Neurolimal posted:

I feel like, considering the thread has historically backed both Libyan warlords and ISIS in Syria, that this sense of moral superiority and smugness is wholly unearned.

There's nothing wrong with wanting better sources than some guy on twitter cheering on genocide. Especially in this thread.

Neurolimal posted:

I feel like, considering the thread has historically backed both Libyan warlords and ISIS in Syria, that this sense of moral superiority and smugness is wholly unearned.

There's nothing wrong with wanting better sources than some guy on twitter cheering on genocide. Especially in this thread.

Charliegrs posted:

Please source anyone openly supporting ISIS in this thread. Unless you're another person that thinks literally all armed resistance to the Assad regime starting in 2011 (before ISIS even existed) = ISIS.

Charliegrs posted:

Please source anyone openly supporting ISIS in this thread.

Despera posted:

He called my source a "zionist freak" ok fine. The problem arises when he asks me to find another source that better suits his preference as if it wasn't the year of our lord twenty twenty four and as if search engines didn't exist.

Also something tells me the Houthi don't hand out death sentences like candy and those who get them do have their lifespans dramatically reduced.

Neurolimal posted:

The cool part of this is that you can keep accidentally backing destabilizing US-backed forces so long as there's a french tabloid or CNN anchor to take you for a ride. Who could have guessed that violent salafists would queue up in the Free Guns & Training line?

If we don't flood Syria with weapons, Isis doesn't form & beat our Iraqi compradors and take their stockpiles, they don't become a major force. Al-Qaeda also doesn't see a major resurgence. Anyone with an iota of knowledge on historical US blowback could have told you what would happen.

So returning to the point, I think a bit more scrutiny should be used than has historically been applied. We just got done fighting for days over whether or not Houthi were targeting Israel-connected ships, perhaps we can spread that sort of skepticism around.

TheDoublePivot posted:

To be clear I called your “source” a “deranged Zionist freak” although that is somewhat redundant.

I clicked through to the profile expecting to see some substantiation of the claims in the tweet and the first thing I see is a lengthy tweet blaming Muslims for Islamophobia and then a load of shrieking about the UNRWA. Why did this source suit your preference and why should I take his word unchallenged?

Despera posted:

He called my source a "zionist freak" ok fine. The problem arises when he asks me to find another source that better suits his preference as if it wasn't the year of our lord twenty twenty four and as if search engines didn't exist.

Also something tells me the Houthi don't hand out death sentences like candy and those who get them do have their lifespans dramatically reduced.

Neurolimal posted:

The cool part of this is that you can keep accidentally backing destabilizing US-backed forces so long as there's a french tabloid or CNN anchor to take you for a ride. Who could have guessed that violent salafists would queue up in the Free Guns & Training line?

If we don't flood Syria with weapons, Isis doesn't form & beat our Iraqi compradors and take their stockpiles, they don't become a major force. Al-Qaeda also doesn't see a major resurgence. Anyone with an iota of knowledge on historical US blowback could have told you what would happen.

So returning to the point, I think a bit more scrutiny should be used than has historically been applied. We just got done fighting for days over whether or not Houthi were targeting Israel-connected ships, perhaps we can spread that sort of skepticism around.

Charliegrs posted:

Yeah so anyway you got any actual evidence that people were openly supporting ISIS or Al Nusra front in this thread (since someone brought them up as some sort of pathetic gotcha)?

Neurolimal posted:

Where did you think the weapons, training, and supplies were going in Syria? "Openly" is a copout.

There wasn't a specific Libyan warlord past iterations of the thread cheered for, either. But if you supported the intervention frenzy you ultimately supported them. Because that's where the money, weapons, and territory were going.

My point was simple: the thread has a history of supporting bad poo poo while acting like they've got all the facts. Maybe that merits a change where you're more scrupulous towards sources that support beliefs you already hold.

Wasn't long ago that folks thought the Houthi were indiscriminately targeting ships, after all.

Neurolimal posted:

Where did you think the weapons, training, and supplies were going in Syria? "Openly" is a copout.

There wasn't a specific Libyan warlord past iterations of the thread cheered for, either. But if you supported the intervention frenzy you ultimately supported them. Because that's where the money, weapons, and territory were going.

My point was simple: the thread has a history of supporting bad poo poo while acting like they've got all the facts. Maybe that merits a change where you're more scrupulous towards sources that support beliefs you already hold.

Wasn't long ago that folks thought the Houthi were indiscriminately targeting ships, after all.

Cheesemaster200 posted:

You really don't need to make concessions, though. From a western policy standpoint, give military air support only to the point where it keeps ISIS from marching on Baghdad and Shia majority areas of the country. Let them have their own little fiefdom up north for a few years to the point where it becomes similar to Iraqi Kurdistan for Sunnis.

It would probably reduce violence significantly all over Iraq and turn insurgents into political actors.

WhiskeyWhiskers posted:

V. Illych L. posted:

it can be if people insist on not clarifying their terms and using words to mean different things than they, in fact, mean

WhiskeyWhiskers posted:

Kchama posted:

That's the best you got? A post that doesn't support them at all 10 years ago? Because that's a post from 2014 from a poster that hasn't posted here in 9 years.

Rust Martialis posted:

I stopped posting about how the Houthis were clearly hitting ships with no link to Israel (before the bombing campaign began) because once I posted the evidence there just wasn't a lot left to argue about.

V. Illych L. posted:

what case were you hoping to make with this statement?

Grip it and rip it posted:

Why should anyone want to debate and discuss topics with people who will cease reading into a topic because they don't like the *vibes* put off by an opposing source. If you're so completely incapable of having an informed discussion on a topic then just say so. There are plenty if places on this forum where you can post that way and nobody will blink.

Esran posted:

Substantial parts of the insurance and shipping businesses disagree with you, they think the Houthis attacks are not indiscriminate.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...rce=reddit_wall
https://www.reuters.com/business/maersk-introduces-surcharge-israel-shipments-cover-insurance-2023-12-07/
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-01-16/insurers-seek-to-exclude-us-uk-ships-from-red-sea-cover?leadSource=reddit_wall

There's a reason ships were putting "ALL CHINESE CREW" or "NO ISRAEL" in their AIS, and it's not that they think the Houthis are doing random piracy or don't care who they attack.

"I am bleeding, making me the victor".

https://www.reuters.com/business/us-uk-ship-investors-hit-by-soaring-red-sea-insurance-sources-2024-02-07/ posted:

Ships with a link to the U.S., Britain or Israel are now paying 25-50% more in war risk premium than other ships to navigate the Red Sea, said David Smith, head of hull and marine liabilities at insurance broker McGill and Partners.

Two insurance industry sources said ships with U.S., UK or Israeli links would be quoted a higher rate, even above 50%.

"The ships that have so far had problems, almost all of them have got some element of Israeli or U.S. or UK ownership in there somewhere," said Marcus Baker, global head of marine and cargo with insurance broker Marsh.

Baker said there was "exclusionary language" being introduced for cover involving UK, U.S. and Israeli interests.

Kagrenak posted:

As more time has passed and more ships have been targeted I'm definitely more convinced they were just bad at getting the correct info at first and are largely only targeting linked ships at this point. Their accuracy (of targets, not of direct hits it seems) absolutely looks to be going in the right direction.

I still don't buy that it will have a large enough effect on policy outcomes to be worth the likely impact on food prices in poorer nations imo, even if emotionally it seems like a decent direct action. But the true extent of either is yet to shake out, so we'll see.

Kagrenak posted:

As more time has passed and more ships have been targeted I'm definitely more convinced they were just bad at getting the correct info at first and are largely only targeting linked ships at this point. Their accuracy (of targets, not of direct hits it seems) absolutely looks to be going in the right direction.

I still don't buy that it will have a large enough effect on policy outcomes to be worth the likely impact on food prices in poorer nations imo, even if emotionally it seems like a decent direct action. But the true extent of either is yet to shake out, so we'll see.

Esran posted:

So it is your view that the actuaries working for these insurance companies are simply wrong, and you know better?

quote:

"The Houthi attacks are encompassing all vessels with less and less clear criteria," an insurance source said. "U.S. and UK flags are advised now that they should not go through the Red Sea."

Esran posted:

So it is your view that the actuaries working for these insurance companies are simply wrong, and you know better?

Kchama posted:

I did some actual reading, and it seems like everyone has been hit with the war premium increase, not just the US and UK.

I pointed out which ships were US/UK/Israel or not in the past month (which post-dates the war insurance premium increase, including the Chinese-owned ship being hit!), so your post seems to have very little to do with mine there.

Do you think that like, actuaries can see the future?

Josef bugman posted:

Well 1) Can you link the reading you've done and 2) Can you demonstrate the previous articles about cheaper premiums for Chinese shipping are false.

Josef bugman posted:

So they are going up generally, but not as much for Chinese Shipping. So it could be the military escort, which I will note the US and UK are kind of doing by putting a load of ships and shooting rockets in the red sea, or it could be due to the targeting of specific shipping?

Kchama posted:

I did some actual reading, and it seems like everyone has been hit with the war premium increase, not just the US and UK. There's only singling out of US/UK is "we expect there to be more attacks on US/UK ships because they are going to war with the Houthis."

I pointed out which ships were US/UK/Israel or not in the past month (which post-dates the war insurance premium increase, including the Chinese-owned ship being hit!), so your post seems to have very little to do with mine there.

Do you think that like, actuaries can see the future or have some special insight into how the Houthis target? Though one of the insurance companies even notes that the attacks do not seem very discriminate.

Esran posted:

I would expect actuaries working for an insurance company insuring maritime shipping to have more insight (special or otherwise) into the thing they're evaluating risk for, than random posters on a dead message board, yes.

If insurers believed the Houthis were not at least attempting to target US/UK/Israeli vessels over others, it would make no sense for them to impose special costs for just US/UK/Israeli vessels, or for the insurers to want to forego that business entirely.

quote:

"The Houthi attacks are encompassing all vessels with less and less clear criteria," an insurance source said. "U.S. and UK flags are advised now that they should not go through the Red Sea."

Kchama posted:

I pointed out which ships were US/UK/Israel or not in the past month

Kchama posted:

Their most recent hit was the Marlin Luanda

Kchama posted:

The previous ship hit was a US ship, so good target. The ship before that was also USA, good shoot. The ship before that was Liberian, unrelated to US/Israel/UK. The ship before that was Greek, unrelated to US/UK/Israel. The ship before was UK, good shoot. The ship before was Greek. The ship before was US. The ship before that was... uhh, apparently its ownership is anonymous and it only ships sanctioned Russian oil. These aren't even all of them in the past month.

Giggs posted:

You provided no source for your summary, and a cursory glance both puts it out of date and shows that you've wildly misrepresented reality.
For instance, your first point:

is wrong, two ships have been hit more than a week after the Marlin Luanda.

This jumbled mess of inarticulate nonsense is very hard to verify or even understand. It does not match up with sources I've found listing ships that have been attacked in the Red Sea. The broadest being wikipedia. Of note however, is the distinction of a Liberian ship. Because of this awful post it's impossible to know what ship you're referring to but from what I've been looking at it would appear you're simply stating that the registry flag denotes ... ownership? Management? Crew? It's impossible to know what you mean because you very obviously use indistinct language and provide zero evidence.

So please name which ship you're referring to, your explanation of what makes "the ship" "Liberian" with sources. Further to that I'd appreciate your source(s) for the listing of ships attacked.

Kchama posted:

They clearly didn't have more insight, considering just as many non-affiliated ships were hit than affiliated. But like, just because they thought that's how it'd shake out because the Houthis pledged to only go after affiliated ships doesn't mean that is how it actually went down. There's a reason why I looked into the attacked ships and their affiliation. Because that is a hell of a lot stronger evidence than insurers, who certainly aren't known for their reputation to use any excuse they have to increase insurance premiums, and who basically were just going off the Houthis word. And who also said, and I quote,

Esran posted:

The Reuters article I posted regarding insurers wanting to put special language into contracts and/or denying coverage specifically for US/UK/Israeli vessels is 3 days old.

I don't see a reason to think the insurers have changed their minds in the last 3 days.

Insurers have no incentive to deny coverage for certain shipping if they don't believe that category of shipping is more likely to be attacked than the other ships they're insuring. It literally loses them money.

You're reaching into conspiracy territory at this point.