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

1. 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.

2. It's possible they might receive less aid as a result of sanctions, though still receive aid.

3. Is it reasonable that starving children might be the result of US actions?

My answers:

1. 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.

2. Yes, this is what I concisely said that you seem to have expanded and restated?

3. 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?