this post was submitted on 27 Mar 2025
1547 points (95.4% liked)

Microblog Memes

7272 readers
5159 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
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] CodeInvasion@sh.itjust.works 119 points 1 week ago (16 children)

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

[–] Taiatari@lemmynsfw.com 73 points 1 week ago (4 children)

You know, I don't question what you have said; however, this group chat has put many asterisks on this whole situation. I believe one person in that chat has said something to the effect of: "remember the narrative, Biden's fault and Iran backed." Makes me less sure about the whole story and motivations.

[–] evidences@lemmy.world 58 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

I mean I'm sure the Trump admin has alternate motives, since they lie about everything, but the US has definitely been bombing the Houthis in Yeman since at least 2016.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/oct/13/us-enters-yemen-war-bombing-houthis-who-launched-missiles-at-navy-ship

Here's an article from the Guardian dated in late 2016 announcing the US first strike on the rebel group.

[–] troed@fedia.io 23 points 1 week ago

If you're not sure about the story and motiviations, did you spend any time on looking up what actually happens in Yemen?

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/3/22/every-shot-fired-are-yemens-houthis-a-proxy-force-for-iran

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 15 points 1 week ago

And Vance said something to the effect of, he didn't want to do it because it would benefit Europe more than it would benefit America.

[–] jaybone@lemmy.world 14 points 1 week ago (6 children)

It’s always going to be Bidens fault, and Obama’s fault, and Clinton’s fault. Whether it’s terrorism or egg prices or the economy or

But that doesn’t excuse Iran’s behavior either.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 35 points 1 week ago (7 children)

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 34 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.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] FMT99@lemmy.world 22 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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 16 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

[–] Iceman@lemmy.world 20 points 1 week ago

Claiming that the Houtis are Iranian controlled is sheer missinformation.

[–] Valmond@lemmy.world 14 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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 25 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (4 children)

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)
[–] Sop@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (3 children)

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 18 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

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

[–] Count042@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] superkret@feddit.org -3 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Once they are recognized by the UN, they can legally act as the legitimate government of Yemen.

[–] lorty@lemmy.ml 8 points 6 days ago (1 children)

The UN isn't the world police, in case you didn't know

[–] superkret@feddit.org -3 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 4 points 6 days ago (2 children)

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.

[–] superkret@feddit.org 1 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

~~Yes, that is BS.~~
I wasn't talking about the security council at all.

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 2 points 6 days ago (1 children)

You're talking about the UN, where members of the security council have veto power.

[–] superkret@feddit.org 1 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 2 points 6 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] superkret@feddit.org 1 points 6 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

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.~~

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 2 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] superkret@feddit.org 2 points 6 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 days ago

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.

[–] Microw@lemm.ee 0 points 6 days ago (1 children)

That is how professors of International law usually define a legitime country, yes: by vote in the general assembly (not the security council). Like for example Palestine, which has been recognized for decades by the General Assembly.

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 2 points 6 days ago (1 children)
[–] Microw@lemm.ee 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

From your link: "it obtained the status of a non-member observer State in November 2012"

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 days ago

I was wrong about that aspect, but they do still get veto power over admission of a state to the UN.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)