38
When Yemen Does It, It’s Terrorism, When The US Does It, It’s “The Rules-Based Order”
(caitlinjohnstone.com.au)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 21 Jan 2024
38 points (72.1% liked)
World News
32316 readers
536 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
The title of the article, "when Yemen does it...", "it" is referring to blockades, misleading readers to believe that the US is labeling the houthis as terrorists because of the blockade, while the terrorist label has been applied because the houthis keep shooting missiles at ships without provocation.
The article is ignoring the weeks of being fired upon first that the US shot down missiles without any retaliatory action.
Then the US labeled the group firing missiles on ships and attacking ships without provocation terrorists.
The author seems concerned that if the people firing missiles at international ships without provocation are labeled terrorists, they might receive less aid, even though aid exemptions have been added?
Potentially receiving less aid seems like a reasonable consequence given that the ships providing aid are being fired upon without provocation by the government receiving aid.
How do you think blockades work? The Houthi's didn't fire at ships for no reason. They fired at ships for violating the blockade. If they didn't do that, there would be no blockade.
The guys whose flag reads "God is the Greatest, Death to America, Death to Israel, A Curse Upon the Jews, Victory to Islam” had no partisan interest in attacking US and Israeli ships?
That is magnanimous of you.
The "Houthis" (Ansarallah) didn't shoot at ships without provocation. They did it as a response to the genocide in Gaza, out of solidarity, to implement a blockade. They said as much, and the article explains this.
First of all, the author is not (only, primarily) concerned with aid, but rather trade.
Secondly, and the article explains that but maybe not clearly enough, but sanctions cause lots of companies to stop all dealings with the sanctioned entity, despite humanitarian exceptions. This causes massive friction not just for trade, but also for humanitarian aid, as the humanitarian aid groups need to contract out e.g. logistics to companies, and they need to be able to do payments. Sanctions always cause collateral damage in this way, because they create lots of paperwork and legal grey areas, and companies do not want to deal with this.
You are aware that thanks to the previous Saudi (and US backed) blockade and US sanctions on Yemen, hundreds of thousands of people died, mostly due to starvation and such, and most of them children. Starving children may very well be the consequence of the US's actions. Do you really think that's fucking reasonable?
Your writing is about as hedged, narrow and disorganized as that article to the point that I'm willing to just say "yep".
But I have some free time, so your points are
The guys with " God is the greatest, death to America, death to Israel, a curse upon the Jews , victory to Islam" are attacking US and Israeli ships out of empathy.
It's possible they might receive less aid as a result of sanctions, though still receive aid.
Is it reasonable that starving children might be the result of US actions?
My answers:
This should be self-explanatory. Religious extremists who have 20-year-old specific wishes of death on their flag against the two countries they're shooting missiles at may not be the empathetic actors you suppose.
Yes, this is what I concisely said that you seem to have expanded and restated?
Reasonable? Since historically many children have been casualties of US actions, yes, "starving children may very well be the consequence of the US's actions" is a reasonable assumption.
I'm inferring your written focus on logical casualty rationale was unintentional, and you actually meant to facetiously ask if it was ethical that "starving children may very well be the consequence of the US's actions". No, do you find starving children ethically laudable?