Red Sea Crisis

[Freedom Farter]

39 minutes ago, ClydeTon said:

Multiple Middle Eastern media outlets and Yemeni human rights groups have accessed them of slavery in various forms. Probably influenced by the Saudis, but there's nothing (that I can find) refuting their claims.

https://english.aawsat.com/home/article/1810456/exclusive-houthis-restore-slavery-yemen (Saudi-owned, London-bases)

https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/yemen-ethiopia-women-forced-houthis-stc-sexual-slavery (not Saudi)

The US' report into Yemen prior to the strikes is also damning, even if it doesn't quite spell out slavery - it says a lot.

https://www.state.gov/reports/2022-country-reports-on-human-rights-practices/yemen/

Yes- this does refer to all parties, including the former government. But it's really hard to see any chance that the Houthis aren't as bad, if not worse.

I was aware of both those articles. I've seen doubts cast on the Saudi one for obvious reasons. That it bills itself as an "exclusive" adds to the suspicion. The middle east eye article is where I found the report by the NGO I mention in my second reply to you above. It's Yemeni and I have no reason to doubt their findings. Houthi men (specifically militants) have sexually enslaved Ethiopian migrant women who were in transit to Saudi Arabia. Then as you put, STC (a south Yemen government faction) militants have also been doing this.

Many Houthis will be bad men. Many will be rapists. The poverty in that region is grinding and poverty is brutal. Brutal conditions makes brutal behaviour far more likely. It also makes austere ideas more likely. Houthi ideology is very regressive and Houthi behaviour can often range from cruelly repressive to outright murderous. You're right to bring this up lest anyone be under any illusions.

Edited January 14 by Freedom Farter

[ClydeTon]

26 minutes ago, GHF-23 said:

Quite the climb down from "(the Houthi's, singularly) have quite literally reinstated slavery in their part of Yemen." then.

 

From "The Houthis have reinstated slavery"

To "the Houthis have reinstated slavery, and are generally evil + their enemies are also evil"

Sounds like a climb up to me.

[oneteaminglasgow]

I don’t think there’s any doubt that a lot of the Houthis will be absolute c***s, and that they wouldn’t be a bunch of lads I’d particularly want in charge of anywhere, but on the question of stopping boats heading for Israel, they are absolutely morally correct to do so. 

[GHF-23]

39 minutes ago, ClydeTon said:

From "The Houthis have reinstated slavery"

To "the Houthis have reinstated slavery, and are generally evil + their enemies are also evil"

Sounds like a climb up to me.

The links you provided do not show what anyone would expect evidence of the literal reinstatement of slavery to look like - see the open air slave markets in Libya following one of our recent interventions for what the "literal reinstatement of slavery" is. Trafficking of refugee populations into sexual slavery is of despicable but is present in every warzone or instance where refugee populations exist in the world. You've completely jumped the gun in your original post and can't justify your claims.

It is also not anything to do with why we are conducting this activity - that is that preventing ethnic cleansing by an ally is a lower priority than ensuring the efficiency of the transportation of goods via the Suez canal. Yemenis have been getting bombed by the west, more often than not the UK, since the invention of flight. Perhaps that might have to do with there being Islamist rather than Pride marches in Sanaa, rather than your thesis that unfortunately once again the Arabs are being ontologically evil 

[Freedom Farter]

2 hours ago, Leith Green said:

Its a proxy attack on Iran, because they back the Houthis, Hezbollah, and Hamas (all that sanctioned oil still seems to make them a shit ton of cash for arms) with cash and arms.

I look forward to bombs on London Underground soon.......................

We should be ok with that.

From what I've read - and I'm just a random idiot on pieandbovril so not confident pronouncing over this - when it comes to violent jihadism, there's a difference between the Shia and Sunni perspectives. Supposedly, Shia Islam only permits it in defensive contexts whereas Sunni Islam allows for offensive violent jihad.

There's only ever been one terrorist attack by a Shia jihadist in Europe. It was in Bulgaria in 2012 when a bus full of Israeli tourists was suicide bombed. The perpetrator was a Lebanese-French Shia Muslim. Supposedly attacks on Israelis are justified theologically in Shia Islam because a Muslim population is under attack by Israel (they mean the occupation of the Palestinian territories). However, none of the stuff we've seen from Sunni jihadists in Europe, the targeting of civilians at random, is allowed.

Obviously that's of no comfort to Israelis or to humanity in general but it does explain the different patterns we've seen from Shia and Sunni violent jihadism. It also partly explains why there's so many more Sunni than Shia Muslims in the world, because of historic Sunni offensive jihadism allowing for expansion.

[Moomintroll]

We can do without * erm checks notes* the virgins hot 6th form common room  take on this. Ibn el Sauds mob are useful patsies for the West while being as repressive as it is humanly possible to be towards females. The difference is that the other types are the wrong kind of Muslims, plus, you know, Oil. Same as it ever was. I have tried to justify it in the past, but I was wrong.

[ClydeTon]

28 minutes ago, GHF-23 said:

The links you provided do not show what anyone would expect evidence of the literal reinstatement of slavery to look like - see the open air slave markets in Libya following one of our recent interventions for what the "literal reinstatement of slavery" is. Trafficking of refugee populations into sexual slavery is of despicable but is present in every warzone or instance where refugee populations exist in the world. You've completely jumped the gun in your original post and can't justify your claims.

It is also not anything to do with why we are conducting this activity - that is that preventing ethnic cleansing by an ally is a lower priority than ensuring the efficiency of the transportation of goods via the Suez canal. Yemenis have been getting bombed by the west, more often than not the UK, since the invention of flight. Perhaps that might have to do with there being Islamist rather than Pride marches in Sanaa, rather than your thesis that unfortunately once again the Arabs are being ontologically evil 

Once again, I know we aren't in there because the Houthis are c**ts.

We're there because the US/UK like to spread their wings - in this case with the "justification" of protecting trade through the red sea.

The West couldn't care less about the Yemeni people. But the Houthis are attacking civilian trade, and sitting on oil. It's clear to see why America is getting it's nose in their business.

The West are being overzealous as always but, as my point was at first and still is; the Houthis are bad, quite so, and they absolutely can't claim victim here.

[Moomintroll]

Ooohh looook at us boooooooooooooo the west well we go and live in a Muslim state like Saudi Arabia No No No, it's a No No No. Tedious little shills, I have zero time for Netenyahu & his War Crimes but this forum is utterly snide, go and live under Putins regime for a few months, especially that fukking virgin. He would last 2 minutes.

[johnnydun]

4 minutes ago, Moomintroll said:

Ooohh looook at us boooooooooooooo the west well we go and live in a Muslim state like Saudi Arabia No No No, it's a No No No. Tedious little shills, I have zero time for Netenyahu & his War Crimes but this forum is utterly snide, go and live under Putins regime for a few months, especially that fukking virgin. He would last 2 minutes.

I don't see what your issue is?

We are having quite a sensible debate? Although some of us have different opinions, I don't agree with some of @ClydeTon's stuff for instance, but it all makes for healthy conversation.

I don't know what @Freedom Farter has done to upset you on another thread, but it's all been quite civil here. I personally would like to keep it that way, having spent 2 years in Yemen and got to know many Yemeni people, I have followed the civil war quite closely and enjoy the debate.

[Sergeant Wilson]

7 minutes ago, johnnydun said:

it's all been quite civil here. I personally would like to keep it that

Oh shut up...It's Sunday!

[johnnydun]

3 minutes ago, Sergeant Wilson said:

Oh shut up...It's Sunday!

I wasn't wanting to bring up 'that' thread, as @Moomintroll's posting above looks terribly erratic, like someone isn't in a good place. You OK @Moomintroll? Seriously?

[cb_diamond]

1 hour ago, johnnydun said:

I wasn't wanting to bring up 'that' thread, as @Moomintroll's posting above looks terribly erratic, like someone isn't in a good place. You OK @Moomintroll? Seriously?

My thoughts exactly. 

[MazzyStar]

1 hour ago, johnnydun said:

I wasn't wanting to bring up 'that' thread, as @Moomintroll's posting above looks terribly erratic, like someone isn't in a good place. You OK @Moomintroll? Seriously?

This is what he’s usually like. Surprised he slithered back after what he posted in the Palestine thread in November. 

Edited January 14 by MazzyStar

[Freedom Farter]

My fear over these strikes on Houthi military infrastructure is that the Houthis respond by trying to directly target US or UK ships which (I think) they haven't done yet. I don't know what capabilities the Houthis have but if they were able to hit a US or UK ship and kill soldiers that'd provoke a much heightened response. It could then continue spiralling until the first civilian gets killed. I don't know anything about conflict dynamics so maybe that's a misplaced fear.

[GHF-23]

3 hours ago, Moomintroll said:

Ooohh looook at us boooooooooooooo the west well we go and live in a Muslim state like Saudi Arabia No No No, it's a No No No. Tedious little shills, I have zero time for Netenyahu & his War Crimes but this forum is utterly snide, go and live under Putins regime for a few months, especially that fukking virgin. He would last 2 minutes.

You've allowed yourself to, at least in part, let your thinking on political events and ethics be affected by your negative polarisation towards other posters on a football forum. As someone who wishes you well, I'd encourage you to reflect on whether that might be making you look silly, and whether you may enjoy a more peaceful and happy life if you sought different ways to deal with these interactions. 

[TxRover]

10 hours ago, Freedom Farter said:

My fear over these strikes on Houthi military infrastructure is that the Houthis respond by trying to directly target US or UK ships which (I think) they haven't done yet. I don't know what capabilities the Houthis have but if they were able to hit a US or UK ship and kill soldiers that'd provoke a much heightened response. It could then continue spiralling until the first civilian gets killed. I don't know anything about conflict dynamics so maybe that's a misplaced fear.

Not to be too cynical, but bombing a U.S. ship isn’t going to change much, as the last U.S. President to NOT bomb Yeman in some way was Clinton, and he had considered it anyway after the USS Cole attack.

[johnnydun]

3 hours ago, TxRover said:

Not to be too cynical, but bombing a U.S. ship isn’t going to change much, as the last U.S. President to NOT bomb Yeman in some way was Clinton, and he had considered it anyway after the USS Cole attack.

And folk wonder why the Houthis have "Death to America" as part of their slogan.

Our own National anthem is about killing English 700 years ago. Just sayin' like.

[TxRover]

9 hours ago, johnnydun said:

And folk wonder why the Houthis have "Death to America" as part of their slogan.

Our own National anthem is about killing English 700 years ago. Just sayin' like.

Aye, it’s a wee bit harsh all the venom directed at the U.S. for continuing the policies the human race as a whole has had since the dawn of time, but they are the big boys in the game over the last century plus, after practicing at home for another couple of centuries, so they certainly deserve the shite that gets tossed.

It is, at the base of it all, economic. Certain beliefs of the involved parties make for handy excuses to the “public” for why the strikes occur, but it’s all down to the almighty dollar again. The attempts to paint it otherwise simply make pointing out inconsistencies, and outright mistruths, easier.

[Billy Jean King]

On 14/01/2024 at 14:28, Freedom Farter said:

My fear over these strikes on Houthi military infrastructure is that the Houthis respond by trying to directly target US or UK ships which (I think) they haven't done yet. I don't know what capabilities the Houthis have but if they were able to hit a US or UK ship and kill soldiers that'd provoke a much heightened response. It could then continue spiralling until the first civilian gets killed. I don't know anything about conflict dynamics so maybe that's a misplaced fear.

Sunak seemed to say today that there had been direct attacks on RN ships never mind UK merchant ships. That's the first I had seen this mentioned. 

"The prime minister said the strikes on Houthi linked sites in Yemen only came after the group, which is backed by Iran, launched almost 30 "unacceptable" attacks on commercial ships since 19 November, including an attack on British and American warships on 9 January.

"They fired on our ships and our sailors, it was the biggest attack on our navy for decades, and so we acted," he said.

[johnnydun]

They've seemingly hit a US cargo ship.

No damage or casualties.