2 ms·

> you're basically saying "it's better for Yemeni kids and women to get killed [my reading of collateral damage] than for the West to lose face That's not what

> you're basically saying "it's better for Yemeni kids and women to get killed [my reading of collateral damage] than for the West to lose face That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that these things (israel, vs merchant shipping) basically cannot be allowed to be linked, because they aren't. It's simply blackmail. If the merchant shipping is seen as isolated, then it's clear it can't be tolerated. We can't tolerate the attacks, and we can't tolerate disruptions such as caused by massive detours. > Hasn't the West learned anything from Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, like, literally, anything? Iraq and Afghanistan were invasions with the attempted (and nearly impossible) goal of regime change. That's not at all what I'm suggesting should happen. This is about removing the ability to engage in piracy/attacks on merchant ships. > it's better for Yemeni kids and women to get killed [my reading of collateral damage] than for the West to lose face No, it's even more crass than that! we are discussing accepting the loss of civilian life just to maintain shipping insurance prices! And what I'm saying is "yes that's terrible, but less bad than the alternative". The merchant ships are also civilian! The current attacks are deliberate attacks on civilians. We are talking about attacks on military (or paramilitary) targets, in order to stop attacks on civilians! Yet you are arguing that those would be the attacks that put civilian lives at risk?

ethbr1 3y ago
> If the merchant shipping is seen as isolated, then it's clear it can't be tolerated. Agreed. And there's no fundamental reason that "Israel doing what it's doing" justifies "attacking commercial shipping." It's a convenient moral and diplomatic fig leaf over an unrelated action.
paganel 3y ago
> The merchant ships are also civilian! The current attacks are deliberate attacks on civilians. I must have missed the part where those civilians couldn't take the Cape route. Also, saying that the West does this in the interest of a couple of dozens under-paid Filipino or Eastern European sailors and not because it's freaking out about a few percentage points added to the transport costs of the Chinese dildos and EVs being brought in by ship from China is beyond parody.
- alkonaut 3y ago
  > I must have missed the part where those civilians couldn't take the Cape route. They can. But are you saying it's acceptable that they should have to in order to not be attacked? What else is acceptable? Would it make a difference if they were also attacked by the same attackers on that route so there were zero routes available? Why would that make a difference? This whole line of reasoning makes no sense to me... > Also, saying that the West does this in the interest of a couple of dozens under-paid Filipino or Eastern European sailors and not because it's freaking out about a few percentage points added to the transport costs of the Chinese dildos and EVs being brought in by ship from China is beyond parody. It's not. It's because in particular it's important for world shipping that merchant ships can travel freely where needed. In general though it's of course unacceptable to have piracy or attacks on civilian vessels. My comment about those sailors being civilian was merely made to point out that right now we already HAVE regular and deliberate attacks on civilians in this situations. And that the action called for is deliberate attacks on military targets where any civilian targets would merely be collateral damage.

ethbr1 3y ago

> If the merchant shipping is seen as isolated, then it's clear it can't be tolerated. Agreed. And there's no fundamental reason that "Israel doing what it's doing" justifies "attacking commercial shipping." It's a convenient moral and diplomatic fig leaf over an unrelated action.

paganel 3y ago

> The merchant ships are also civilian! The current attacks are deliberate attacks on civilians. I must have missed the part where those civilians couldn't take the Cape route. Also, saying that the West does this in the interest of a couple of dozens under-paid Filipino or Eastern European sailors and not because it's freaking out about a few percentage points added to the transport costs of the Chinese dildos and EVs being brought in by ship from China is beyond parody.

alkonaut 3y ago
> I must have missed the part where those civilians couldn't take the Cape route. They can. But are you saying it's acceptable that they should have to in order to not be attacked? What else is acceptable? Would it make a difference if they were also attacked by the same attackers on that route so there were zero routes available? Why would that make a difference? This whole line of reasoning makes no sense to me... > Also, saying that the West does this in the interest of a couple of dozens under-paid Filipino or Eastern European sailors and not because it's freaking out about a few percentage points added to the transport costs of the Chinese dildos and EVs being brought in by ship from China is beyond parody. It's not. It's because in particular it's important for world shipping that merchant ships can travel freely where needed. In general though it's of course unacceptable to have piracy or attacks on civilian vessels. My comment about those sailors being civilian was merely made to point out that right now we already HAVE regular and deliberate attacks on civilians in this situations. And that the action called for is deliberate attacks on military targets where any civilian targets would merely be collateral damage.