The U.S. military early Saturday struck another Houthi-controlled site in Yemen that it had determined was putting commercial vessels in the Red Sea at risk, two U.S. officials said, a day after the U.S. and Britain launched multiple airstrikes targeting Houthi rebels.
Idk seems like these airstrikes are doing more to fuck over shipping than the Houthis are.
Shipping Advised to Avoid Key Global Trade Way Point After Airstrikes
Looked at a non paywall source, it was the US advising ships to avoid the area for the next couple days because they plan on doing more strikes and don’t want other ships caught in the crossfire
It’s paywalled, but the US (and UK) are always bad news
Am I missing something? Seems like they’re defineding civilians here
They are protecting their civilians or the ones they can benefit from, and killing others who are not, they are not doing this in good faith
In what way is defending cargo ships not being done “in good faith”? I’m having trouble understanding what that means.
Do you have a source for any Yemeni civilians dying yet?
No. They’re attacking one of the few countries that’s doing something about Israel’s genocide.
Cargo ships can take a longer route, they don’t need to be there. The US values cargo over human lives.
The longer route costs an additional million dollars in diesel alone. Even if you don’t care about the enormous economic impact, the environmental impact alone is huge.
Oh okay, so we’re killing people over causing environmental damage? Let’s murder the CEO of Nestle, BP etc. They deserve it way more!
You know that isn’t what I am saying.
As far as I’m aware, there have been no reports whatsoever of non-military targets being hit in the strikes. Targeting the infrastructure being used by a non-state group to disrupt the most critical trade route on earth is absolutely proportionate.
The CEOs of those companies should be prosecuted instead, however there is not appropriate legislation for environmental damage in the UK and US.
Just like how Israel “only targeted valid military targets,” right? Yeah…
Well yeah, except with the key difference of it being true
If there were credible reports of civilian targets being hit then it would be very different
It is what you’re implying. Even in this very comment: you just assume that violence is appropriate for protecting a trade route, but we have to be very nice to CEOs of companies that destroy the environment and use slave labor. Please examine your own biases and see the consequences.
Nonono, you’ve decided on my behalf, based on pulling shit out of your ass, that I’m cool with companies doing environmental damage and slave labour.
If Amazon set up shop in Yemen and started blindly destroying and siezing ships in the red sea, they’d be getting bombed too.
Additionally, you’ve presented a false dichotomy - protecting trade in the red sea is not mutually exclusive with prosecuting corporations for climate crime.