• Linkerbaan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    We’re talking about their actions at this very moment. Not them as an organization. I am saying that this action is justified, nobody here is supporting the Houthis as an organization.

    If Kim Jong Un decided to block to Red Sea to support Palestinine instead of the Houthis it would be just as morally correct.

    If America did it I would support it too.

    It’s about getting water, food and medicine to little children who are getting their legs amputated without anesthetics as if it’s a SAW movie.

    • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      Their action may have a consequence you’re a fan of, but it doesn’t mean that’s their primary goal nor objective nor even purposeful. History is full of people who claim lofty ideals they happen to align quite well with profitability, and when you examine them, you find they’re remarkably inefficient about achieving their supposed “goal”.

      Ask yourself, if you had all the resources they had at your disposal, would you be doing the same things if your goal was to help Palestinians?

    • FarceOfWill@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      The action of attacking random ships in international waters?

      This is piracy, and it puts huge numbers of civilian lives at direct risk and increases the chance someone else will also do it in future.

      The entire international community has a duty to stop this by almost any means.

      Their reasons for attacking civilian shipping in international waters could not be less important to the situation.

      • itslilith@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 months ago

        A blockade without willingness to fire (even on civilian vessels) is toothless and therefore ineffective. I’m not sure if I’d call what they’re doing a blockade tho, and their justifications linking attacked ships to Israel are… strenuous at times

        • FarceOfWill@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          10 months ago

          It’s not a blockade as they’re no where near Israel. They don’t have the ability to enforce a blockade of Israel, just to attack random ships

          • Linkerbaan@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            10 months ago

            This is false. The first ship they hijacked was claimed to not be israeli related but turned out to be owned by israeli businessman Rami Ungar

            The second ship with bio gas supposedly only went to Italy, but later came out that after the stop in Italy it had a transport to israel planned.

            I’m not going to to claim that every single ship was israeli. I have not looked into other vessel attacks since then. But at least the first big two that reached to news were in fact directly linked to israel despite initial claims that they weren’t.

              • Linkerbaan@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                10 months ago

                Actually came across it, here’s the supposed real reason:

                Ambrey assessed that the vessel was mistakenly targeted based on outdated publicly available information linking the vessel to the United Kingdom.

                “This appeared to be five months old but was still listed as UK-affiliated on a public maritime database,” the report said.