1574
submitted 1 week ago by not_IO to c/microblogmemes@lemmy.world
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] CodeInvasion@sh.itjust.works 141 points 1 week ago

Are you actually asking?

The Houthi's are an Iranian controlled terrorist organization that have been attacking commercial shipping in the Red Sea since November 2023.

The Houthis have sunk two vessels and killed four crew members, forcing a lot of shipping to Europe to be diverted around the South of Africa.

The US and allies have been fighting the Iranian-backed Houthis for over a decade, this is just a recent resurgence following the war in Israel.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67614911.amp

[-] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 44 points 1 week ago

Sure bro.

That justified blowing up the apartment building the target's girlfriend lived in.

Because it doesn't just make more Houthis every time.

[-] CodeInvasion@sh.itjust.works 41 points 1 week ago

I never said the attack itself was justified. I only answered the question.

A more targeted strike was possible, and it's reprehensible that one was not chosen.

The target himself was a legal target even by the most strict interpretation of armed conflict international law.

[-] Iceman@lemmy.world 28 points 1 week ago

Claiming that the Houtis are Iranian controlled is sheer missinformation.

[-] Sop 27 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

The Houthi’s are enforcing their ban on ships headed to or from Israel to enter Yemen’s water territory. They did this as a sanction on Israel because Israel is committing genocide on the Palestinian people. When the US and European countries started bombing Yemen for enforcing their law, they also banned US and some European ships from entering their waters. During the ceasefire they lifted the blockade, and since Israel ended the ceasefire they started banning ships again.

[-] CodeInvasion@sh.itjust.works 33 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

This is simply false.

The Houthis are not a state. There are a rebel faction in a civil war in Yemen.

Even if it were the Yemen government banning ships from it's waters it's can't do that by international law. They don't own the whole strait.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bab-el-Mandeb

Lastly, a UN resolution passed that outlaws this behavior.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_2722

load more comments (17 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] FMT99@lemmy.world 22 points 1 week ago

Yep and it's much easier and cheaper just to send in a bunch of drones that end up killing a few hundred innocents than to send in special forces that find the target with precision. And that in turn would be a lot easier than to stop actively funding regional genocide and try to calm the situation down diplomatically.

[-] CodeInvasion@sh.itjust.works 17 points 1 week ago

A targeted strike was absolutely possible. So many innocents did not need to die.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cedle6je601o.amp

[-] Count042@lemmy.ml 16 points 1 week ago

The Houthis are a tribe. The majority (though not all) represented tribe within the government of Ansarrallah, a government that formed during and won the civil war when Saudi Arabia tried to steal Yemen.

Calling them Houthis is racist and makes as much sense as calling Americans 'Kennedys'

They have not been attacking shipping. They have been enforcing a naval blockade of a country committing genocide, something that is a legal requirement under international law. When Israel was "abiding" (or abiding as much as Israel ever abides) during the peace treaty, Ansarrallah dropped their blockade. If this is about shipping, the easiest way to stop this would be to stop applying arms to a state engaged in ethnic cleansing.

America has never been at war with Yemen. We got sucked into supplying Intel and support and weapons to Saudi Arabia under Obama because of all three weapons purchases from Saudi Arabia.

Finally, Iran has done very little in support of Ansarallah, in comparison to other countries that are majority Shia.

Calling Ansarrallah Iranian controlled is about as accurate as calling Israel American-Controlled. It's just another racist way to try to justify the murder of civilians. You know, the unjustifiable except to fascists like the person I'm responding to.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Valmond@lemmy.world 14 points 1 week ago

It's to make us forget about the "group chat" (see how familiar and nice it sounds too, group chat). Damage control.

Someone else can probably explain better than me why the "group chat" is not just a group chat but a massive abuse and illegal thing to do.

[-] Wildfire0Straggler3@lemm.ee 24 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

The Federal Records Act was violated several times due to the disappearing messages feature of Signal they were utilizing for their plans. Jeff Goldberg took screenshots of the messages before they were automatically deleted when all Federal Records are legally required to be preserved for archiving and may not be destroyed except under specific parameters that they obviously did not follow.

https://www.ed.gov/about/ed-overview/required-notices/federal-records-act

Also, by using Signal, which is a secure end to end encrypted messenger, the vulnerability that is built into the desktop sync feature where messages aren't locally encrypted can result in enemy and adversarial nation states collecting these messages due to them being stored on an infected device which can compromise the mission and risk lives.

They could also have their accounts and subsequently their messages hacked with their information widely publicly available to hackers.

https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/hegseth-waltz-gabbard-private-data-and-passwords-of-senior-u-s-security-officials-found-online-a-14221f90-e5c2-48e5-bc63-10b705521fb7

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world 94 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

The amount of times Republicans said “we killed terrorists” during the congressional hearing, without even once considering that the 53 fatalities from an indiscriminate air strike likely included innocent civilians, is revolting.

[-] Sop 46 points 1 week ago

With US track record a majority if not all of those 53 people were civilians

[-] IndiBrony@lemmy.world 44 points 1 week ago

This is why the US and Israel get along so famously 👍

[-] mydude@lemmy.world 60 points 1 week ago

The bombing of Yemen is bipartisan...

[-] Doorbook@lemmy.world 22 points 1 week ago

Anything to keep israel happy is bipartisan.

Then you wonder why that the case? If they are right now publicly intervening in US politics, what have they done in the past and what leverage do they have over these public figure?

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[-] Korhaka@sopuli.xyz 42 points 1 week ago

No one is surprised by America indiscriminately bombing and leaving 150 casualties.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] HawlSera@lemm.ee 40 points 1 week ago

For me at this point it's just a matter of surprise.

I expect the US to bomb everywhere that isn't Japan, North America, European Union, or Israel

Hell I'm shocked they aren't throwing bombs at Australia because Elon Musk sent a vaguely worded email that implied it.

The reason why I SEEM to care more about the phones than the bombs, is because "US bombing innocent people? Sounds like a Tuesday... but damn how did we elect someone so incompetent that I find out about the specifics?"

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] HighFructoseLowStand@lemm.ee 38 points 1 week ago

Because it is controlled by the Houthis, Islamist terrorists threatening global trade, overthrowing a quasi-friendly government and REINSTITUTING SLAVERY.

[-] WoodScientist@sh.itjust.works 39 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

The United States government just sold over 200 people, without trial, into slavery in El Salvador. And the US explicitly allows slavery as part of its own prison system. The US has a large number of legal slaves.

[-] Phoenicianpirate@lemm.ee 16 points 1 week ago

I don't think people understand just how fucking MASSIVE that bullshit is. Any credibility that the US had in human rights is long gone.

What turn is doing is what the original filibusters did prior to the civil war. Basically considering chattel slavery such an important part of their 'liberty' ideal that they wanted to spread it to places where slavery had been abolished. Like the carribbean and Central America.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Phoenicianpirate@lemm.ee 20 points 1 week ago

They overthrew Gaddafi when he was the only thing preventing slavery from returning, and the allies of the West now have open slave markets in Libya.

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] smol_beans@lemmy.world 16 points 1 week ago

Houthis did not reinstate slavery. The "legitimate" Yemeni government that the Houthis are rebelling against reinstituted slavery

load more comments (13 replies)
[-] alcoholicorn@lemmy.ml 14 points 1 week ago

They're not threatening global trade, they're fulfilling their obligation under international law to prevent genocide by blocking ships of countries that are aiding genocide.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (35 replies)
[-] answersplease77@lemmy.world 37 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Kids were killed but the chat leak was funny and that's what has been the people talk about instead.

Imagine being the poor family, who is stuck living in Yemen because they cannot afford to relocate, whose kid has died by Trump's bombing. Then all you see in the news about how they joked with emojis in chat killing your kid. "Oh your kid was killed in that emoji airstrike." Tell me why the fuck you would grow up anything but radicalized.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] NeptuneOrbit@lemmy.world 32 points 1 week ago
[-] Panamalt@sh.itjust.works 29 points 1 week ago

Both are really serious problems in their own right, one's just a little closer to home

load more comments (23 replies)
[-] rumba@lemmy.zip 27 points 1 week ago

Bush and Obama did it too. Historically, it's been a targeted killing thing against Al-Qaeda (or so they have said), with whatever government they have, giving their blessing. If other sites are correct, Trump did it more, but it's kinda hard to pick nits there.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drone_strikes_in_Yemen

That's why a lot people are more upset over the lack of operational security than the action itself. They're not conducting themselves in a way that keeps our country safe, They skirting monitoring and can't even get that right.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] arotrios@lemmy.world 23 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Political context courtesy of the Arab Center in Washington DC:


TL;DR: The Houthis are backed by Iran, in direct regional competition to Saudi Arabian (and subsequently US) interests, and the war in Yemen is a direct result of 10 years worth of failed intervention by the Saudis.


Excerpt:

Exactly a decade ago, Saudi Arabia announced the launch of a military intervention in Yemen, promising to lead a coalition of more than 10 nations—although some would later end their participation—against the Houthi armed group, officially known as Ansar Allah, that had taken over power from President Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi. Backed by the United States, Britain, and other Western states with arms and shared intelligence, on March 26, 2015, the Saudi coalition commenced airstrikes on Houthi-controlled areas, initiating a conflict that would drag on for years. Riyadh’s initial expectation of a swift, six-week military operation to defeat the Houthis became a prolonged and costly entanglement that has tested Saudi Arabia’s ability to impose its will on its neighbor and to force the Houthis to give up their control over a large part of Yemen. Intervention Inception

Saudi Arabia’s rationale for intervention shifted over time as the conflict unfolded. At the outset, it cast the intervention as a direct response to President Hadi’s urgent appeal to the Gulf states and their international allies that he conveyed in a letter to the UN Security Council in March 2015. Hadi called for states “to provide immediate support in every form and take the necessary measures, including military intervention, to protect Yemen and its people from the ongoing Houthi aggression.” The Saudis initially conceived of the intervention as a decisive effort to reinstate Yemen’s legitimate government in the capital Sanaa. As the situation progressed, Saudi Arabia reframed its objective as restoring Yemen’s political process within the framework of the Gulf Cooperation Council Initiative, which in 2011-2012 facilitated the transfer of power from former President Ali Abdullah Saleh to Hadi.

The core rationale behind Saudi Arabia’s intervention, however, stemmed from its perception of the Houthis as an Iranian proxy on the kingdom’s border. Riyadh feared that Iran’s influence through the Houthis posed a direct threat to the kingdom’s regional dominance and interests. The kingdom saw the Houthi takeover of Sanaa not just as a challenge to Yemen’s stability but as a potential game changer in the broader Middle East power dynamics. In this context, Saudi Arabia framed its military intervention as a necessary response to protect its own security and regional influence.

Riyadh feared that the Houthis posed a direct threat to the kingdom’s regional dominance and interests.

But while Saudi Arabia believed Iran to be the principal force behind the Houthi takeover, the extent of Iranian influence over the group at the time was, in fact, relatively limited. Although the Houthis depended on Iranian military and logistical support, particularly for weaponry and strategic advice, they were not fully under Iran’s control. Iran, while capable of advising the Houthis on strategic and policy matters, lacked the leverage to dictate their actions. Rather, local factors such as longstanding tribal rivalries in Yemen, the Houthis’ longtime opposition to the central government, and their pursuit of greater political power, were more influential in shaping the Houthis’ behavior. The Houthi alliances with former President Saleh and certain factions of the Yemeni military also played a crucial role in the group’s rise. In other words, Iran’s influence was significant, but it was not all-encompassing, as the Houthis had their own political and strategic goals. Nonetheless, Riyadh persisted in portraying the Houthis as a tool of Iranian expansionism. Paradoxically, Saudi Arabia’s prolonged antagonism may have ultimately strengthened Iran’s influence, as it pushed the Houthi armed group to deepen its reliance on Iranian military and logistical support.


load more comments (8 replies)
[-] ansiz@lemmy.world 23 points 1 week ago

I've heard it called Operation Amazon Prime, which is pretty hilarious. But only like 10% of global trade even goes by this area, even less of you're just considered direct US trade. Combine that with the context from that Signal chat and it's clear they bombed Yemen just because Trump wants to.

[-] Fredthefishlord 16 points 1 week ago

"only" 10%? 10% is pretty significant

load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[-] ICastFist@programming.dev 20 points 1 week ago

One way to look at it: Yemen's current conflict is a proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran. Put it another way, it's their Vietnam

[-] TronBronson@lemmy.world 18 points 1 week ago

They are bombing Yemen, because the houthis are attacking our boats. Transportation ships. Never fuck with US international commerce.

[-] hark@lemmy.world 20 points 1 week ago

Why are houthis attacking our boats?

[-] ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works 20 points 1 week ago

And why did they stop for seven weeks?

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[-] Fontasia@feddit.nl 18 points 1 week ago

The MAGA movement have no care about what the administration does, especially when it comes to non-americans in a country literally none of them coudl identify on a map. But if you show them "look how poorly this bombing was planned and carried out" then maybe they will listen.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Davin@lemmy.world 17 points 1 week ago

The bombing is worse, but using signal instead of official communication channels is still really fucking serious. They want to plan and commit war crimes and avoid any responsibility for it by trying to keep it from ever getting under public scrutiny.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] Literocola@lemmy.ca 17 points 1 week ago

They’re bombing the Houthi’s in Yemen because the Houthis have been launching Iranian missiles at ships in the Red Sea since 2023? Including the US navy (don’t touch the boats) and Israel. The houthis are currently holding hostage a number of crews of merchant ships

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Soleos@lemmy.world 15 points 1 week ago

Because bombing the Houthis for terrorism or attacking Gulf states/western interests has been the status quo for over a decade.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] riptide@lemmy.world 15 points 1 week ago

They leveled a building to hit 1 target

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 27 Mar 2025
1574 points (100.0% liked)

Microblog Memes

7329 readers
3046 users here now

A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.

Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.

Rules:

  1. Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
  2. Be nice.
  3. No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
  4. Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.

Related communities:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS