|
Kchama posted:Eh? How is it conspiracy theory to think that insurance companies raise premiums whenever they have a reason to? They're literally doing it here. It'd be a conspiracy theory if I said that they were, for example, DOING something themselves to justify the rate increase, such as paying the Houthis off to attack someone specifically. Suggesting that they do what their literal business model is is not a conspiracy theory in any way. Kchama, are you arguing that insurance companies are not disproportionately raising premiums on ships the houthis are claiming to target, or are you arguing they are but they are misinformed to be doing so?
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2024 19:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 08:38 |
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:Kchama, are you arguing that insurance companies are not disproportionately raising premiums on ships the houthis are claiming to target, or are you arguing they are but they are misinformed to be doing so? No? I'm saying that they're doing it because it benefits them to, since the Houthis says they're going to attack them. It doesn't mean that the Houthis will only attack those ships, but it just means that the Houthis gave them a very good reason to. They can't predict what non-US/UK/Israel affiliated ships will be attacked and even said as much, but it is a lot easier to predict that they'll go after SOME US/UK ship. My argument is that insurance rates are not predictive of who will be attacked in the future, or even a great indicator of who has been attacked. quote: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. Also this one was my failure, because it was a Liberian-FLAGGED ship, owned by a Dubai company. Kchama fucked around with this message at 19:47 on Feb 10, 2024 |
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2024 19:38
|
|
|
I mean you're free to believe whatever you like, but the reality is they were regularly hitting ships neither owned by or headed to Israel. I'm not sure how some you keep ignoring that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2024 19:46
|
|
|
It's conspiracy theory because I'm pointing out that within the last 3 days some insurers say they want to either raise costs or deny coverage specifically for US/UK/Israeli vessels, and your response is to tell me that maybe the actuaries are wrong, maybe they were just going off the Houthis' statements, maybe the insurance companies just want to raise rates because insurance companies love to raise rates. You're implying that the insurers are some combination of incompetent, gullible or lying about their motives when they raise rates or deny coverage. How would anyone provide evidence to the contrary? Regarding the Reuters article, I'm not saying all insurers are doing this. I'm saying some of the major players in that space are. I don't think the article is vague at all, it provides an example of how US/UK/Israeli ships may be affected: quote:Two insurance industry sources said ships with U.S., UK or Israeli links would be quoted a higher rate, even above 50% I don't think it makes any sense for Reuters to cover a story about shipping insurance this way, if what's actually going on (which I understood you to be implying) is that insurance premiums are just going up for any ship not receiving a military escort.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2024 19:46
|
|
|
Esran posted:It's conspiracy theory because I'm pointing out that within the last 3 days some insurers say they want to either raise costs or deny coverage specifically for US/UK/Israeli vessels, and your response is to tell me that maybe the actuaries are wrong, maybe they were just going off the Houthis' statements, maybe the insurance companies just want to raise rates because insurance companies love to raise rates. That's not a conspiracy theory, and also not what I said. A conspiracy theory involves a conspiracy, which is not any of those things. I mean, gently caress, I even gave an example of what a conspiracy theory about the situation would be! "Insurance company has an excuse, good or not, to raise premiums and thus does so" wouldn't even make someone bat their eyelashes in any conversation. My previous posts even stated outright I thought they were raising premiums because the Houthis claiming they're going to focus on the US/UK gives them good reason to focus the premium raises on the US/UK. Also the premiums did go up for everyone a month ago. The US/UK focused ones are new. And uh, I said it was vague about what the 'exclusionary clauses' were. I specifically stated that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2024 19:52
|
|
|
Rust Martialis posted:I mean you're free to believe whatever you like, but the reality is they were regularly hitting ships neither owned by or headed to Israel. No one is saying there was no collateral damage, it is inevitable, some say that Israel has inflicted some unintentional collateral damage in Gaza even if the IDF internally probably doesn't think so. The real test is comparing the population of all ships using the straight and the ratio of announced targets vs all ships using the straight against the same ratio for ships that were actually targeted. I haven't counted the ratio of hit ships, I understand more than 50% had a link to Israel in some form (ignoring the Houthi claimed they ignored calls ships)? I don't think 50% of all shipping using the straight has such links to Israel. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2024 19:57
|
|
|
Electric Wrigglies posted:No one is saying there was no collateral damage, it is inevitable, some say that Israel has inflicted some unintentional collateral damage in Gaza even if the IDF internally probably doesn't think so. What is a link to Israel in this case? As I only know of a few ships at best that have any direct link to Israel (owned/managed/operated). It gets a lot higher if you count ships with US/UK links as Israel-linked, but a ton of shipping through the straight is US/UK linked in some form.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2024 20:01
|
|
|
Electric Wrigglies posted:No one is saying there was no collateral damage, it is inevitable, some say that Israel has inflicted some unintentional collateral damage in Gaza even if the IDF internally probably doesn't think so. Whataboutism, yay. quote:
You could just go look, you know? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Red_Sea_crisis So prior to the January bombing campaign, there's a list of some 19 ships attacked. Using the apparent criteria at the time of "Israeli owned or headed to Israel", and based on the information in the table, I counted 5 "Israeli-linked" ships. One or two more may have been incorrectly thought to be Israeli-owned, but they weren't. Sorry, no credit for bombing weddings you claimed were Taliban meetings, Amerikkka. So the Houthi attacked 19 ships but only 25% were 'valid' targets. They either couldn't correctly identify Israeli ships or simply didn't care about the rest. A targetting policy that hits the wrong target 75% of the time is, in effect, indistinguishable from indiscriminate. Even 50% would still indicate the Houthi regularly attacked ships with no links to Israel. Keep bombing those weddings, eventually you'll hit Taliban, Uncle Sam. I don't excuse the US when it bombs a wedding, then says they thought it was a Taliban meeting. Why should anyone believe what the Houthi claimed when they just kept regularly attacking 'neutral' ships. Anyhow, this is basically a repost from not that long ago in this exact thread so like I said, I see little point arguing with people still simply repeating the Houthi claim any further.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2024 20:36
|
|
|
Kchama posted:That's not a conspiracy theory, and also not what I said. A conspiracy theory involves a conspiracy, which is not any of those things. I mean, gently caress, I even gave an example of what a conspiracy theory about the situation would be! "Insurance company has an excuse, good or not, to raise premiums and thus does so" wouldn't even make someone bat their eyelashes in any conversation. Okay, let me try to be precise about what I'm claiming, and why what you said reads as conspiracy theory to me: I am claiming that actuaries at some major insurance companies disagree with the thread's assessment that the Houthis are attacking random targets of opportunity. I am claiming this because I think what the people who are paid to assess risk believe is likely to be more accurate than the opinions of random posters in this thread. I try to show that the actuaries likely believe this, by pointing out that some of the insurance companies are making public noises about raising rates or denying coverage for US/UK/Israeli vessels. Raising rates or denying coverage are both acts that the companies believe will lose them money, unless US/UK/Israeli vessels are actually being attacked more than other vessels. Denying coverage loses the company business entirely. Raising rates means the loss of some customers and a reduction in overall profit. You might argue that this won't happen, but the company certainly believes it will, otherwise they would have already raised rates. Not raising rates when you believe raising rates leads to more profit is just leaving money on the table for no reason, and companies don't do this knowingly. So, the company is doing something that they believe will lose them money in pure income terms. This must be because the actuaries think US/UK/Israeli vessels are more likely to be attacked than others, and so a higher rate is needed to cover that risk for the company. The insurance companies have no other incentive to raise the rates on these specific vessels otherwise. I think this chain of reasoning is solid. You seemed to disagree, and your reasons were: quote: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. My takeaway from this is that you think the actuaries either are currently or were previously just trusting the Houthis, but that now we should know better. I think that take is bad, because the article I posted is only 3 days old, I don't think it's likely the actuaries blindly trusted the Houthis then, and I don't think they're likely to have changed their views much in the last 3 days. quote: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. What I understand you to be saying here is that the insurers are using an excuse to raise interest rates, and again claiming that they were just trusting the Houthis. The conspiracy theory part is this explanation requires multiple sources in the insurance industry to lie to Reuters about their motives for raising rates. Recall that one of them says outright that he feels "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", in the context of raising rates on these ships. The other justification you gave boils down to the actuaries being very bad at their jobs. Which is totally fine for you to believe, I just don't see a reason to think posters in this thread know better than the people who are paid to predict which ships are likely to be attacked. Kchama posted:My previous posts even stated outright I thought they were raising premiums because the Houthis claiming they're going to focus on the US/UK gives them good reason to focus the premium raises on the US/UK. The Houthis claiming they're going to attack certain ships is not a good reason to increase premiums on those ships specifically, unless you believe them. If premiums are being raised more on US/UK/Israeli ships than on other ships, that means someone thinks those ships are more likely to be targeted. That premiums went up for everyone would happen even if the Houthis were targeting exactly the people they claimed. If you're sailing through an area where someone is trying to shoot at specific ships, that's riskier than sailing through peaceful waters, even if you're not being deliberately targeted. I understood what you meant about exclusionary clauses, but they're not going to put a section of legalese into a Reuters article. I think what they meant is clarified by the rest of the article: Raising rates in some cases, denying coverage in others. The exact criteria may be unclear, but the guy Reuters is talking to clearly explains that the goal is to exclude ships they believe the Houthis are more likely to target, which the insurance people think are ships that are in some way affiliated with the US, UK or Israel. The exact criteria for what "affiliated" means is irrelevant, the point is that it's not "all ships without military guard".
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2024 20:44
|
|
|
Esran posted:The Houthis claiming they're going to attack certain ships is not a good reason to increase premiums on those ships specifically Not when they keep mostly hitting other ships, anyway.  (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2024 20:59
|
|
|
I still don’t know why you are harping on about actuaries when you can just like… look at the ships that were attacked and damaged and find out which ones were US/UK/Israel linked and which ones weren’t. I feel like that sort of information would trump what some actuaries believe.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2024 22:13
|
|
|
Kchama posted:I still don’t know why you are harping on about actuaries when you can just like… look at the ships that were attacked and damaged and find out which ones were US/UK/Israel linked and which ones weren’t. I mean, a lot of information on specific vessels tends to be paywalled, if not obfuscated entirely. Even with entirely free knowledge, those contradicting the general consensus ITT have found that a good number of the 'unaligned' ships have had Israel/military ties past or present. Actuaries not only are likely to have the premium information, they're also likely to know more about ownership than what we can only glean through leaks such as the Panama papers. Additionally, as was demonstrated in my post, some ships aren't even hit nor targeted, but were next to those that were, and have been listed anyways (to reinforce the talking point.)
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2024 22:17
|
|
|
Kchama posted:I still don’t know why you are harping on about actuaries when you can just like… look at the ships that were attacked and damaged and find out which ones were US/UK/Israel linked and which ones weren’t. I feel like that sort of information would trump what some actuaries believe. I'd be interested to see if they started reliably hitting 'in scope' ships once the bombing campaign started. It just seemed simpler to concentrate in the ships prior to the Houthi widening the target list once the US, UK et al. started bombing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2024 22:18
|
|
|
Kchama posted:I still don’t know why you are harping on about actuaries when you can just like… look at the ships that were attacked and damaged and find out which ones were US/UK/Israel linked and which ones weren’t. I feel like that sort of information would trump what some actuaries believe. It's because I think those actuaries most likely have access to better and more accurate information than whatever posters in this thread can find on Wikipedia. I wanted to establish that at some of the major players in the insurance space think the Houthis are not targeting ships randomly. I think I've done so, and I thought you disagreed. But it seems that what you disagree with is the idea that the insurance companies are likely to know better.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2024 22:25
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:Additionally, as was demonstrated in my post, some ships aren't even hit nor targeted, but were next to those that were, and have been listed anyways (to reinforce the talking point.) Going back to your post, the exact number of "ships that aren't targeted, but were next to those that were" would be... one? The Blaamanen. Did you link the press release you mentioned that you said made the claim? Can't seem to find it, and the other press releases I find on Google make no mention of the claim.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2024 22:34
|
|
|
Kchama posted:I still don’t know why you are harping on about actuaries when you can just like… look at the ships that were attacked and damaged and find out which ones were US/UK/Israel linked and which ones weren’t. I feel like that sort of information would trump what some actuaries believe. this was why i asked you to clarify your argument. So to be clear, you believe that the actuaries are misinformed to raise the premiums of the ships that the houthis are claiming to target, correct? like im very open to the idea that we shouldnt blindly trust experts in political matters like these, but actuaries for insurance strike me as the sort of profession that have access to waaayyy more data and risk models than we could ever hope to have unless, you know, we got a degree in the subject.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2024 22:34
|
|
|
Rust Martialis posted:Going back to your post, the exact number of "ships that aren't targeted, but were next to those that were" would be... one? The Blaamanen. From what was gathered so far, yes. Again, as per my point, these are amateur debunkings from random posters, we don't have complete knowledge of who has what ties nor what happened nor why they were targeted, and most of the parties involved have reason to downplay any connection. That's why it's notable that actuaries, who would have a more complete picture, are supporting that the houthis are making specific targets. quote:Did you link the press release you mentioned that you said made the claim? Can't seem to find it, and the other press releases I find on Google make no mention of the claim. https://www.hansa-tankers.com/news/press-release-24-december-2023-incident-in-the-red-sea/ quote:An Indian owned Gabon-registered Suezmax tanker on way from the Russian Baltic Sea to India was sailing in front of our vessel and was hit by a drone. Owing to the close vicinity our master alerted the US Navy which came to the scene, offering protection. CENTCOM: https://twitter.com/CENTCOM/status/1738719550122975698?s=20 quote:At approximately 8 p.m. (Sanaa time), U.S. Naval Forces Central Command received reports from two ships in the Southern Red Sea that they were under attack. The M/V BLAAMANEN, a Norwegian-flagged, owned, and operated chemical/oil tanker, reported a near miss of a Houthi one-way attack drone with no injuries or damage reported. A second vessel, the M/V SAIBABA, a Gabon-owned, Indian-flagged crude oil tanker, reported that it was hit by a one-way attack drone with no injuries reported. The USS LABOON (DDG 58) responded to the distress calls from these attacks. These attacks represent Hansa's press release doesn't mention a strike on their ship, whereas USA CENTCOM makes the claim.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2024 22:51
|
|
|
Rust Martialis posted:Whataboutism, yay. Way to avoid the guts of the post by claiming whataboutism. Anyway, another way of looking at it is that for one target hit for three collateral damage is a fantastic performance in modern industrialized warfare. That is outperforming the US, Israel, Russia, Ukraine, RSA in Sudan or nearly any example I can think ok. Ok if you go back to WWI and American Civil war I think soldier deaths outnumbered civilians? There may be another outlier or two. That alone tells you they are going above and beyond the normal expectations of belligerents and not the sort of performance you luck into.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2024 23:00
|
|
|
In entirely different news, the Pakistani election was just held and the results were... let's go with surprising. The (military-backed) government has been screwing with the main opposition for a while now, including prosecutions of its leader Imran Khan for reasons that seem to be relatively bullshit. Something about state secrets I'm not up on the details on, a trumped up charge related to jewelry gifts although admittedly the guy is probably corrupt, and an extremely lol-worthy bigamy-related charge. Despite this, and various election fuckery, it looks like the opposition won convincingly. This is probably going to be a huge mess. Goatse James Bond fucked around with this message at 23:09 on Feb 10, 2024 |
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2024 23:07
|
|
|
Electric Wrigglies posted:Anyway, another way of looking at it is that for one target hit for three collateral damage is a fantastic performance in modern industrialized warfare. Hitting a neutral ship 75% of the time counts as "fantastic performance"? Do you do guided missile target selection for the Russians in Ukraine or something? 'Hospital, primary school, orphanage, airfield - glorious success, General!'
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2024 23:18
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:From what was gathered so far, yes. Again, as per my point, these are amateur debunkings from random posters, we don't have complete knowledge of who has what ties nor what happened nor why they were targeted, and most of the parties involved have reason to downplay any connection. That's why it's notable that actuaries, who would have a more complete picture, are supporting that the houthis are making specific targets. Thanks, I suspect you're right on this one. I read several reports I found on Google but only Hansa makes this point - no reason to distrust them either. I suspect everyone just quoted CENTCOM. I should edit Wikipedia to add a link to the Hansa release if it's not there. And sincerely thanks for actually digging for evidence, and not just trying to pass off your opinions as facts.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2024 23:27
|
|
|
Google Jeb Bush posted:In entirely different news, the Pakistani election was just held and the results were... let's go with surprising. Shocking Opposition Victory Throws Pakistan Into Chaos quote:The party of the imprisoned former prime minister of Pakistan, Imran Khan, won the most seats in parliamentary elections this week, delivering a strong rebuke to the country’s powerful generals and throwing the political system into chaos.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2024 23:29
|
|
|
Pretty shocking results from Pakistan, they really didn't do a very good job rigging the election the way they seemed (from a very casual observation) to be trying to. I wonder who will end up forming a coalition when it all shakes out. Not loving the seemingly steady increase of instability in one of the world's nuclear powers at such a chaotic time to be honest. But I feel like I'm throwing stones through glass living in the US so.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2024 23:35
|
|
|
Hind Rajab, 6, found dead in Gaza days after phone calls for help https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-68261286 
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2024 23:55
|
|
|
Rust Martialis posted:Hitting a neutral ship 75% of the time counts as "fantastic performance"? Like I said, it is outperforming the US (who use much nicer PGMs than everyone else and just awesome C3I capabilities to target them) IDF (leveraging US assets and capabilities), as well as significantly more resourced (than the Houthies) Russia and Ukraine as well as the smaller nations.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2024 23:55
|
|
|
Kagrenak posted:Pretty shocking results from Pakistan, they really didn't do a very good job rigging the election the way they seemed (from a very casual observation) to be trying to. I wonder who will end up forming a coalition when it all shakes out. I'm in the process of reading more but one of the interesting side bits of rigging jumped out at me: there was a gigantic kerfuffle about the government pulling the opposition's famous symbol (a cricket bat, lol) from the ballot because [various bullshit reasons]. Individual regions then replaced it with various other symbols as they felt like it for the candidates still allowed to run as independents, many of which were complained about as having negative and/or confusing connotations. This is relevant because there are a lot of poorer voters whose literacy is a bit wobbly, so interfering with the symbols is a good way to try and disenfranchise them. and then the incumbent government still lost the election
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2024 23:57
|
|
|
Rust Martialis posted:
this in particular is a completely outrageous comparison and you really ought to know better
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2024 23:58
|
|
|
Electric Wrigglies posted:Like I said, it is outperforming the US (who use much nicer PGMs than everyone else and just awesome C3I capabilities to target them) IDF (leveraging US assets and capabilities), as well as significantly more resourced (than the Houthies) Russia and Ukraine as well as the smaller nations. Really? How many neutral ships have the USA hit in open water recently?
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2024 00:02
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:this in particular is a completely outrageous comparison and you really ought to know better No, you just don't like it. The *best* construction that can be placed on the Houthi attacks on neutral ships is that they're accidents, errors, or based on bad information. Much like the USA bombing Afghani weddings were accidents, errors, or based on bad information. The primary difference is the Houthi were *primarily* 'bombing weddings', at least back in December. Most of their attacks were on neutrals. But keep pounding the table. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2024 00:17
|
|
|
Rust Martialis posted:No, you just don't like it. Not liking something because it's inaccurate and insulting because one side kills whole families and the other damages shipping. One kills people, the other inconveniences ships. This is why it's a bad comparison. It's like comparing theft to corporate murder.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2024 00:21
|
|
|
Rust Martialis posted:No, you just don't like it. one is a mass casualty event and one is plonking a missile at a ship which could in principle but has not in fact actually killed anybody at all there's a substantial difference between killing lots of random people and not doing so to anyone not deeply invested into simply having strong opinions about maritime law in complete isolation from any geopolitical ramifications
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2024 01:04
|
|
|
Due to complaints, I'd like to ask everyone to take extra pains to ensure any arguments you make regarding the Houthis and their motivations are not ones that have occurred already in the thread. It appears to be an intractable issue and discussion is increasingly failing to produce new insights. If someone makes the same argument that occurred earlier in the thread, you can report them (including a link to the previous post). If you feel it necessary to rebut someone but it's already been done, please link the earlier post where it occurred, rather than starting a new argument. To be clear, if you have a new argument to make that takes some idea of the Houthis' motivations or strategy as a premise, you can do so, while stating that's what you're doing, and those that disagree with the premise can simply state that as well. Koos Group fucked around with this message at 04:14 on Feb 11, 2024 |
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2024 04:07
|
|
|
Ansarallah has claimed to have struck the container ship Rubymar to the point it's in danger of sinking https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/feb/19/houthis-claim-cargo-ship-risk-sinking-red-sea-attack They also have claimed to have rescued the crew on the ship after the extent of the damage became clear. Seeing stuff on Twitter that it has actually sunk but, y'know, Twitter This is one hell of a frickin escalation E: vvvvv Ah, that's my error, thank you for the correction A big flaming stink fucked around with this message at 20:11 on Feb 19, 2024 |
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2024 19:57
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:They also have claimed to have rescued the crew on the ship after the extent of the damage became clear. As a small note, the Houthis didn't claim they rescued the crew, they just said quote:During the operation, we made sure that the ship’s crew exited safely The crew was rescued by MV Lobivia, after they had sent out a distress signal: https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/red-sea-ship-missile-drone-houthi-rubymar-yemen-iran-gaza-b1139969.html
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2024 20:07
|
|
|
This is not an escalation, it's just them succeeding at what they've been attempting to do for years- demand the ship dock at a port they control so they can strip it, and attempt to destroy the ship if they refuse.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2024 21:46
|
|
|
DV, a successful attempt at sinking a ship is absolutely an escalation over threats/rhetoric
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2024 22:04
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:This is not an escalation, it's just them succeeding at what they've been attempting to do for years- demand the ship dock at a port they control so they can strip it, and attempt to destroy the ship if they refuse. Source your claim that they were demanding the ship dock at a port they control, and that the crew refused. How is shooting a missile at a ship, likely causing it to sink, "them succeeding" at the piracy for profit you think they're attempting? Sunk cargo is not actually profitable.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2024 23:24
|
|
|
Why are you confident you understand “true” motives of the Houthi actually piracy rather than what they are saying, and do you think it’s fair to characterize the motives of the United States and UK as “help their allies complete a genocide of a very inconvenient population without interference” rather than the claim of freedom of navigation?
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2024 23:37
|
|
|
Esran posted:Source your claim that they were demanding the ship dock at a port they control, and that the crew refused. For that exact ship? Who knows. They had been demanding to some / many ships passing through that they dock at Hodeidah so their crew can be imprisoned and their goods confiscated, for several months. https://www.voanews.com/amp/missile-fired-from-rebel-controlled-yemen-misses-container-ship-/7399124.html for example from back in December. Surprisingly, no one has taken them up on their generous offer.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2024 23:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 08:38 |
|
|
Esran posted:Source your claim that they were demanding the ship dock at a port they control, and that the crew refused. It's not an escalation because they aren't doing anything different. They've been ordering ships to put in for years. They've also been ordering ships to halt their engines purely so the ships are easier to shoot at with missiles.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2024 23:38
|
|
