18 ms·

I'm really confused as to why no where in the article do they mention the intent of attacking the ships. As if the houthis in yemen are attacking ships because

by keefle 3y ago

I'm really confused as to why no where in the article do they mention the intent of attacking the ships. As if the houthis in yemen are attacking ships because they like it or just because they "hate developed societies". Their declared reason is to put pressure on Israel to allow humanitarian aid to Gaza at once. They target ships that have Israeli links or heading to Israeli ports. It can be seen as a form of treating Israel the way it's treating Gaza (as in Gaza is blockaded, so the houthis are trying to create a sea blockade from their region of control)

mrtksn 3y ago
The same reason why when civilians in Gaza die it’s because a rocket explodes in a refugee camp or something. Damn rockets why do they do that? Unfortunately, propaganda is part of the war and I can’t really blame them for trying. You can be sure that the other side of the conflict is also not impartial. If the reasons about killing each other were openly discussed in a logical way without the emotional overload, People wouldn’t bother to kill each other. That’s something undesirable in the context of war. I also think this is not necessarily bad, because when you start thinking in cold blooded strategic way you may find out that exterminating certain people is beneficial for you. Therefore, you should do it. That level of thinking can be beneficial when you’re in the higher ranks, but a society shouldn’t be willing to destroy another society for material or political gains. You can see that among Russians, and how they think about conquering Ukraine and Europe. Scary stuff, it might lead to a war where one of the nations gets decimated.
- johnnyworker 3y ago
  > I can’t really blame them for trying. You can be sure that the other side of the conflict is also not impartial. Oh, I can for the both of us, and I do. Everyone is responsible for what they do, or tacitly consent to. War is not something that just "is" like rain or snow, it's specific actions of people specific people. And when you say "other side of the conflict" does that include the 1+ million of children, or are they just not relevant at all here? Because as Bill Hicks said, a war is when two armies fight. This is genocide, reducing Gaza to rubble, taking smug selfies in homes and mosques all along the way. Yes, Hamas is no better. That is, if they had the means, they wouldn't be. But Hamas is Hamas; not Gaza, not the West Bank. And Hamas isn't using police force in Western Democracies to prohibit demonstrations, it doesn't have vast media support to both silence discussion of what is going on and smear those who still have a conscience. https://www.ipcinfo.org/ipcinfo-website/alerts-archive/issue-94/en/ https://www.ipcinfo.org/ipcinfo-website/alerts-archive/issue... > Between 8 December 2023 and 7 February 2024, the entire population in the Gaza Strip (about 2.2 million people) is classified in IPC Phase 3 or above (Crisis or worse). This is the highest share of people facing high levels of acute food insecurity that the IPC initiative has ever classified for any given area or country. We don't even hear about this. The little facts that are brought up are all all couched between bringing up Hamas 50 times. No, we're expected to be content, admiring and grateful even, when Israel stops bombing little kids in a barrel -- and that the genocide will, predictably, continue without bombs via the inflicted wounds will barely get a mention, just like nobody really cared the last few decades. But there was a "flash" and no injuries on board of some ship, oh noes. Someone put it very well on this site 4 years ago: > And it is not a state of things, it is a process. It is going on now, it inches a bit further every day and every year. > You say you don't have an opinion, but in fact you repeat exactly the things that those who don't want this process to stop would like to hear from you: that the question has two sides, that it's impossible to say who's right or wrong, that there are many opinions. It's a form of denialism (let's hear the other side, some say this but some say that, etc.). -- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22649104 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22649104 But even more importantly IMO, even assuming "both sides are exactly equal" -- and they're not -- then my primary concern would still be what I am responsible for, and what the corporations and governments I am directly or indirectly supporting are doing. Hamas is on the polar opposite of that, they don't brag about sharing my values or any of the sort. You might even say it's more or less expected for islamist terrorists to behave like islamist terrorists. Doesn't make it okay, it's something I stand against; but getting upset at it is a weird sort of performance IMO. However, a nation that pink-washes genocide says "hi fellow human rights enjoyer" to me and gives me all that horse crap about even knowing what a nation recognizing human rights would look like, much less being one, they need to either a.) stop what they're doing b.) or be told in no uncertain terms they are deluding themselves. The world is full of murderers and genocidal racist assholes. It's the actually having one hand in my pocket and the other oscillating between rubbing my shoulder and covering my mouth that makes this something I am obliged to respond to, and have to respond to mercilessly. I felt the exact same way about the war of aggression in Iraq. To use me in that way for something I would never do, something so abominable, is not something I stand for or forgive.
  - mrtksn 3y ago
    I don't want to go into the "who's to blame because" arguments since to do this you need to pick a cut-off date and you can pick an arbitrary cut-off date to pick a side. Pick the 7th of October 2023 as a cut-off for the past and Israel is blameless until they massacre the civilians later on. You also need to pick definitions, and you can pick definitions anyway you like. Define civilians in a certain way and you are blameless. Both Hamas and Isreal overdo this, one claim is that they didn't kill civilians at the party because those served in the IDF for example. I find this a useless exercise and an attempt to justify killing people for political or material gains. I don't like it, I don't accept any justification and I don't take sides on institutionalised or makeshift extermination of humans.
    - johnnyworker 3y ago
      > I don't want to go into the "who's to blame because" arguments since to do this you need to pick a cut-off date No, why would you have to? As I said: > Everyone is responsible for what they do There is no giant blob called "war" and you now weigh the responsibility of one of two "sides" for that blob. That is precisely my point. The crimes of Hamas do not take one iota away from the crimes of Israel, and vice versa. They each commit them against innocents. Our opinion as "judges" or "referees" is not so relevant as what we are directly or indirectly responsible for, and what we aren't. Hamas has nothing to do with me, the US and Israel use me, so I need to speak out in clear terms or be responsible. It's not a complex situation where both sides are kinda bad and we just can't figure out who gets the blame and who gets to get away scot-free. Israel is committing genocide. Hamas is a terrorist organization, that didn't change, and people who support it should be cut off. The same with the right-wing extremists in the Israeli government and those supporting the genocide committed by them. It's just a principle, applied to all comers without respecting the person. As it should be.
      - bawolff 3y ago
        > Israel is committing genocide. You state these things like they are objective facts that have been proven. I suspect that most of the pro-israel side would be against israel comitting genocide (of course there are probably some extremists out there, but one hopes they are a small minority). The difference of opinion is not about whether genocide is wrong, but whether that is what Israel is doing. And hey, with the recent south africa case at the icj, we might get lots of international law experts weighing in, so it might all become more clear.
- majikaja 3y ago
  "You can receive $100 but someone in the world dies at random" I mentioned the above scenario to my wife and she said she thinks the majority of people would take the $100. I don't know if she's right but I think in any country a large percentage of the population is apathetic about people they don't know (especially foreigners) and can be easily prodded to support genocide.
  - sn41 3y ago
    I wouldn't - 100 dollars is not worth a death on my conscience. (I do not live in a rich country and 100 dollars is not a trivial amount for me.) Perhaps if the choice were more drastic: you can get a life saving treatment for free, but someone else dies at random, then my choice would be different.
    - badpun 3y ago
      > I wouldn't - 100 dollars is not worth a death on my conscience. How much do you have in mind then?
  - mrtksn 3y ago
    I think most people wouldn't support genocide and they are not apathetic and that's why propaganda is needed in first place. When at war, belligerents systematically dehumanise their opponents so that their population or allies wouldn't oppose killings of human beings for gains. Ukrainians call Russians "meat" and Russians portray Ukrainians as less than humans or Nazis. Russians will also not name Ukrainians but call them just "opponents" and they wouldn't kill them but neutralise them so that people can easily think in terms of reaching an objective in war and not in terms of loss of human life. On Twitter, popular accounts would Tweet things like "name 10 Israeli and 10 Palestinian inventions" to dehumanise Palestinians by showing that Israeli lives are more valuable than Palestinian ones and if you support the "civilised world" you should support those who are contributing to it(unlike the "subhumans who don't"). In Turkey, Turks used to believe that Kurds have tails like monkeys(not a popular belief anymore but it was up until 10 years ago), therefore they are less than human. It's just something its always done. War isn't fair or brave or dignifying endeavour. It's actually quite disgusting.
- edanm 3y ago
  > If the reasons about killing each other were openly discussed in a logical way without the emotional overload, People wouldn’t bother to kill each other. That’s something undesirable in the context of war. That's incredibly wrong. People are killing each other over disagreements, either about land, or about values, or about feeling of safety, etc. Everyone basically understands everyone else's position on most things - they just honestly want different things and are sometimes willing to use violence to get it.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - mrtksn 3y ago
    That's true when you are directly going to gain something. People dying and killing on the front lines - the practitioners of taking lives - are not the same people who were going to gain something. That's why they need the "greater cause" to do it, even when they are directly paid mercenaries they still are called hero of this liberator of that and not just murderers or contract killers.
    - edanm 3y ago
      If you're referring to the current Israel-Gaza conflict - this is basically not true. Israeli soldiers are fighting because they think that, if they don't, their friends and families will be killed. They might be right or wrong - but that's why they are fighting.
      - mrtksn 3y ago
        That one is a particularly complex conflict that didn't start on 7th of October and I'm sure they have more complex thoughts that include the illegal settlements and their religious rights to take that land and their political positions on these issues. They are conscripts, so I would imagine there's a range of positions when they are killing thousand of women and children alongside with combatants. I don't believe the premise that Israeli soldiers were concerned for the lives of their loved ones and killed that many civilians and ar OK with it. Unarmed women and children are not that dangerous, they must have range of thoughts when killing those. Some regret, some glee, some disgust, some joy I would imagine. I wouldn't put the relief of saving their own in the top 10 though. As for the Palestinian side of things, I'm sure its not simple too. Some would do it for revenge, some would do it for some ideological BS, some would do it for religious reasons. The terror attack they initiated on the 7th of October has quite a bit of footage and its very clear that they did not intend to survive the action. They were obviously doing it for "greater good", so to speak, without an expectation to personally gain anything by killing civilian Israelis. Very few will see direct gain from this conflict.
saargrin 3y ago
wait so your logic is its Ok to attack unrelated civilians in order to promote a political agenda ? that sure sounds like what you're supporting is literal terrorism "it can be seen as a form of treating israel" - thats the most feeble of excuses for terrorism
- keefle 3y ago
  That's not what I said or believe. And regardless, the fact the intent of attempting to stop ships is missing from the article is abhorrent
  - saargrin 3y ago
    so then what is the intent? is it group punishment of israeli civilians ? and also Palestinian civilians who will find it even harder to find affordable food? what is the intent?
nec4b 3y ago
>>As if the houthis in yemen are attacking ships because they like it or just because they "hate developed societies". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slogan_of_the_Houthi_movement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slogan_of_the_Houthi_movement
- rdtsc 3y ago
  It looks like they adopted the slogan in the early 2000s, so wonder why attack Maersk ships now…
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - nec4b 3y ago
    Maybe, they weren't capable of doing so before or were busy with something else?
snird 3y ago
[flagged]
- johnnyworker 3y ago
  As many as needed? What??? https://www.ipcinfo.org/ipcinfo-website/alerts-archive/issue-94/en/ https://www.ipcinfo.org/ipcinfo-website/alerts-archive/issue... > Between 8 December 2023 and 7 February 2024, the entire population in the Gaza Strip (about 2.2 million people) is classified in IPC Phase 3 or above (Crisis or worse). This is the highest share of people facing high levels of acute food insecurity that the IPC initiative has ever classified for any given area or country
  - snird 3y ago
    Unrelated. They are hungry because Hamas is stealing the aid: https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/middle-east/palestinian-territories/1702285314-caught-on-camera-hamas-terrorists-steal-humanitarian-aid-beat-civilians https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/middle-east/palestinian-terri... And not because there is not enough aid brought in. Hamas are to blame here, Israel does not stop any aid truck from coming in.
    - johnnyworker 3y ago
      That's showing one instance of Hamas stealing food. And you just go "so obviously, the whole situation is their fault case closed who cares". You're not even trying to hide it.
      - snird 3y ago
        It happens daily. Here's another: https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/humanitarian-trucks-stolen-by-hamas-looted-by-civilians-after-they-enter-gaza-from-egypt/ https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/humanitarian-tr... Maybe you just try so hard to side with terrorists? They hurt both Palestinians and Israelis.
        3y ago
JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> confused as to why no where in the article do they mention the intent of attacking the ships This appears to be a maritime news service. Why rockets are flying isn’t practically relevant. You’ll see similar parsimoniousness in aviation reporting around war zones (and humanitarian reports around natural disasters). There is almost always a market for concise commercial communications. > target ships that have Israeli links or heading to Israeli ports Ships in international waters have been targeted for not responding to hails. There is also no evidence anyone is coordinating the various militias that have fire control.
- number6 3y ago
  > This appears to be a maritime news service. Why rockets are flying isn’t practically relevant. Once a rocket goes up who cares where it comes down, that's not my department, says Werner von Braun
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > that's not my department, says Werner von Braun You’re seriously comparing sailors and shipping insurers to a Nazi weapons specialist?
    - johnnyworker 3y ago
      Looking the other way is looking the other way. Everybody does that with what they're entrusted with, or doesn't. And when a software build fails because of some very minor thing everything depends on, and someone quips "for want of a nail..." would you then say they "compared shitlib version 0.53 with a physical nail made out of iron for a horse shoe"? What's more, things that are the exact same are the only things that cannot be compared. You can compared an apple to an orange, or another apple, but not itself. It amazes me how often people in the internet draw this card.
      - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > Looking the other way is looking the other way No, it’s maintaining focus. Is every article that talks about the war in Gaza looking the other way on every other ongoing atrocity? > You can compared an apple to an orange, or another apple, but not itself You can compare anything to anything. That doesn’t make the comparison useful, nor does it keep it from speaking about its speaker as well.
hulitu 3y ago
> I'm really confused as to why no where in the article do they mention the intent of attacking the ships Because that is how propaganda works. Telling half the truth and adding something else to contruct a "true story".
- somedude895 3y ago
  The website has a clear purpose: News on maritime shipping. It doesn't report on geopolitics. You might think that screaming propaganda at anything that doesn't read the way you want it to makes you look smart, but it really does quite the opposite.
flandish 3y ago
The attacks read like Gulf of Tonkin level “manufactured consent”, is why nobody reports on the deeper details.
aaron695 3y ago
[dead]

by keefle 3y ago

mrtksn 3y ago

The same reason why when civilians in Gaza die it’s because a rocket explodes in a refugee camp or something. Damn rockets why do they do that? Unfortunately, propaganda is part of the war and I can’t really blame them for trying. You can be sure that the other side of the conflict is also not impartial. If the reasons about killing each other were openly discussed in a logical way without the emotional overload, People wouldn’t bother to kill each other. That’s something undesirable in the context of war. I also think this is not necessarily bad, because when you start thinking in cold blooded strategic way you may find out that exterminating certain people is beneficial for you. Therefore, you should do it. That level of thinking can be beneficial when you’re in the higher ranks, but a society shouldn’t be willing to destroy another society for material or political gains. You can see that among Russians, and how they think about conquering Ukraine and Europe. Scary stuff, it might lead to a war where one of the nations gets decimated.

johnnyworker 3y ago
> I can’t really blame them for trying. You can be sure that the other side of the conflict is also not impartial. Oh, I can for the both of us, and I do. Everyone is responsible for what they do, or tacitly consent to. War is not something that just "is" like rain or snow, it's specific actions of people specific people. And when you say "other side of the conflict" does that include the 1+ million of children, or are they just not relevant at all here? Because as Bill Hicks said, a war is when two armies fight. This is genocide, reducing Gaza to rubble, taking smug selfies in homes and mosques all along the way. Yes, Hamas is no better. That is, if they had the means, they wouldn't be. But Hamas is Hamas; not Gaza, not the West Bank. And Hamas isn't using police force in Western Democracies to prohibit demonstrations, it doesn't have vast media support to both silence discussion of what is going on and smear those who still have a conscience. https://www.ipcinfo.org/ipcinfo-website/alerts-archive/issue-94/en/ https://www.ipcinfo.org/ipcinfo-website/alerts-archive/issue... > Between 8 December 2023 and 7 February 2024, the entire population in the Gaza Strip (about 2.2 million people) is classified in IPC Phase 3 or above (Crisis or worse). This is the highest share of people facing high levels of acute food insecurity that the IPC initiative has ever classified for any given area or country. We don't even hear about this. The little facts that are brought up are all all couched between bringing up Hamas 50 times. No, we're expected to be content, admiring and grateful even, when Israel stops bombing little kids in a barrel -- and that the genocide will, predictably, continue without bombs via the inflicted wounds will barely get a mention, just like nobody really cared the last few decades. But there was a "flash" and no injuries on board of some ship, oh noes. Someone put it very well on this site 4 years ago: > And it is not a state of things, it is a process. It is going on now, it inches a bit further every day and every year. > You say you don't have an opinion, but in fact you repeat exactly the things that those who don't want this process to stop would like to hear from you: that the question has two sides, that it's impossible to say who's right or wrong, that there are many opinions. It's a form of denialism (let's hear the other side, some say this but some say that, etc.). -- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22649104 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22649104 But even more importantly IMO, even assuming "both sides are exactly equal" -- and they're not -- then my primary concern would still be what I am responsible for, and what the corporations and governments I am directly or indirectly supporting are doing. Hamas is on the polar opposite of that, they don't brag about sharing my values or any of the sort. You might even say it's more or less expected for islamist terrorists to behave like islamist terrorists. Doesn't make it okay, it's something I stand against; but getting upset at it is a weird sort of performance IMO. However, a nation that pink-washes genocide says "hi fellow human rights enjoyer" to me and gives me all that horse crap about even knowing what a nation recognizing human rights would look like, much less being one, they need to either a.) stop what they're doing b.) or be told in no uncertain terms they are deluding themselves. The world is full of murderers and genocidal racist assholes. It's the actually having one hand in my pocket and the other oscillating between rubbing my shoulder and covering my mouth that makes this something I am obliged to respond to, and have to respond to mercilessly. I felt the exact same way about the war of aggression in Iraq. To use me in that way for something I would never do, something so abominable, is not something I stand for or forgive.
- mrtksn 3y ago
  I don't want to go into the "who's to blame because" arguments since to do this you need to pick a cut-off date and you can pick an arbitrary cut-off date to pick a side. Pick the 7th of October 2023 as a cut-off for the past and Israel is blameless until they massacre the civilians later on. You also need to pick definitions, and you can pick definitions anyway you like. Define civilians in a certain way and you are blameless. Both Hamas and Isreal overdo this, one claim is that they didn't kill civilians at the party because those served in the IDF for example. I find this a useless exercise and an attempt to justify killing people for political or material gains. I don't like it, I don't accept any justification and I don't take sides on institutionalised or makeshift extermination of humans.
  - johnnyworker 3y ago
    > I don't want to go into the "who's to blame because" arguments since to do this you need to pick a cut-off date No, why would you have to? As I said: > Everyone is responsible for what they do There is no giant blob called "war" and you now weigh the responsibility of one of two "sides" for that blob. That is precisely my point. The crimes of Hamas do not take one iota away from the crimes of Israel, and vice versa. They each commit them against innocents. Our opinion as "judges" or "referees" is not so relevant as what we are directly or indirectly responsible for, and what we aren't. Hamas has nothing to do with me, the US and Israel use me, so I need to speak out in clear terms or be responsible. It's not a complex situation where both sides are kinda bad and we just can't figure out who gets the blame and who gets to get away scot-free. Israel is committing genocide. Hamas is a terrorist organization, that didn't change, and people who support it should be cut off. The same with the right-wing extremists in the Israeli government and those supporting the genocide committed by them. It's just a principle, applied to all comers without respecting the person. As it should be.
    - bawolff 3y ago
      > Israel is committing genocide. You state these things like they are objective facts that have been proven. I suspect that most of the pro-israel side would be against israel comitting genocide (of course there are probably some extremists out there, but one hopes they are a small minority). The difference of opinion is not about whether genocide is wrong, but whether that is what Israel is doing. And hey, with the recent south africa case at the icj, we might get lots of international law experts weighing in, so it might all become more clear.
majikaja 3y ago
"You can receive $100 but someone in the world dies at random" I mentioned the above scenario to my wife and she said she thinks the majority of people would take the $100. I don't know if she's right but I think in any country a large percentage of the population is apathetic about people they don't know (especially foreigners) and can be easily prodded to support genocide.
- sn41 3y ago
  I wouldn't - 100 dollars is not worth a death on my conscience. (I do not live in a rich country and 100 dollars is not a trivial amount for me.) Perhaps if the choice were more drastic: you can get a life saving treatment for free, but someone else dies at random, then my choice would be different.
  - badpun 3y ago
    > I wouldn't - 100 dollars is not worth a death on my conscience. How much do you have in mind then?
- mrtksn 3y ago
  I think most people wouldn't support genocide and they are not apathetic and that's why propaganda is needed in first place. When at war, belligerents systematically dehumanise their opponents so that their population or allies wouldn't oppose killings of human beings for gains. Ukrainians call Russians "meat" and Russians portray Ukrainians as less than humans or Nazis. Russians will also not name Ukrainians but call them just "opponents" and they wouldn't kill them but neutralise them so that people can easily think in terms of reaching an objective in war and not in terms of loss of human life. On Twitter, popular accounts would Tweet things like "name 10 Israeli and 10 Palestinian inventions" to dehumanise Palestinians by showing that Israeli lives are more valuable than Palestinian ones and if you support the "civilised world" you should support those who are contributing to it(unlike the "subhumans who don't"). In Turkey, Turks used to believe that Kurds have tails like monkeys(not a popular belief anymore but it was up until 10 years ago), therefore they are less than human. It's just something its always done. War isn't fair or brave or dignifying endeavour. It's actually quite disgusting.
edanm 3y ago
> If the reasons about killing each other were openly discussed in a logical way without the emotional overload, People wouldn’t bother to kill each other. That’s something undesirable in the context of war. That's incredibly wrong. People are killing each other over disagreements, either about land, or about values, or about feeling of safety, etc. Everyone basically understands everyone else's position on most things - they just honestly want different things and are sometimes willing to use violence to get it.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- mrtksn 3y ago
  That's true when you are directly going to gain something. People dying and killing on the front lines - the practitioners of taking lives - are not the same people who were going to gain something. That's why they need the "greater cause" to do it, even when they are directly paid mercenaries they still are called hero of this liberator of that and not just murderers or contract killers.
  - edanm 3y ago
    If you're referring to the current Israel-Gaza conflict - this is basically not true. Israeli soldiers are fighting because they think that, if they don't, their friends and families will be killed. They might be right or wrong - but that's why they are fighting.
    - mrtksn 3y ago
      That one is a particularly complex conflict that didn't start on 7th of October and I'm sure they have more complex thoughts that include the illegal settlements and their religious rights to take that land and their political positions on these issues. They are conscripts, so I would imagine there's a range of positions when they are killing thousand of women and children alongside with combatants. I don't believe the premise that Israeli soldiers were concerned for the lives of their loved ones and killed that many civilians and ar OK with it. Unarmed women and children are not that dangerous, they must have range of thoughts when killing those. Some regret, some glee, some disgust, some joy I would imagine. I wouldn't put the relief of saving their own in the top 10 though. As for the Palestinian side of things, I'm sure its not simple too. Some would do it for revenge, some would do it for some ideological BS, some would do it for religious reasons. The terror attack they initiated on the 7th of October has quite a bit of footage and its very clear that they did not intend to survive the action. They were obviously doing it for "greater good", so to speak, without an expectation to personally gain anything by killing civilian Israelis. Very few will see direct gain from this conflict.

saargrin 3y ago

wait so your logic is its Ok to attack unrelated civilians in order to promote a political agenda ? that sure sounds like what you're supporting is literal terrorism "it can be seen as a form of treating israel" - thats the most feeble of excuses for terrorism

keefle 3y ago
That's not what I said or believe. And regardless, the fact the intent of attempting to stop ships is missing from the article is abhorrent
- saargrin 3y ago
  so then what is the intent? is it group punishment of israeli civilians ? and also Palestinian civilians who will find it even harder to find affordable food? what is the intent?

nec4b 3y ago

>>As if the houthis in yemen are attacking ships because they like it or just because they "hate developed societies". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slogan_of_the_Houthi_movement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slogan_of_the_Houthi_movement

rdtsc 3y ago
It looks like they adopted the slogan in the early 2000s, so wonder why attack Maersk ships now…
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- nec4b 3y ago
  Maybe, they weren't capable of doing so before or were busy with something else?

snird 3y ago

[flagged]

johnnyworker 3y ago
As many as needed? What??? https://www.ipcinfo.org/ipcinfo-website/alerts-archive/issue-94/en/ https://www.ipcinfo.org/ipcinfo-website/alerts-archive/issue... > Between 8 December 2023 and 7 February 2024, the entire population in the Gaza Strip (about 2.2 million people) is classified in IPC Phase 3 or above (Crisis or worse). This is the highest share of people facing high levels of acute food insecurity that the IPC initiative has ever classified for any given area or country
- snird 3y ago
  Unrelated. They are hungry because Hamas is stealing the aid: https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/middle-east/palestinian-territories/1702285314-caught-on-camera-hamas-terrorists-steal-humanitarian-aid-beat-civilians https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/middle-east/palestinian-terri... And not because there is not enough aid brought in. Hamas are to blame here, Israel does not stop any aid truck from coming in.
  - johnnyworker 3y ago
    That's showing one instance of Hamas stealing food. And you just go "so obviously, the whole situation is their fault case closed who cares". You're not even trying to hide it.
    - snird 3y ago
      It happens daily. Here's another: https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/humanitarian-trucks-stolen-by-hamas-looted-by-civilians-after-they-enter-gaza-from-egypt/ https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/humanitarian-tr... Maybe you just try so hard to side with terrorists? They hurt both Palestinians and Israelis.
      - 3y ago

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> confused as to why no where in the article do they mention the intent of attacking the ships This appears to be a maritime news service. Why rockets are flying isn’t practically relevant. You’ll see similar parsimoniousness in aviation reporting around war zones (and humanitarian reports around natural disasters). There is almost always a market for concise commercial communications. > target ships that have Israeli links or heading to Israeli ports Ships in international waters have been targeted for not responding to hails. There is also no evidence anyone is coordinating the various militias that have fire control.

number6 3y ago
> This appears to be a maritime news service. Why rockets are flying isn’t practically relevant. Once a rocket goes up who cares where it comes down, that's not my department, says Werner von Braun
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > that's not my department, says Werner von Braun You’re seriously comparing sailors and shipping insurers to a Nazi weapons specialist?
  - johnnyworker 3y ago
    Looking the other way is looking the other way. Everybody does that with what they're entrusted with, or doesn't. And when a software build fails because of some very minor thing everything depends on, and someone quips "for want of a nail..." would you then say they "compared shitlib version 0.53 with a physical nail made out of iron for a horse shoe"? What's more, things that are the exact same are the only things that cannot be compared. You can compared an apple to an orange, or another apple, but not itself. It amazes me how often people in the internet draw this card.
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > Looking the other way is looking the other way No, it’s maintaining focus. Is every article that talks about the war in Gaza looking the other way on every other ongoing atrocity? > You can compared an apple to an orange, or another apple, but not itself You can compare anything to anything. That doesn’t make the comparison useful, nor does it keep it from speaking about its speaker as well.

hulitu 3y ago

> I'm really confused as to why no where in the article do they mention the intent of attacking the ships Because that is how propaganda works. Telling half the truth and adding something else to contruct a "true story".

somedude895 3y ago
The website has a clear purpose: News on maritime shipping. It doesn't report on geopolitics. You might think that screaming propaganda at anything that doesn't read the way you want it to makes you look smart, but it really does quite the opposite.

flandish 3y ago

The attacks read like Gulf of Tonkin level “manufactured consent”, is why nobody reports on the deeper details.

aaron695 3y ago

[dead]