4 ms·

> If you think this is truly about putting pressure on Israel to halt their campaign in Gaza, I have major questions for the news sources you are ingesting. Th

> If you think this is truly about putting pressure on Israel to halt their campaign in Gaza, I have major questions for the news sources you are ingesting. These attacks coincided with the bombing and are the stated reason. > As well as how much charity you are giving comically literal terrorists in this. I know this might get me downvoted, but I don't think that the designation of terrorist is super helpful here. It's usually just used to delegitimize a group by saying they can't be negotiated with. It's hubris to think that anyone you decide to designate as a terrorist no longer has to be negotiated with like any other political entity. In my pov, the bombing of Gaza is a terroristic act. Yet the US finances it and sanctions it. If the Houthis have done worse, then I would agree with the terrorist designation. But it should be clear that the distinction is arbitrary. > As for why they would want to destabilize the region? What do you consider destabilization? I think most of the time I see "destabilization" it is used as a code word for weakening US influence. The US destabilized Iraq by taking out Saddam and disbanding the army. It destabilized Afghanistan by removing the Taliban and sanctioning warlords. It can be argued whether these places were better or worse under US occupation, but just like the word "terrorist" used earlier, my point is that the word "destabilized" is a moral signifier that is used when people don't want to engage in a realistic conversation about the situation.

taeric 3y ago
The attacks coincide in time, yes. But many opportunistic things coincide. That is part of the very definition of opportunistic attacks, no? You can believe their stated reasons, but then how can you not also believe their stated global intentions? They are largely viewed as a terrorist organization, because they have largely engaged in terrorism. It doesn't help to see stories of them trying to restore slavery. So, what do I consider destabilization? I think this is a fair question and can be targeted. If you view this as some dog whistle for US influence... I confess that makes me question your motives rather heavily. That is, citing only US interests is, itself, a fairly obvious dog whistle.
- charred_patina 3y ago
  I am unable to reply to your comment in the other chain (ok for some reason it let me comment now) > Deflect, much? I can call out a group of cartoonishly villainous terrorists without having to condone any other behavior. I am not deflecting, my point has been consistent across the whole thread. All of the power players in the region are bad people. However, you have to come to the table with them as they are. It's hubris to just think because the Houthis are bad guys then we don't have to take them seriously. Obviously the best way to stop these attacks is to force Israel to ceasefire (it's also the moral option), but many people wouldn't want to capitulate to pressure from "terrorists". > The attacks coincide in time, yes. But many opportunistic things coincide. That is part of the very definition of opportunistic attacks, no? You can believe their stated reasons, but then how can you not also believe their stated global intentions? I don't buy their PR hook line and sinker. But the reasonable thing to do here is open a line of communication and negotiate with them. Call for a ceasefire, get ships passing back through the Red Sea, and figure out how to solve this all somewhat peacefully. > I get that you don't like Israel. I don't know why I would necessarily want to change your mind there, all told. I can say you should not let that drive you to such allies as terrorists that attack trade ships. My point throughout this whole thread has not been to say Israel is uniquely evil or the Houthis are good, but that people in the west have been conditioned to look at this conflict without any nuance, which is antithetical to good policy, or even just understanding the situation. I mean for christ sake we still have sanctions on Cuba 60 years later. So many US foreign policy moves are motivated by ideology or some moral judgement, rather than actual strategy or humanitarian ideals. I really have tried to use fairly neutral language for all of my posts in this thread, I don't know why people have interpreted this as me defending the Houthis. I take it as an example of the fact that actually being truly neutral in an analysis is viewed as having non-neutral stance, because the default assumption in western nations is that the US hegemony is good and everyone loves it 24/7.
  - taeric 3y ago
    You literally brought Israel into this discussion with the sole purpose to undermine a criticism of a group that is calling for the death of others. That is a deflection. Charity to it, if you are solely trying to point out that all participants are evil over there, what is your proposed frame of action? Is the claim that they are all equally villainous and evil? I confess having cognitive dissonance in how you can both think they are all bad people, and that we should take a "reasonable" path to discussing with them. Their actions have shown that they are willing to attack ships outside of their own parameters in the region. Combined with their other, again visually stated, intentions, I don't see what you think to accomplish with discussions. And again, bringing up other questionable choices by the US is a dog whistle to get support against "Western" powers. It is a deflection because it does not build up any support for the groups there, it is only a way to undermine other discourse.

taeric 3y ago

The attacks coincide in time, yes. But many opportunistic things coincide. That is part of the very definition of opportunistic attacks, no? You can believe their stated reasons, but then how can you not also believe their stated global intentions? They are largely viewed as a terrorist organization, because they have largely engaged in terrorism. It doesn't help to see stories of them trying to restore slavery. So, what do I consider destabilization? I think this is a fair question and can be targeted. If you view this as some dog whistle for US influence... I confess that makes me question your motives rather heavily. That is, citing only US interests is, itself, a fairly obvious dog whistle.

charred_patina 3y ago
I am unable to reply to your comment in the other chain (ok for some reason it let me comment now) > Deflect, much? I can call out a group of cartoonishly villainous terrorists without having to condone any other behavior. I am not deflecting, my point has been consistent across the whole thread. All of the power players in the region are bad people. However, you have to come to the table with them as they are. It's hubris to just think because the Houthis are bad guys then we don't have to take them seriously. Obviously the best way to stop these attacks is to force Israel to ceasefire (it's also the moral option), but many people wouldn't want to capitulate to pressure from "terrorists". > The attacks coincide in time, yes. But many opportunistic things coincide. That is part of the very definition of opportunistic attacks, no? You can believe their stated reasons, but then how can you not also believe their stated global intentions? I don't buy their PR hook line and sinker. But the reasonable thing to do here is open a line of communication and negotiate with them. Call for a ceasefire, get ships passing back through the Red Sea, and figure out how to solve this all somewhat peacefully. > I get that you don't like Israel. I don't know why I would necessarily want to change your mind there, all told. I can say you should not let that drive you to such allies as terrorists that attack trade ships. My point throughout this whole thread has not been to say Israel is uniquely evil or the Houthis are good, but that people in the west have been conditioned to look at this conflict without any nuance, which is antithetical to good policy, or even just understanding the situation. I mean for christ sake we still have sanctions on Cuba 60 years later. So many US foreign policy moves are motivated by ideology or some moral judgement, rather than actual strategy or humanitarian ideals. I really have tried to use fairly neutral language for all of my posts in this thread, I don't know why people have interpreted this as me defending the Houthis. I take it as an example of the fact that actually being truly neutral in an analysis is viewed as having non-neutral stance, because the default assumption in western nations is that the US hegemony is good and everyone loves it 24/7.
- taeric 3y ago
  You literally brought Israel into this discussion with the sole purpose to undermine a criticism of a group that is calling for the death of others. That is a deflection. Charity to it, if you are solely trying to point out that all participants are evil over there, what is your proposed frame of action? Is the claim that they are all equally villainous and evil? I confess having cognitive dissonance in how you can both think they are all bad people, and that we should take a "reasonable" path to discussing with them. Their actions have shown that they are willing to attack ships outside of their own parameters in the region. Combined with their other, again visually stated, intentions, I don't see what you think to accomplish with discussions. And again, bringing up other questionable choices by the US is a dog whistle to get support against "Western" powers. It is a deflection because it does not build up any support for the groups there, it is only a way to undermine other discourse.