza will be Hamas by your logic. "This farm house is owned by someone whose first cousin was involved in Oct 7."

And the buildings where Hamas is not related to it in tenuous ways? "Oops" just targeting mistakes, like the Turkish and Russian ships the Houthis hit.

# ? Feb 1, 2024 08:43

reignonyourparade: Nov 15, 2012

If you want to have the argument "are the Houthi's standards for Israeli Ties unacceptably broad," that is a reasonable argument for us to have in this thread. But that is a different argument than "The Houthis are just indiscriminately hitting everyone and thus anyone who takes takes them at their word are being taken for rubes." Which, you know, is what prompted this line of discussion.

# ? Feb 1, 2024 09:04

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 24, 2024 14:30

Rust Martialis: May 8, 2007; At night, Bavovnyatko quietly comes to the occupiers’ bases, depots, airfields, oil refineries and other places full of flammable items and starts playing with fire there

reignonyourparade posted:

If you want to have the argument "are the Houthi's standards for Israeli Ties unacceptably broad," that is a reasonable argument for us to have in this thread. But that is a different argument than "The Houthis are just indiscriminately hitting everyone and thus anyone who takes takes them at their word are being taken for rubes." Which, you know, is what prompted this line of discussion.

The fact they've repeatedly hit ships with no actual links to Israel does sort of call their claims to not do that into pretty reasonable doubt. And repeatedly updating the definition of "ties to Israel" every time you hit another ship without actual pre-defined ties to Israel isn't a real confidence builder either, either by the Houthi or their apologists.

Why should any rational sceptic give more credence to post-facto Houthi justifications than they should about post-facto US justifications about repeatedly bombing weddings?

# ? Feb 1, 2024 09:18

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Middle East Thread: Clarissa Explains the Fall

«‹›636 »