3 ms·

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 vill

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.
- charred_patina 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. I brought it up to show that your argument is one-sided and doesn't take into account the nuance of the situation. One of my main points has been that US news media's whitewashing of Israel is the main reasons that the OP I replied to was unable to understand why the Houthis had broad support in the Islamic world. However, if you look at the situation objectively (not through US-centric lens) it becomes really obvious what's happening. The problem is that we hyper focus on the evil of our enemies, and don't focus on the evil of our allies and our own country. So it's not possible to look at the situation with a pro-Israel/pro-US pov and understand it. > 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? USA open a line of communication with Houthis (directly or via China). USA and UN declare the bombing of Gaza as a genocide. USA/UN Force Israel to stop genocide either through threat of sanctions, or enforce a no-fly zone and shoot down a plane if necessary. Get Netanyahu out and back his more liberal opposition. Make peace with the Houthis and try to legitimize their power, while imposing conditions of liberalization on them. Deconstruct the apartheid/surveillance state Israel has set up through reforms. People argue about 2-state vs 1-state, I personally believe a 1-state could work but I am not informed enough to say. Lastly, try Netanyahu + his cabinet and Hamas as war criminals so that there is accountability and justice. All the players that I just mentioned, I truly believe them to be forces for evil. Why? Because the plan I proposed won't happen. It would be the most reasonable and morally just course of action, but because all of these people are operating ideologically, they won't do it. If they all sat down and brokered out a peace deal then I would consider that to be a "good" act, even if their overwhelming actions are still mostly 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. Because I think all countries are evil. I think the state monopoly on violence is wrong. However in the real world you have to play the hand you are dealt. I think the US (evil) using its power to negotiate a ceasefire with Israel (evil) to get the Houthis (evil) to stop, is the most moral action that can be taken right now. > 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. I am not sure you fully understand my pov. I don't think Iran is better than the US or vice versa. I think they are all evil. However in this circumstance the US is the one with the power to stop a genocide. The US could literally force Netanyahu out TODAY, if the political will was there. There would still be other problems in the region of course. The main point I want to make is that it is hypocritical and not productive to just come out and say "the Houthis are doing this because they are bad and evil". It completely obscures the courses of action the US should take to resolve this crisis.

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.

charred_patina 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. I brought it up to show that your argument is one-sided and doesn't take into account the nuance of the situation. One of my main points has been that US news media's whitewashing of Israel is the main reasons that the OP I replied to was unable to understand why the Houthis had broad support in the Islamic world. However, if you look at the situation objectively (not through US-centric lens) it becomes really obvious what's happening. The problem is that we hyper focus on the evil of our enemies, and don't focus on the evil of our allies and our own country. So it's not possible to look at the situation with a pro-Israel/pro-US pov and understand it. > 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? USA open a line of communication with Houthis (directly or via China). USA and UN declare the bombing of Gaza as a genocide. USA/UN Force Israel to stop genocide either through threat of sanctions, or enforce a no-fly zone and shoot down a plane if necessary. Get Netanyahu out and back his more liberal opposition. Make peace with the Houthis and try to legitimize their power, while imposing conditions of liberalization on them. Deconstruct the apartheid/surveillance state Israel has set up through reforms. People argue about 2-state vs 1-state, I personally believe a 1-state could work but I am not informed enough to say. Lastly, try Netanyahu + his cabinet and Hamas as war criminals so that there is accountability and justice. All the players that I just mentioned, I truly believe them to be forces for evil. Why? Because the plan I proposed won't happen. It would be the most reasonable and morally just course of action, but because all of these people are operating ideologically, they won't do it. If they all sat down and brokered out a peace deal then I would consider that to be a "good" act, even if their overwhelming actions are still mostly 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. Because I think all countries are evil. I think the state monopoly on violence is wrong. However in the real world you have to play the hand you are dealt. I think the US (evil) using its power to negotiate a ceasefire with Israel (evil) to get the Houthis (evil) to stop, is the most moral action that can be taken right now. > 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. I am not sure you fully understand my pov. I don't think Iran is better than the US or vice versa. I think they are all evil. However in this circumstance the US is the one with the power to stop a genocide. The US could literally force Netanyahu out TODAY, if the political will was there. There would still be other problems in the region of course. The main point I want to make is that it is hypocritical and not productive to just come out and say "the Houthis are doing this because they are bad and evil". It completely obscures the courses of action the US should take to resolve this crisis.