Israel (2 Viewers)

I think there's some disagreement over how this started. The Houthis, as I've mentioned many times before, stated that they stepped up attacks on shipping in the red sea because of Israel's genocidal campaign in Gaza with the intent of blocking military presence or aid to Israel. The United States ships weapons through this area which directly get into the hands of the IDF and are in turn directly used for targeting Palestinian civilians and infrastructure. I'm not sure how that can be disputed.
Eh, no. The Houthis are just using the Israeli-Gaza conflict as an excuse to disrupt the shipping lanes. They've attacked multiple ships, some having nothing to do with the conflict. And they've escalated those attacks and also attacked military bases in Iraq and Syria. They know what they're doing, and intentionally stirring a hornets nest. They're getting pummeled because of it.
Why is it lunacy? Because bombing a country and their militants in a major shipping lane like it's the 4th of July isn't a measure which aims to 'de-escalate tensions'.
They asked for it. FAAFO pretty much.
It's objectively the opposite of that. Regardless of your opinion on whether who's at fault or mine - that statement is contradictory.
I stand by what I said.
 

The Israeli military has been posting grotesque videos of dead Palestinians on a racist Telegram channel. It’s typical for the ‘anything goes’ platform.


Representatives from the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) admitted to running a notoriously violent and racist Telegram channel following an investigation from Haaretz.
On October 9, 2023, the Telegram channel “72 Virgins—Uncensored” started posting gore-filled photos and videos from the frontlines of Israel’s war on Gaza. An investigation from Haaretz revealed in December that the Israeli military ran the channel. The IDF initially denied the accusation but reversed course after an internal investigation, Haaretz reported on Sunday. It’s an unsurprising revelation that highlights the grotesque appeal of Telegram, and how governments increasingly use the platform to spread propaganda.
 
Eh, no. The Houthis are just using the Israeli-Gaza conflict as an excuse to disrupt the shipping lanes.

This is an assumption, though.

No flak intended, I'm just pointing out that you nor I know what the actual reason is behind why the Houthis substantively stepped up attacks in the Red Sea.

Maybe we are both correct - and there are other reasons not considered. The Houthis could have used the genocide by the IDF against the Palestinians, arabic people as they are being murdered by another zealous religious faction - as a motivator and reason to draw the US / US allies into a war.

They could both be delaying shipping of weaponry to Israel (goal) and pushing for a war to eliminate Israel, attack the US, etc. (goal).


They've attacked multiple ships, some having nothing to do with the conflict. And they've escalated those attacks and also attacked military bases in Iraq and Syria. They know what they're doing, and intentionally stirring a hornets nest. They're getting pummeled because of it.

Maybe so. They clearly are confident, that's for sure. Makes you wonder why if they know the power of the US military - huh? At least it makes me curious...

They asked for it. FAAFO pretty much.

I stand by what I said.

Okay. It's a cool acronym, I guess? That doesn't address the point I was making, though.
 
Just because something has been done for a long time, doesn't mean it was ever necessarily correct. Surely you'd agree?
That looks sort of, kind of like, a counter argument, but it's disconnected from my previous statements because I didn't make an argument that if something has been done for a long time that it is necessarily correct.

Where's that smelly red fish that was around here yesterday??? Your loaded statement above would be useful to cover over it.

For the record I was a merchant seaman for a time during my life. And I'm here to tell you when someone shoots at your ship you KILL them.
 
This is an assumption, though.

No flak intended, I'm just pointing out that you nor I know what the actual reason is behind why the Houthis substantively stepped up attacks in the Red Sea.

Maybe we are both correct - and there are other reasons not considered. The Houthis could have used the genocide by the IDF against the Palestinians, arabic people as they are being murdered by another zealous religious faction - as a motivator and reason to draw the US / US allies into a war.

They could both be delaying shipping of weaponry to Israel (goal) and pushing for a war to eliminate Israel, attack the US, etc. (goal).
Maybe...time will tell I guess. I'm sure they're not gonna say outright what their strategy is or why they're doing what they're doing.
Maybe so. They clearly are confident, that's for sure. Makes you wonder why if they know the power of the US military - huh? At least it makes me curious...
I don't know. I suspect they know how powerful the US military is, but if they have marching orders so to speak, it doesn't really matter I suppose.
Okay. It's a cool acronym, I guess? That doesn't address the point I was making, though.
Not directly, no, but the point is, the Houthis have a choice not to do this, and poking the bear leads to what's happening. That's on them.
 
Maybe...time will tell I guess. I'm sure they're not gonna say outright what their strategy is or why they're doing what they're doing.

Yeah..we'll see

Not directly, no, but the point is, the Houthis have a choice not to do this, and poking the bear leads to what's happening. That's on them.

Well, it's also potentially on us. We've got to be strategic not to get involved in a wider conflict. From what I've seen, we're (predictably) not shying away from getting involved in yet another one (or has war just never stopped?). I can't remember. Yay us.
 
That looks sort of, kind of like, a counter argument, but it's disconnected from my previous statements because I didn't make an argument that if something has been done for a long time that it is necessarily correct.

Hey man, i'm just wondering what 1797 had to do with 2024 US policy.

For the record I was a merchant seaman for a time during my life. And I'm here to tell you when someone shoots at your ship you KILL them.

Maybe you could also tell me what you do when the enemy ships weapons used to slaughter 10's of thousands of your neighbors in a bordering country and take their land and navigates right past you to do it?

Thoughts?
 
Last edited:
Yeah..we'll see



Well, it's also potentially on us. We've got to be strategic not to get involved in a wider conflict. From what I've seen, we're (predictably) not shying away from getting involved in yet another one (or has war just never stopped?). I can't remember. Yay us.
War has never stopped.

Nothing points in the direction for it to ever becoming stopped either.
 
Maybe you should be, sort of, kind of like, more clear with your responses if you don't like your posts being questioned.

I mean, lets be honest -- if anything, your post about what US ships have done since 1797 in response to a 2024 statement the US gave about retaliation in the Red Sea contributed much less to the discussion than me questioning it.



Maybe you could also tell me what you do when the enemy ships weapons used to slaughter 10's of thousands of your neighbors in a bordering country and take their land and navigates right past you to do it?

Thoughts?
Yeah, some people don't like to review scope of history, but I don't follow why you think that is the way to be "honest".

I feel the full scope of history needs to be applied to your question for me as well.

"The Arab-Israeli War of 1948 broke out when five Arab nations invaded territory in the former Palestinian mandate immediately following the announcement of the independence of the state of Israel on May 14, 1948."

Is that the beginning, or is this the beginning?

"In 1947, and again on May 14, 1948, the United States had offered de facto recognition of the Israeli Provisional Government, but during the war, the United States maintained an arms embargo against all belligerents."

Or is this the beginning?

"On November 29, 1947, the United Nations General Assembly adopted Resolution 181 (also known as the Partition Resolution) that would divide Great Britain’s former Palestinian mandate into Jewish and Arab states in May 1948. Under the resolution, the area of religious significance surrounding Jerusalem would remain under international control administered by the United Nations. The Palestinian Arabs refused to recognize this arrangement, which they regarded as favorable to the Jews and unfair to the Arab population that would remain in Jewish territory under the partition. The United States sought a middle way by supporting the United Nations resolution, but also encouraging negotiations between Arabs and Jews in the Middle East."

"The United Nations resolution sparked conflict between Jewish and Arab groups within Palestine. Fighting began with attacks by irregular bands of Palestinian Arabs attached to local units of the Arab Liberation Army composed of volunteers from Palestine and neighboring Arab countries. These groups launched their attacks against Jewish cities, settlements, and armed forces. The Jewish forces were composed of the Haganah, the underground militia of the Jewish community in Palestine, and two small irregular groups, the Irgun, and LEHI. The goal of the Arabs was initially to block the Partition Resolution and to prevent the establishment of the Jewish state. The Jews, on the other hand, hoped to gain control over the territory allotted to them under the Partition Plan."





The Roman empire probably started it, 1,958 years ago, however there is some question about that. Did the Romans start it, or was it started by Jews In Judea rising up in 66CE and by attacking the Roman occupiers and that was what started it.

And there's the answer to your question.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, some people don't like to review scope of history, but I don't follow why you think that is the way to be "honest".

It's not because I 'don't like to review the scope of history'.

It's because the subject (my post) was referencing the US bombing targets in Yemen and claiming that it was a 'de-escalation practice', and you in response posted that it reminded you how the US has kept the sea lanes open since 1797.

I feel the full scope of history needs to be applied to your question for me as well.

The Roman empire probably started it, 1,958 years ago, however there is some question about that. Did the Romans start it, or was it started by Jews In Judea rising up in 66CE and by attacking the Roman occupiers and that was what started it.

And there's the answer to your question.

Copy and pasting historical blurbs isn't an answer to the question I asked you. It's not really a great way to answer any question, to be honest.
 
It's not because I 'don't like to review the scope of history'.

It's because the subject (my post) was referencing the US bombing targets in Yemen and claiming that it was a 'de-escalation practice', and you in response posted that it reminded you how the US has kept the sea lanes open since 1797.



Copy and pasting historical blurbs isn't an answer to the question I asked you. It's not really a great way to answer any question, to be honest.
You seriously need to shut the fork up with You're narrative. The people you are defending are a disgusting one. Don"t make me add proof.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users who are viewing this thread

    Back
    Top Bottom