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:
Related communities:
This guy says that like "bombing Yemen" isn't a de facto tradition for U.S. presidents. I'm pretty sure every president since Clinton has bombed Yemen at some point during their term. It's old hat. It's not news. It was Tuesday.
Like, sure, it's terrible and no one will deny that, but we've been doing it for 20+ years. This? This clownfuckery? This was new.
Their flag literally says "Death to America" on it.
God is the Greatest
Death to America
Death to Israel
Curse be upon the Jews
Victory to Islam
For anyone who did not click the link.
Because it is controlled by the Houthis, Islamist terrorists threatening global trade, overthrowing a quasi-friendly government and REINSTITUTING SLAVERY.
The houthis aren't exactly the best representatives of the movement but still, this issue would be better solved by stopping arms shipments to israel and pushing them to a ceasefire towards a permanent peace. The houthis have shown that they will stop there attacks when the bombs stop dropping on gaza with this last ceasefire.
These strikes don't do shit besides hardening the antagonism against the west in Yemen. Ask Saudi Arabia, you can't take out the houthis with bombs. This is just a way for trump to flex his arms and act like a tough guy.
I do not trust murderous terrorist slavers to keep their word. And even if I did, the mere fact that there are attacking our people is more than justification enough to blow them to Hell.
Ah yes, the moderate "kill them all" approach
They attacked us. My heart does not bleed.
Hopefully it does soon.
A tankie resorting to violence in immediate reaction to a political disagreement?
Must be a day ending in "Y."
My dude this war in Yemen has been going on for like 10 years. If the idea of bombing Yemen sounds out of left field to you, then you are woefully uninformed.
Sounds par for the course in the USA.
People are literally surprised when somebody reads out actual policy which was signed into law and who voted for it.
Because they "didn't vote for that". They voted for lesser evil, which includes bombing Yemen for a decade. The spoiler effect is obvious to fellow voters, but incomprehensively arcane to lawyers.
God I fucking wish we voted for the lesser evil.
For the record, in 2014 Yemen began a civil war and the Obama administration backed the GCC intervention into Yemen, fighting against the Houthi revolutionaries, in 2015 alongside the UN Security Council issuing an Arms Embargo on the Houthis. The US support was logistical and intelligence. This has unfortunately continued to this day, although the previous Biden Administration did publicly announce a withdrawal of that support, but continues sale of armaments to Saudi Arabia who leads the GCC due to condemnation of their strikes on civilians. (The Houthis also strike civilians, mind you).
TBH I think maybe a more forceful approach, a direct intervention to establish a governance complete with minimal casualties and to provide welfare, to the situation at the end of Obama's term or the start of the Trump term might have been better than just pussyfooting around and letting Saudi's commit the warcrimes instead. Either that or doing nothing at all and allowing them to kill each other all on their lonesome so as to keep our own hands clean.
Another thing I'm not taking into account with this retelling is the whole proxy-war angle wherein Houthis and Saudis gaining support from various outside influences impacts their own allegiances in economic policy and that by not participating it would leave a gap for another world power to establish a different governance in the region that explicitly supports said world power. The whole region is an important economic position for oil and gas as well as shipping between Europe and Asia.
Specifically the war stats when The Houthi Militia pulls out of a coalition government and attacks the capital.
The Houthi Militia are not the innocents in this war. They started it.
Also, the Houthis are being armed by Iran who is financially supported by China in exchange for oil, and I hate China so that's another negative in my book.
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.
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.
If the Houthi's are going to enact a shipping ban then I assume they're willing to accept the consequences of enforcing the ban.
If the US and UK are going to support genocide, then I assume they are willing to accept the consequences
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
This is like calling the US now a rebel faction in the civil war in the British Empire.
We won.
America is its own country.
Ansarallah won. The conquered basically all of the territory except for a few towns held by another faction with whom Ansarrallah made peace with.
All of this while under continuous air attacks from Saudi Arabia w/ US intelligence, refueling and weapons. Meanwhile the US supported a complete blockade, including food, into a country that at that time imported 90% of its food.
Once they are recognized by the UN, they can legally act as the legitimate government of Yemen.
The UN isn't the world police, in case you didn't know
No, they are the world legislative body.
Of course no country can be forced to follow the UN's laws, but they are what we call "international law".
If the UN don't recognize you, you may be the only government in your country, and you may even be the legitimate one, nationally speaking.
But you won't be internationally recognized as legally in charge of things like shipping lanes.
So that means that for a country to be legitimate, it has to be accepted by every member of the security council? You're not a legitimate country unless Russia, China, and the US all like you enough? That's BS.
~~Yes, that is BS.~~
I wasn't talking about the security council at all.
You're talking about the UN, where members of the security council have veto power.
I'm talking about the UN.
You're talking about the UN Security Council, which is just one of many UN organs, ~~has the very limited purpose of preventing a war between the original nuclear powers~~, and yes, where the permanent members have veto powers.
They do not have veto powers in the general assembly, which is a much more important UN organ when it comes to international diplomacy.
The Security Council can veto acceptance of new member states. Don't try to tell me their vetos are limited to "preventing war between nuclear powers," their positions on the Security Council grant them significant power and influence over what the UN does.
If adopted, the draft would have had the 15-member Council recommend to the 193-member General Assembly that “the State of Palestine be admitted to membership in the United Nations”.
~~The General Assembly with no veto powers is the deciding body.~~
~~They could act without a recommendation, as well.~~
An application for admission to UN membership must be approved by the Council before being forwarded to the Assembly, where the matter requires at least two-thirds support to pass.
You are just factually wrong about this.
Oh fuck. I was pretty sure about this, but never actually read the statutes.
Thanks for educating me, and refraining from the insults I deserve.
So I guess 5 nations do decide who gets into the Good Guy club. I admit I'm a bit disillusioned about this.
Tbf I think you're right about the general assembly recognizing them as an "observer state" that's not part of the UN without security council approval, which I wasn't aware of.
I'm genuinely surprised it took this long for the US to retaliate.
The US and international allies have been frequently attacking Houthi rebels since January 2024.
There were even memes about it.
The memes may have started in 2024. We started attacking the Houthis in 2016-2017
Definitely, but I was more referring to this recent bout.
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.
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.
Firendly reminder that this was the real issue with buttery males/but her emails: that Hillary Clinton was using a private email server to circumvent these laws.
And every other US government employee that knowingly emailed to or from that server is also complicit.
Yet another legitimate problem tossed out with the bathwater because it got associated with the maga crowd. Very handy, that.
Point of order. These laws were written because of Mrs. Clinton's server. She wasn't circumventing shit, because the law hadn't caught up to technology, technically it still hasn't, but that's a whole other kettle of fish.
The reason it got "forgotten" is that after they wasted years and tons of money trying to find something to charge her with, they came up empty handed, since it really was just a mistake.
This is bullshit. I'm old enough to remember when the Bush administration setting up their own email servers to avoid these very same exact laws was a big issue for the Democratic Party.
They updated the laws since then. The Clinton administration was the one that passed the laws that W Bush was flirting with breaking. As far as I remember, they also didn't actually break the established law, they just got close enough that the Dems started screaming about their precious rules and norms.
HWBush didn't actually have much in the way of laws binding him, but his administration didn't bother with the Internet. Whitehouse.com was a porn site until '97-'98
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.
How do we feel about the Houthis killing civilians on trade vessels not bound for Israel?
I wouldn't know, since a single tribe (a good amount whom aren't members of the government) hasn't done that.
Calm down. Americans only recently learned where Palestine was. The grey mush they call a brain can only handle so much.
lib priorities