Houthis turn pirate

[Loren Pechtel]

Iranian navy seizes oil tanker in Gulf of Oman - ABC News - "The incident comes amid high tensions in the nearby Red Sea."

Tehran escalating, as usual.

US-UK coalition strike Iran-backed Houthi targets in Yemen after spate of ship attacks in Red Sea

Great news, albeit long overdue.

Houthis are complaining about aggression. As if they haven't been attacking civilian ships for over a month now.

I support this attack. We need to ensure that the strait is free for commerce. I'm not so sure about "long overdue". The Biden administration is juggling a lot of balls right now. It is not in our best interest to have the ME war expanded. You primarily care about the ME. I've never seen you post in threads regarding Ukraine/Russia and or China/Taiwan. North Korea is always threatening South Korea. I support Israel. I support taking out the pirates trying to stop commerce through the strait. But the US as a whole has far more on its plate than just helping Israel.

The problem is that by trying to avoid expanding the war means the masterminds don't suffer one bit. It's just pawns getting killed.

 

[barbos]

Who are these "freedom fighters" of which you speak? It can't be the Houthis - they are terrorists who terrorize not only merchant shipping but also the Yemeni population.

One's terrorist another's freedom fighters.

 

[bilby]

Who are these "freedom fighters" of which you speak? It can't be the Houthis - they are terrorists who terrorize not only merchant shipping but also the Yemeni population.

One's terrorist another's freedom fighters.

Well, sometimes.

Some terrorists are fighting for freedom.

Some are just patsies in the geopolitical games played by larger nations.

Such as by the rump of a former superpower, that's desperately trying to recover its relevance through violence against a neighbour, and having embarrassed itself, is now casting about for ways to distract the rest of the world from assisting their primary victim.

It's becoming increasingly clear that Russia is the major reason for the outbreak of violence in the Middle East.

As a strategy to distract the US from supporting Ukraine, having Hamas make a suicidal attack (whose preparation without detection by Israel is certainly way beyond Hamas's unassisted capabilities) is a pretty effective move. Well done, Russia.

Russia's military prowess might be a pale shadow of that of the Soviet Union, but her deviousness in the game of deception and distraction is undiminished.

Americans were never good at that game. They're far too loud, and far too open and upfront; And they tend to be easily distracted and easily misled, too. Particularly when Israel is involved.

Iran is happy to help their Russian buddies by providing laundry services to mask the identity of the puppet master. The Houthis (and Hamas) are being played by Tehran; and in turn the Iranians are played by Moscow.

Tehran avoids getting bombed by the Americans; Moscow avoids getting thrashed by Ukrainians with full access to American weapons and funds.

Everyone wins.

Well, except the Israelis, the Palestinians, the Houthis, the Ukrainians, and anyone who was trying to consign seafreight via Suez.

 

[barbos]

Who are these "freedom fighters" of which you speak? It can't be the Houthis - they are terrorists who terrorize not only merchant shipping but also the Yemeni population.

One's terrorist another's freedom fighters.

Well, sometimes.

Some terrorists are fighting for freedom.

Some are just patsies in the geopolitical games played by larger nations.

Such as by the rump of a former superpower, that's desperately trying to recover its relevance through violence against a neighbour, and having embarrassed itself, is now casting about for ways to distract the rest of the world from assisting their primary victim.

It's becoming increasingly clear that Russia is the major reason for the outbreak of violence in the Middle East.

As a strategy to distract the US from supporting Ukraine, having Hamas make a suicidal attack (whose preparation without detection by Israel is certainly way beyond Hamas's unassisted capabilities) is a pretty effective move. Well done, Russia.

Russia's military prowess might be a pale shadow of that of the Soviet Union, but her deviousness in the game of deception and distraction is undiminished.

Americans were never good at that game. They're far too loud, and far too open and upfront; And they tend to be easily distracted and easily misled, too. Particularly when Israel is involved.

Iran is happy to help their Russian buddies by providing laundry services to mask the identity of the puppet master. The Houthis (and Hamas) are being played by Tehran; and in turn the Iranians are played by Moscow.

Tehran avoids getting bombed by the Americans; Moscow avoids getting thrashed by Ukrainians with full access to American weapons and funds.

Everyone wins.

Well, except the Israelis, the Palestinians, the Houthis, the Ukrainians, and anyone who was trying to consign seafreight via Suez.

Yes everything revolves around Russia. "Russia did it" is always correct answer.

 

[bilby]

Who are these "freedom fighters" of which you speak? It can't be the Houthis - they are terrorists who terrorize not only merchant shipping but also the Yemeni population.

One's terrorist another's freedom fighters.

Well, sometimes.

Some terrorists are fighting for freedom.

Some are just patsies in the geopolitical games played by larger nations.

Such as by the rump of a former superpower, that's desperately trying to recover its relevance through violence against a neighbour, and having embarrassed itself, is now casting about for ways to distract the rest of the world from assisting their primary victim.

It's becoming increasingly clear that Russia is the major reason for the outbreak of violence in the Middle East.

As a strategy to distract the US from supporting Ukraine, having Hamas make a suicidal attack (whose preparation without detection by Israel is certainly way beyond Hamas's unassisted capabilities) is a pretty effective move. Well done, Russia.

Russia's military prowess might be a pale shadow of that of the Soviet Union, but her deviousness in the game of deception and distraction is undiminished.

Americans were never good at that game. They're far too loud, and far too open and upfront; And they tend to be easily distracted and easily misled, too. Particularly when Israel is involved.

Iran is happy to help their Russian buddies by providing laundry services to mask the identity of the puppet master. The Houthis (and Hamas) are being played by Tehran; and in turn the Iranians are played by Moscow.

Tehran avoids getting bombed by the Americans; Moscow avoids getting thrashed by Ukrainians with full access to American weapons and funds.

Everyone wins.

Well, except the Israelis, the Palestinians, the Houthis, the Ukrainians, and anyone who was trying to consign seafreight via Suez.

Yes everything revolves around Russia. "Russia did it" is always correct answer.

Not always.

But not never, either.

And in this particular case, the means, motive, and opportunity are all there. Russia has the most to gain; The necessary influence, and the connections with Iran that give plausible deniability.

It's a bit too much of a coincidence that the relatively quiet and peaceful relationship between Israel and Gaza was suddenly and massively disrupted by a huge surprise attack, right at the very time that it became obvious that Russia was losing ground in Ukraine, and needed to do something to disrupt American aid to Ukraine.

 

[barbos]

Not always.

Of course. If something good happens - US did it.
Bad - Russia/China/Iran did it.

It's a bit too much of a coincidence that the relatively quiet and peaceful relationship between Israel and Gaza was suddenly and massively disrupted by a huge surprise attack,

Yes, Russia controls Hamas. Hamas no agency or brain and blindly obeys Putn's orders.
If only Putin had ordered them earlier. And why Putin has not ordered Hezbollah to attack Israel yet?
Seems to be no brainer.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Who are these "freedom fighters" of which you speak? It can't be the Houthis - they are terrorists who terrorize not only merchant shipping but also the Yemeni population.

One's terrorist another's freedom fighters.

Said only by terrorism apologists.

Those of us who do not condone terrorism usually have no problem telling them apart--look at their targets. What did the person making the decision believe was at the intended point of aim? Military/government--freedom fighter. Civilian--terrorist. Notes:

1) There may be layers between the decision maker and the weapon--they are irrelevant unless they know the target to be invalid.

2) Mistakes in identifying the target do not count--it's what they believe it to be that matters.

3) Mistakes in aim do not matter. What was the intended aim point of the weapon? (But note that you can't say you were shooting at a specific target with a weapon that has an error range wide enough to have pretty much no chance of hitting the specific target.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It's becoming increasingly clear that Russia is the major reason for the outbreak of violence in the Middle East.

I think they played a role. I don't see proof they are the main reason.

As a strategy to distract the US from supporting Ukraine, having Hamas make a suicidal attack (whose preparation without detection by Israel is certainly way beyond Hamas's unassisted capabilities) is a pretty effective move. Well done, Russia.

Beyond Hamas' unassisted capabilities?? Of course Israel knew they were preparing for an attack--they're always preparing for an attack, that's useless information. The question is the details. And I'm not at all sure Hamas needed help on that.

I'm sure they learned something of drone warfare--but Iran sees what's happening in Ukraine, they're making drones for said warfare, nothing says they couldn't have been the source of information.

Iran is happy to help their Russian buddies by providing laundry services to mask the identity of the puppet master. The Houthis (and Hamas) are being played by Tehran; and in turn the Iranians are played by Moscow.

Tehran avoids getting bombed by the Americans; Moscow avoids getting thrashed by Ukrainians with full access to American weapons and funds.

Everyone wins.

Well, except the Israelis, the Palestinians, the Houthis, the Ukrainians, and anyone who was trying to consign seafreight via Suez.

I'm not at all convinced Iran was being played. And if Russia was involved I don't see Iran as a dupe, but rather a willing participant.

 

[barbos]

Said only by terrorism apologists.

you mean like this one?

 

[Bomb#20]

Who are these "freedom fighters" of which you speak? It can't be the Houthis - they are terrorists who terrorize not only merchant shipping but also the Yemeni population.

One's terrorist another's freedom fighters.

As some wag pointed out of the Contras, of course they're freedom fighters -- they've been fighting freedom for decades.

Well, sometimes.

Some terrorists are fighting for freedom.

Examples? Sure, plenty of terrorists have been fighting for independence, or home rule, or to get oppressors to leave, or whatever. But freedom? Not so much. Which terrorists ever intended to give up power and/or respect human rights after winning their armed struggles?

 

[laughing dog]

Who are these "freedom fighters" of which you speak? It can't be the Houthis - they are terrorists who terrorize not only merchant shipping but also the Yemeni population.

One's terrorist another's freedom fighters.

Said only by terrorism apologists.

Really - the American revolutionary irregulars were terrorists? The British complained about their tactics as unfair. Today we call them "guerrilla" tactics, but in those times, it was considered to "terrorism". And, if you are going to quibble about that, then certainly Sherman's March to Georgia was a prime example of terrorism.

Those of us who do not condone terrorism usually have no problem telling them apart--look at their targets. What did the person making the decision believe was at the intended point of aim? Military/government--freedom fighter. Civilian--terrorist. Notes:

1) There may be layers between the decision maker and the weapon--they are irrelevant unless they know the target to be invalid.

2) Mistakes in identifying the target do not count--it's what they believe it to be that matters.

3) Mistakes in aim do not matter. What was the intended aim point of the weapon? (But note that you can't say you were shooting at a specific target with a weapon that has an error range wide enough to have pretty much no chance of hitting the specific target.)

I see you have given great thought for the basis to your apologia.

 

[Bomb#20]

Said only by terrorism apologists.

Really - the American revolutionary irregulars were terrorists? The British complained about their tactics as unfair. Today we call them "guerrilla" tactics, but in those times, it was considered to "terrorism".

That's anachronistic. The word "terrorism" originated in the French Revolution. So whatever disparaging term the British used to complain about American revolutionary irregulars not standing up packed together in a spread out line to form a convenient target for their massed inaccurate musket volleys like gentlemen, it can't have been "terrorism".

And, if you are going to quibble about that, then certainly Sherman's March to Georgia was a prime example of terrorism.

You get no argument* from me on that one.

The Confederates invented the land mine. Sherman reacted by making Confederate POWs march in front looking for them. Each side felt the other side's tactic was a war crime. I'd have to agree with the Confederates on that one.

(* Okay, I'll quibble it was the March to the Sea. He was already in Georgia when it started.)

 

[bilby]

Who are these "freedom fighters" of which you speak? It can't be the Houthis - they are terrorists who terrorize not only merchant shipping but also the Yemeni population.

One's terrorist another's freedom fighters.

As some wag pointed out of the Contras, of course they're freedom fighters -- they've been fighting freedom for decades.

Well, sometimes.

Some terrorists are fighting for freedom.

Examples? Sure, plenty of terrorists have been fighting for independence, or home rule, or to get oppressors to leave, or whatever. But freedom? Not so much. Which terrorists ever intended to give up power and/or respect human rights after winning their armed struggles?

The IRA?

Certainly there were a few particularly extreme individuals who refused to do so, and/or who refused to accept victory without the return of the six counties to rule from Dublin; But the vast majority of the IRA did exactly that after winning the concessions in the Good Friday Agreement.

 

[Derec]

We interrupt this etymology derail to bring you some on-topic news.
Houthis have attacked a US-owned cargo ship.
Houthi rebels strike a U.S.-owned ship off the coast of Yemen in the Gulf of Aden, raising tensions

Time for US/Biden to hit them harder. Obviously they have not gotten the message yet, so they need some remedial instruction.
Including command and control centers. Why shouldn't Houthi brass feel the pain too?

Time for some warheads on foreheads!

 

[Derec]

One's terrorist another's freedom fighters.

That is a go-to cliché used by apologists for terrorism.
Tell me, in detail, what exactly you think it is that makes Houthis "freedom fighters". Especially since they oppress the Yemenis under their control - they certainly have not brought any freedom to them!

It seems to me that to some being against West is enough to call them "freedom fighters" no matter how totalitarian their actual ideology.

 

[lpetrich]

I don't know what Derec thinks about the tarring and feathering of disliked government officials by pre-independence North American colonists, or what he thinks about pre-independence Zionist militias Irgun and Lehi.

I prefer a neutral use of the word terrorism, rather than to say that terrorism is only what people I dislike do. Doing so is what gives rise to the saying that "one person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter".

 

[Bomb#20]

Well, sometimes.

Some terrorists are fighting for freedom.

Examples? Sure, plenty of terrorists have been fighting for independence, or home rule, or to get oppressors to leave, or whatever. But freedom? Not so much. Which terrorists ever intended to give up power and/or respect human rights after winning their armed struggles?

The IRA?

Certainly there were a few particularly extreme individuals who refused to do so, and/or who refused to accept victory without the return of the six counties to rule from Dublin; But the vast majority of the IRA did exactly that after winning the concessions in the Good Friday Agreement.

But the IRA lost. The majority of the IRA agreed to give up their weapons and stop fighting without achieving their war aim, and recognized the right of the NI people to stay in the UK unless they voted to join the RoI. Sure they won concessions, but that just means the GFA was a negotiated surrender. Point being, losing generally makes people more willing to compromise. Would the IRA still have willingly given up power and respected human rights if they'd won?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Who are these "freedom fighters" of which you speak? It can't be the Houthis - they are terrorists who terrorize not only merchant shipping but also the Yemeni population.

One's terrorist another's freedom fighters.

Said only by terrorism apologists.

Really - the American revolutionary irregulars were terrorists? The British complained about their tactics as unfair. Today we call them "guerrilla" tactics, but in those times, it was considered to "terrorism". And, if you are going to quibble about that, then certainly Sherman's March to Georgia was a prime example of terrorism.

Guerrilla tactics are not terrorism. They are still aimed at valid targets.

And while I would not call Sherman's march to be terrorism I would consider it a war crime.

Those of us who do not condone terrorism usually have no problem telling them apart--look at their targets. What did the person making the decision believe was at the intended point of aim? Military/government--freedom fighter. Civilian--terrorist. Notes:

1) There may be layers between the decision maker and the weapon--they are irrelevant unless they know the target to be invalid.

2) Mistakes in identifying the target do not count--it's what they believe it to be that matters.

3) Mistakes in aim do not matter. What was the intended aim point of the weapon? (But note that you can't say you were shooting at a specific target with a weapon that has an error range wide enough to have pretty much no chance of hitting the specific target.)

I see you have given great thought for the basis to your apologia.

I am simply giving you the standard criteria for distinguishing whether something is a legitimate military act or not. I do not claim originality on any of that.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Said only by terrorism apologists.

Really - the American revolutionary irregulars were terrorists? The British complained about their tactics as unfair. Today we call them "guerrilla" tactics, but in those times, it was considered to "terrorism".

That's anachronistic. The word "terrorism" originated in the French Revolution. So whatever disparaging term the British used to complain about American revolutionary irregulars not standing up packed together in a spread out line to form a convenient target for their massed inaccurate musket volleys like gentlemen, it can't have been "terrorism".

I was referring to the concept, not the label. Words change over time.

And, if you are going to quibble about that, then certainly Sherman's March to Georgia was a prime example of terrorism.

You get no argument* from me on that one.

The Confederates invented the land mine. Sherman reacted by making Confederate POWs march in front looking for them. Each side felt the other side's tactic was a war crime. I'd have to agree with the Confederates on that one.

(* Okay, I'll quibble it was the March to the Sea. He was already in Georgia when it started.)

Didn't know about the mine bit, but I definitely agree that's a war crime.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Who are these "freedom fighters" of which you speak? It can't be the Houthis - they are terrorists who terrorize not only merchant shipping but also the Yemeni population.

One's terrorist another's freedom fighters.

As some wag pointed out of the Contras, of course they're freedom fighters -- they've been fighting freedom for decades.

Well, sometimes.

Some terrorists are fighting for freedom.

Examples? Sure, plenty of terrorists have been fighting for independence, or home rule, or to get oppressors to leave, or whatever. But freedom? Not so much. Which terrorists ever intended to give up power and/or respect human rights after winning their armed struggles?

The IRA?

Certainly there were a few particularly extreme individuals who refused to do so, and/or who refused to accept victory without the return of the six counties to rule from Dublin; But the vast majority of the IRA did exactly that after winning the concessions in the Good Friday Agreement.

You realize the IRA lost most of its funding?