I tried to find something but I could not find any attacks on NATO assets. They were just attacking Israeli interests, which are currently committing a genocide in Gaza. Not to mention war crimes.
Worth noting that the USA gave 0 shits when the Saudi's were killing the Yemeni people, for years. Here in Canada we sold the Saudis weapons which they eventually used against Yemen. It was a big deal here. Our conservatives broke the deal and our Liberals delivered on it. Both have blood on their hands.
Everyone knows that attacking someone that is illegally blocking the transfer of your goods is antisemitic and the Houthis now have the right to defend themselves.
No civilian causalities...because we've been shooting down all the missiles. The Houthis have been firing off rockets, drones, and missiles pretty indiscriminately at passing cargo boats, some of which do have US nationals aboard. If the US and allies hadn't been there, there's a good chance there'd be a half dozen cargo ships at the bottom of the Red Sea, and then there would be civilian causalities.
The inalienable right to stop a genocide. And these are not international waters: this is right on their own border. Look at a map. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bab-el-Mandeb
This story covers 2 ships:
standard.co.uk/…/red-sea-missile-attack-uk-us-cen… The Unity Explorer is UK owned and flagged in the Bahamas, while the Number 9 is Panamanian flagged, Bermuda and UK owned.
So apparently this
Saree also identified the first vessel as the Unity Explorer, which is owned by a British firm that includes Dan David Ungar, who lives in Israel, as one of its officers. The Number 9 is linked to Bernhard Schulte Shipmanagement.
The Sophie II’s owner, Kyowa Kisen of Imabari, Japan, told The Associated Press that the ship’s crew were safe and the vessel did not sustain serious damage. Managers for the two other ships could not be immediately reached for comment.
Israeli media identified Ungar as being the son of Israeli shipping billionaire Abraham “Rami” Ungar.
exists, but yeah that's weak. Can't find anything for the other one, but if this is their standard for "Israel-related" then I can see why everyone is angry about it.
Yeah that's exactly it, half the time when they claim it's Israeli owned it's like there's one Israeli person in the parent company that doesn't have anything to do with that ship. At this point though I think they've all but given up making that claim and just target whatever they like, then maybe come up with excuses after the fact. And they've directly attacked US warships now, which is what the US strike was in response to.
The fact the the US freaked out about this and spent the money it did trying and somewhat failing to stop it says otherwise.
It's pretty clear that Ansarallah are specifically targeting ships going to Israel, too. They also stopped during the short cease fire.
There is a simple cheap way too end this that doesn't include trying to kill people we've already tried to genocide from 2015 to ... I can't remember when Ansarallah won.
It’s pretty clear that Ansarallah are specifically targeting ships going to Israel, too.
It isn't. Only 5 ships targeted out of over 20 actually had anything to do with Israel. With various others, they basically find one Israeli national working for a parent company of the one that owns the vessel, and then claim that means it's Israeli.
There is a simple cheap way too end this that doesn’t include trying to kill people we’ve already tried to genocide from 2015 to …
Saudi Arabia blockaded Yemen. The US joined in from 2015 to 2016, then left, SA kept it up all on their own after that. Claiming that the US genocided them is a massive, disingenuous stretch.
Your claim is basically the same as saying that Iran took over Yemen and started the civil war, not the Houthis.
Hmm. I wonder why they'd fire on a hostile fleet that sailed halfway around the world and that had basically already declared war on them. Particularly when said fleet previously implemented a blockade that caused a famine, which killed hundreds of thousands, mostly children.
Do you think the US hadn't already planned to do airstrikes on Yemen? Ansarallah already knew what they were up to. The ships are there to punish Yemen for daring to oppose the genocide in Israel, which they clearly can relate to, having been genocided by the US and Saudis just recently.
Ansarallah clearly stated they would stop if there was a ceasefire in Gaza, and they attacked ships going to Israeli ports. But I guess if they try to blockade Israel, and take seriously their (and every state's) duty under international law to stop genocide, that's bad, but if the US blockades Yemen causing a genocidal famine, that's just dandy?
The US plans for a lot of situations, as does any competent military. Are you trying to say that the US intended to make these strikes all along, rather than in retaliation for strikes against them?
The ships are there to protect trade. Up until now, they have been focused on shooting down missiles and preventing attacks on trade ships. They're also there to bring a bigger gun to protect Israel if anyone wants to jump into war with them. There is an element of bullshit to this, as the US is basically allowing Israel to commit genocide, but at the same time the US is supposed to protect its allies.
Most of the ships that have been targeted by the Houthis were not going to Israeli ports and have no affiliation with Israel. When they have claimed there was some affiliation, it's really obtuse and far fetched - like one guy in a parent company that has no real involvement with the ship or its cargo.
I don't know the specifics of the US' previous blockade or the famine in Yemen. If you can point me to some information on that I'd appreciate it, right now my searches are drowned out in coverage of the latest events. However, the whole conflict in Yemen is a mess of proxy parties fighting on behalf of others, it's a tangled web with no good parties - as usual, the only ones really winning are the people selling weapons.
The US plans for a lot of situations, as does any competent military. Are you trying to say that the US intended to make these strikes all along, rather than in retaliation for strikes against them?
The blockade has contributed to the current famine in Yemen, which the United Nations said may become the deadliest famine in decades. The World Health Organization announced in 2017, that the number of suspected persons with cholera in Yemen reached approximately 500,000 people. In 2018, Save the Children estimated that 85,000 children have died due to starvation in the three years prior.
The U.S. has supported the Arab coalition's intervention in the war, and the United States Navy actively participated in the naval blockade at the beginning of the intervention. In mid-2015, Washington increased its logistical and intelligence support to Saudi Arabia by creating a joint coordination planning cell with the Saudi military to help manage the war.
Thanks for the link. However, it says that it's a Saudi Arabian blockade, the US participated at the beginning but was not the driving force behind it and did not stay for long.
However, in mid-2016 and amid escalating, international concerns regarding some of the strategic initiatives undertaken by the Saudi Arabian military in the conflict, the U.S. pulled back significantly on its participation in this joint planning cell, reducing its staff commitment to only five US workers.
US involvement since then has primarily been the supply of weapons. Like I say, the only real winners are arms dealers.
Supplying weapons goes a lot further than one might think. I remember reading somewhere (please don't make me dig this up), that practically all the ground maintenance staff of the Saudi air force are US personell (maybe private contractors don't remember). Just the pilots are Saudis really. The US supported this war and blockade in various ways all the way through. It should be obvious why Ansarallah thinks the US is their enemy.
Oh absolutely, the US are also providing intelligence. However they're not doing the fighting or directing the military activities. But the UK are also doing much of the same, it's just that the US are more proficient at it.
Unless you are all in with Bin Laden's reasons for 9/11, it was Ansarella who attacked the US first. The US military didn't throw a dart at map and bomb Yemen for no particular reason.
For fuck's sake. Do you think every middle easterner is part of the same terrorist organization, or why the fuck would you bring up an al-Qaeda attack in 2000 to justify bombing a Shia group in 2024?
You act like the Houthi were innocent victims. They started it. The Houthi supported Al-Quada and their attacks. The US responded, then the Houthi kept attacking. The US didn't attack all of Yemen, only those Houthi who are killing not just Americans but other Yemeni.
Decrying the US attacking Al Quaeda in Yemen as an attack on all of Yemen is like saying stopping Proud Boys is an attack on America. Proudboy domestic terrorists aren't America. Attacking Proudboy is the right thing to do. Houthi support terrorism. Attacking only the terrorists isn't attacking everyone.
Edit actually it was that you missed off the last bracket, I think.
In any case, the Yemen civil war is hardly just between two parties, it's a tangled web of proxies. There are actually many allies who are technically fighting against one another through their proxies.
We blockaded their only port that supplies food for the winning side of their defensive war against Saudi Arabia, causing a massive famine and even Cholera to spread killing a fuck ton of civilians.
This is why our threats don't work. It's hard to threaten a population that you've already tried to genocide who then went on to win their war.
Because, as the warships are US flagged, all that matters for their conduct (until a UN resolution is passed or ICC takes action) is US Law.
Since the USN vessels are not within the internationally recognized jurisdiction of Yemen, Yemeni laws don't apply. So it can't really be illegal, then? Or is the law that no one, anywhere on earth, is allowed to disagree with them?
The Saudi coalition (including the US; the US navy even directly took part in the blockade) has waged war on Ansarallah for years, and created an artificial famine that killed hundreds of thousands, mostly children. The US is waging an illegal war of aggression and genocide on the people of Yemen. They don't need a UN resolution to have the right to defend themselves.
Yes they do. I presume from your stance you are in favour of the US seizing or sinking Iranian ships when they are in waters the US controls just like the Houthis are attempting to do?
I'm confused, do you think international waters, like shipping lanes leaving the Red sea, are a thing or do you believe might makes right and if you can exert force you control it? If the the former then the US and the Houthis are both in the wrong, if the latter then they are both fine. So which is it?
Yes it does. Ships of any nation have a right to transit international waters.
When Iranian ships (or ships of any nation, really) engage in acts of privacy, then they open themselves up to the consequences, whatever those may be.
The US has been seizing non-Iranian ships in international waters that it claims are carrying Iranian oil. It has been doing this long before the current unpleasantness.
The country engaging in the act of piracy is the US.
Also, the Bab Al-Mandreb straight is the territorial waters of Yemen, Eritrea and Djibouti. It is not international waters.
