You're viewing a single thread.
Are you actually asking?
The Houthi's are an Iranian controlled terrorist organization that have been attacking commercial shipping in the Red Sea since November 2023.
The Houthis have sunk two vessels and killed four crew members, forcing a lot of shipping to Europe to be diverted around the South of Africa.
The US and allies have been fighting the Iranian-backed Houthis for over a decade, this is just a recent resurgence following the war in Israel.
Sure bro.
That justified blowing up the apartment building the target's girlfriend lived in.
Because it doesn't just make more Houthis every time.
I never said the attack itself was justified. I only answered the question.
A more targeted strike was possible, and it's reprehensible that one was not chosen.
The target himself was a legal target even by the most strict interpretation of armed conflict international law.
Claiming that the Houtis are Iranian controlled is sheer missinformation.
The Houthi’s are enforcing their ban on ships headed to or from Israel to enter Yemen’s water territory. They did this as a sanction on Israel because Israel is committing genocide on the Palestinian people. When the US and European countries started bombing Yemen for enforcing their law, they also banned US and some European ships from entering their waters. During the ceasefire they lifted the blockade, and since Israel ended the ceasefire they started banning ships again.
This is simply false.
The Houthis are not a state. There are a rebel faction in a civil war in Yemen.
Even if it were the Yemen government banning ships from it's waters it's can't do that by international law. They don't own the whole strait.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bab-el-Mandeb
Lastly, a UN resolution passed that outlaws this behavior.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_2722
This is like calling the US now a rebel faction in the civil war in the British Empire.
We won.
America is its own country.
Ansarallah won. The conquered basically all of the territory except for a few towns held by another faction with whom Ansarrallah made peace with.
All of this while under continuous air attacks from Saudi Arabia w/ US intelligence, refueling and weapons. Meanwhile the US supported a complete blockade, including food, into a country that at that time imported 90% of its food.
Once they are recognized by the UN, they can legally act as the legitimate government of Yemen.
The UN isn't the world police, in case you didn't know
No, they are the world legislative body.
Of course no country can be forced to follow the UN's laws, but they are what we call "international law".
If the UN don't recognize you, you may be the only government in your country, and you may even be the legitimate one, nationally speaking.
But you won't be internationally recognized as legally in charge of things like shipping lanes.So that means that for a country to be legitimate, it has to be accepted by every member of the security council? You're not a legitimate country unless Russia, China, and the US all like you enough? That's BS.
That is how professors of International law usually define a legitime country, yes: by vote in the general assembly (not the security council). Like for example Palestine, which has been recognized for decades by the General Assembly.
Yes, that is BS.
I wasn't talking about the security council at all.You're talking about the UN, where members of the security council have veto power.
I'm talking about the UN.
You're talking about the UN Security Council, which is just one of many UN organs,has the very limited purpose of preventing a war between the original nuclear powers, and yes, where the permanent members have veto powers.
They do not have veto powers in the general assembly, which is a much more important UN organ when it comes to international diplomacy.
If the Houthi's are going to enact a shipping ban then I assume they're willing to accept the consequences of enforcing the ban.
If the US and UK are going to support genocide, then I assume they are willing to accept the consequences
Yep and it's much easier and cheaper just to send in a bunch of drones that end up killing a few hundred innocents than to send in special forces that find the target with precision. And that in turn would be a lot easier than to stop actively funding regional genocide and try to calm the situation down diplomatically.
A targeted strike was absolutely possible. So many innocents did not need to die.
The Houthis are a tribe. The majority (though not all) represented tribe within the government of Ansarrallah, a government that formed during and won the civil war when Saudi Arabia tried to steal Yemen.
Calling them Houthis is racist and makes as much sense as calling Americans 'Kennedys'
They have not been attacking shipping. They have been enforcing a naval blockade of a country committing genocide, something that is a legal requirement under international law. When Israel was "abiding" (or abiding as much as Israel ever abides) during the peace treaty, Ansarrallah dropped their blockade. If this is about shipping, the easiest way to stop this would be to stop applying arms to a state engaged in ethnic cleansing.
America has never been at war with Yemen. We got sucked into supplying Intel and support and weapons to Saudi Arabia under Obama because of all three weapons purchases from Saudi Arabia.
Finally, Iran has done very little in support of Ansarallah, in comparison to other countries that are majority Shia.
Calling Ansarrallah Iranian controlled is about as accurate as calling Israel American-Controlled. It's just another racist way to try to justify the murder of civilians. You know, the unjustifiable except to fascists like the person I'm responding to.
How do we feel about the Houthis killing civilians on trade vessels not bound for Israel?
I wouldn't know, since a single tribe (a good amount whom aren't members of the government) hasn't done that.
Oh cool. OK, how do we feel about the armed combatants from Yemen repeatedly attacking civilian trade ships not connected to Israel?
It's to make us forget about the "group chat" (see how familiar and nice it sounds too, group chat). Damage control.
Someone else can probably explain better than me why the "group chat" is not just a group chat but a massive abuse and illegal thing to do.
The Federal Records Act was violated several times due to the disappearing messages feature of Signal they were utilizing for their plans. Jeff Goldberg took screenshots of the messages before they were automatically deleted when all Federal Records are legally required to be preserved for archiving and may not be destroyed except under specific parameters that they obviously did not follow.
https://www.ed.gov/about/ed-overview/required-notices/federal-records-act
Also, by using Signal, which is a secure end to end encrypted messenger, the vulnerability that is built into the desktop sync feature where messages aren't locally encrypted can result in enemy and adversarial nation states collecting these messages due to them being stored on an infected device which can compromise the mission and risk lives.
They could also have their accounts and subsequently their messages hacked with their information widely publicly available to hackers.
Firendly reminder that this was the real issue with buttery males/but her emails: that Hillary Clinton was using a private email server to circumvent these laws.
And every other US government employee that knowingly emailed to or from that server is also complicit.
Yet another legitimate problem tossed out with the bathwater because it got associated with the maga crowd. Very handy, that.
Point of order. These laws were written because of Mrs. Clinton's server. She wasn't circumventing shit, because the law hadn't caught up to technology, technically it still hasn't, but that's a whole other kettle of fish.
The reason it got "forgotten" is that after they wasted years and tons of money trying to find something to charge her with, they came up empty handed, since it really was just a mistake.
This is bullshit. I'm old enough to remember when the Bush administration setting up their own email servers to avoid these very same exact laws was a big issue for the Democratic Party.
They updated the laws since then. The Clinton administration was the one that passed the laws that W Bush was flirting with breaking. As far as I remember, they also didn't actually break the established law, they just got close enough that the Dems started screaming about their precious rules and norms.
HWBush didn't actually have much in the way of laws binding him, but his administration didn't bother with the Internet. Whitehouse.com was a porn site until '97-'98