this post was submitted on 24 Feb 2024
388 points (97.8% liked)

World News

39032 readers
2811 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

A cargo ship that was struck by a Houthi ballistic missile on Monday has created an 18-mile long oil slick in the Red Sea as it continues to take on water, two US officials said Friday.

The M/V Rubymar — a Belize-flagged, UK-registered, Lebanese-owned vessel — was carrying 41,000 tons of fertilizer when it was struck on Monday by one of two ballistic missiles fired from Houthi territory in Yemen.

US Central Command said the ship is currently anchored as it takes on water. “The Houthis continue to demonstrate disregard for the regional impact of their indiscriminate attacks, threatening the fishing industry, coastal communities, and imports of food supplies,” US Central Command said.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] xor@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

It's not unusual for Japanese companies that trade internationally to have English names that sound strange.

So it's a joint venture between two Japanese companies, meaning it is not a valid target - in fact Japan has been highly critical of Israel iirc.

42% is not a majority - and it's most certainly nowhere near your initial description of "almost all" except for that one mistake.

And yet you still consider me a supporter of genocide for criticising the targeting of innocent civilians.

I understand that sanctions can be effective but they must be appropriately targeted.

As sad as it may be, it's very common for nations to act in their own interest under the guise of doing something noble. Assuming that all countries that side with an oppressed party are acting purely out of the goodness of their heart is an easy way to find yourself supporting a country doing appalling things for their own benefit. A broken clock etc.

[–] Linkerbaan@lemmy.world -3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I understand that sanctions can be effective but they must be appropriately targeted.

You are very correct in that statement

I had checked around 8 hit ships linked before and almost all all had ties to israel but those usually just come up if it receives big damage. The first Galaxy Leader was also told not to be linked to israel but was owned by israeli business man Rami Ungar.

The two hit last week were supposedly Greece-based firm Star Bulk Carriers Corp. But that turned out to be a US-listed company And UK registered Rubymar of the current post took a massive hit but that was also a valid target.

Strinda was also initially claimed as just going to italy but had a stop planned in israel right after. These are just a few examples were all initially claimed to have no links and subsequently actually had some.

Because ships have such a massive web of shell companies it's really difficult to find out who actually owns and operates them. I just checked another random one from your list called Clara and the Houthi's claim they gave the ship a warning which it ignored but direct links are not shown.

“The attack was launched after the two ships refused to obey orders of the Yemeni naval forces,” Saree added in a statement."

As sad as it may be, it’s very common for nations to act in their own interest under the guise of doing something noble.

Of course, everyone is just working in their own self-interest. This might be a great opportunity for the Houthi's to "gain some rep" but the fact of the matter is they actually undertake action against israel's Genocide by these costly disruptions. Though these ships you are linking are indeed concerning.

[–] xor@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

So, are we now agreed that one can criticise the houthis without being a "supporter of genocide"?

If so, I'll take that apology now, please.

[–] Linkerbaan@lemmy.world -1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Yes I will apologize for that one, criticism on their targeting seems valid. Thank you for providing a list of evidence.

I do still support the goal of turning the Genocide in Gaza into a financial problem for all the parties involved, but it does look like non-involved parties have been targeted.

One caveat I still hold is that we often only hear of links to banned nations after major damage on a ship. But the burden of proof for that initially lies on the Houthi's themselves. If Houthi's don't show how they believe a ship is linked to a banned nation, then they are not providing sufficient justification to attack it.