I would’ve been suprised if they said anything else.
“UK and US airstrikes will stop Red Sea attacks” - No Houthis ever
“You’ll win if you continue on this course”
- All great military leaders to their enemies
I can imagine airstrikes alone won’t.
I mean, if they are sourcing the missiles from outside the country, and they have a limitless number of people who can launch them, and they blend in with the populace, it’s hard to just bomb them.
I guess we’re heading towards an umpteenth Middle-Eastern occupation, maybe after the coming elections all over the West.
I know it’s not a novel idea, but maybe we should get rid of all imperialistic idiots, starting with Netanyahu, Putin and Xi.
Have these guys made any demands? I’d love to know what they think they’re going to accomplish. Or are they just being pirates for the fun of it?
-
Stop bombing civilians
-
Stop blocking humanitarian aid and food from entering Gazs
Their demands so insanely reasonable that the Houthis are collecting massive street cred.
The Houthis standing up for Humanitarian rights while America is committing genocide. We’re in for yet another year of /nottheonion.
Their demands so insanely reasonable that the Houthis are collecting massive street cred.
The Houthis standing up for Humanitarian rights
I suggest you do a basic reading of their Wikipedia article. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houthi_movement
It’s difficult to pin down their beliefs because of how often they change.
-
They ally with the US, then they make a slogan calling for death to the US.
-
They say Jewish people will live prosperously with them and their only issue is with Israel. Their slogan explicitly calls out Jews distinctly from Israel, and Al-Houthi said “Arab countries and all Islamic countries will not be safe from Jews except through their eradication and the elimination of their entity.”
-
They say Baha’i people are welcome. There are reports of discrimination against them.
-
They say women have equality and freedom and can hold office. Al Jazeera reports that women are harassed and restricted in speech.
There’s two possible conclusions we can draw. The more charitable is that it’s a very loose coalition with no centralizing authority. The less charitable is that they believe themselves to be ubermensch (as you’d put it) and adopt whatever position aids them at the time.
Either way? You really need to stop taking these things at face value. Awful people make good points. That doesn’t change that they’re awful. Among the Soviets and Nazis and Americans you’ll find that they correctly identified moral failings in each other’s societies, but not their own.
To put this another way – if someone goes on a mass shooting in a US school, and they say Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians, don’t make your first reaction to defend the mass shooter.
Edit: If I wanted to be downvoted and have what I think are good points go unaddressed, I’d go to Reddit. I at least expected Lemmy to tell me why my “good points” were actually mentally deficient.
I’m disappointed. If Lemmy no longer offers discussion with disagreement, I’m not sure that it’s all that meaningfully different from Reddit.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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?
The Houthis answered your question themselves in this 2 minute interview https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4HguzMRW1M
-
-
People that do not learn when touching fire, burn themselves again, often more severely.
