We are ruled by murderous tyrants. By nuclear-armed thugs who would rather starve civilians to protect the continuation of an active genocide than allow peace to get a word in edgewise. Reading by …
The “Houthis” (Ansarallah) didn’t shoot at ships without provocation. They did it as a response to the genocide in Gaza, out of solidarity, to implement a blockade. They said as much, and the article explains this.
The author seems concerned that if the people […] are labeled terrorists, they might receive less aid, even though aid exemptions have been added?
First of all, the author is not (only, primarily) concerned with aid, but rather trade.
Secondly, and the article explains that but maybe not clearly enough, but sanctions cause lots of companies to stop all dealings with the sanctioned entity, despite humanitarian exceptions. This causes massive friction not just for trade, but also for humanitarian aid, as the humanitarian aid groups need to contract out e.g. logistics to companies, and they need to be able to do payments. Sanctions always cause collateral damage in this way, because they create lots of paperwork and legal grey areas, and companies do not want to deal with this.
Potentially receiving less aid seems like a reasonable consequence
You are aware that thanks to the previous Saudi (and US backed) blockade and US sanctions on Yemen, hundreds of thousands of people died, mostly due to starvation and such, and most of them children. Starving children may very well be the consequence of the US’s actions. Do you really think that’s fucking reasonable?
Your writing is about as hedged, narrow and disorganized as that article to the point that I’m willing to just say “yep”.
But I have some free time, so your points are
The guys with " God is the greatest, death to America, death to Israel, a curse upon the Jews , victory to Islam" are attacking US and Israeli ships out of empathy.
It’s possible they might receive less aid as a result of sanctions, though still receive aid.
Is it reasonable that starving children might be the result of US actions?
My answers:
This should be self-explanatory. Religious extremists who have 20-year-old specific wishes of death on their flag against the two countries they’re shooting missiles at may not be the empathetic actors you suppose.
Yes, this is what I concisely said that you seem to have expanded and restated?
Reasonable? Since historically many children have been casualties of US actions, yes, “starving children may very well be the consequence of the US’s actions” is a reasonable assumption.
I’m inferring your written focus on logical casualty rationale was unintentional, and you actually meant to facetiously ask if it was ethical that “starving children may very well be the consequence of the US’s actions”. No, do you find starving children ethically laudable?
The “Houthis” (Ansarallah) didn’t shoot at ships without provocation. They did it as a response to the genocide in Gaza, out of solidarity, to implement a blockade. They said as much, and the article explains this.
First of all, the author is not (only, primarily) concerned with aid, but rather trade.
Secondly, and the article explains that but maybe not clearly enough, but sanctions cause lots of companies to stop all dealings with the sanctioned entity, despite humanitarian exceptions. This causes massive friction not just for trade, but also for humanitarian aid, as the humanitarian aid groups need to contract out e.g. logistics to companies, and they need to be able to do payments. Sanctions always cause collateral damage in this way, because they create lots of paperwork and legal grey areas, and companies do not want to deal with this.
You are aware that thanks to the previous Saudi (and US backed) blockade and US sanctions on Yemen, hundreds of thousands of people died, mostly due to starvation and such, and most of them children. Starving children may very well be the consequence of the US’s actions. Do you really think that’s fucking reasonable?
Your writing is about as hedged, narrow and disorganized as that article to the point that I’m willing to just say “yep”.
But I have some free time, so your points are
The guys with " God is the greatest, death to America, death to Israel, a curse upon the Jews , victory to Islam" are attacking US and Israeli ships out of empathy.
It’s possible they might receive less aid as a result of sanctions, though still receive aid.
Is it reasonable that starving children might be the result of US actions?
My answers:
This should be self-explanatory. Religious extremists who have 20-year-old specific wishes of death on their flag against the two countries they’re shooting missiles at may not be the empathetic actors you suppose.
Yes, this is what I concisely said that you seem to have expanded and restated?
Reasonable? Since historically many children have been casualties of US actions, yes, “starving children may very well be the consequence of the US’s actions” is a reasonable assumption.
I’m inferring your written focus on logical casualty rationale was unintentional, and you actually meant to facetiously ask if it was ethical that “starving children may very well be the consequence of the US’s actions”. No, do you find starving children ethically laudable?