• fastandcurious@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      11 months ago

      They are protecting their civilians or the ones they can benefit from, and killing others who are not, they are not doing this in good faith

    • iain@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      11 months ago

      Cargo ships can take a longer route, they don’t need to be there. The US values cargo over human lives.

      • xor
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        11 months ago

        The longer route costs an additional million dollars in diesel alone. Even if you don’t care about the enormous economic impact, the environmental impact alone is huge.

        • iain@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          11 months ago

          Oh okay, so we’re killing people over causing environmental damage? Let’s murder the CEO of Nestle, BP etc. They deserve it way more!

          • xor
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            ·
            11 months ago

            You know that isn’t what I am saying.

            As far as I’m aware, there have been no reports whatsoever of non-military targets being hit in the strikes. Targeting the infrastructure being used by a non-state group to disrupt the most critical trade route on earth is absolutely proportionate.

            The CEOs of those companies should be prosecuted instead, however there is not appropriate legislation for environmental damage in the UK and US.

            • nekandro@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              11 months ago

              Just like how Israel “only targeted valid military targets,” right? Yeah…

              • xor
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                11 months ago

                Well yeah, except with the key difference of it being true

                If there were credible reports of civilian targets being hit then it would be very different

                • nekandro@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  Military targets like Sanaa’s international airport? To deter Ansarallah launching… Missiles and boats?

                  Either US CENTCOM is dumber than I thought, or it’s just a cover to continue the Saudi genocide of Yemen.

            • iain@feddit.nl
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              11 months ago

              You know that isn’t what I am saying.

              It is what you’re implying. Even in this very comment: you just assume that violence is appropriate for protecting a trade route, but we have to be very nice to CEOs of companies that destroy the environment and use slave labor. Please examine your own biases and see the consequences.

              • xor
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                6
                ·
                edit-2
                11 months ago

                Nonono, you’ve decided on my behalf, based on pulling shit out of your ass, that I’m cool with companies doing environmental damage and slave labour.

                If Amazon set up shop in Yemen and started blindly destroying and siezing ships in the red sea, they’d be getting bombed too.

                Additionally, you’ve presented a false dichotomy - protecting trade in the red sea is not mutually exclusive with prosecuting corporations for climate crime.

                • iain@feddit.nl
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  I’m not saying you’re okay with it. I’m just pointing out that one offense justifies bombs and the other simply suing the boss (while admitting it doesn’t do anything). I’m simply proposing we bomb Nestle before Yemen. In Minecraft of course.

                  • xor
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    4
                    ·
                    11 months ago

                    If the houthis were acting from US territory, the approach would be very different, but the US government can’t exactly go arrest them.

                    In Minecraft of course

                    I’m down, what server does nestle use? Time for some griefing

                • nekandro@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  Amazon isn’t at war with Israel. Ansarallah IS, and they’re perfectly within their rights to enforce a blockade.

                  • xor
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    5
                    ·
                    11 months ago

                    The houthis aren’t formally or de facto at war with Israel either, though you’re right that they are involved.

                    But affected 3rd party countries are equally within their rights to protect critical trade infrastructure in international waters as well.

      • sailingbythelee@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        11 months ago

        Cargo includes food, clothing, fuel, building materials and other necessities of life. Fucking with global trade causes inflation, which primarily affects the poorest people. Also, global trade underpins the peace and security of all 8 billion people on Earth. No one group has the right to disrupt the global system of trade over their petty local disputes. If they do, they should expect to feel the full wrath of the rest of the world. Frankly, I’m surprised that the Houthis are being handled with such a light touch so far.

        • iain@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          11 months ago

          The whole world watches as Israel commits genocide. The Houthis are brave to try to slow down the massacre of the Palestinian people, even though they themselves have been subject to a brutal war against them by the US and Saudi Arabia. If you care about the poorest people, then hold the capitalists responsible. They raise the prices on the poor and for any made up reason. We’ve seen this in the last couple years a when they pretended that it was inflation while they hoarded more and more wealth. Let them pay the skipping delay out of their own pockets first.

          • sailingbythelee@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            11 months ago

            I do, like the vast majority of Lemmy users, hold the extremely wealthy responsible for a lot of human suffering, but this is a thread about the Houthis attacking civilian cargo ships. Both capitalists hoarding wealth and terrorists attacking cargo ships can be bad at the same time. Whatever you think of the Palestinian situation, the Houthis are currently adding to the sum total of human suffering, not subtracting from it.