Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you have a fact source or just vague associations? The statement at question is "Most of the ships they target are either own fully or partially by Israeli companies, or are headed to Israeli ports" From source Wikipedia, this is not true. Only 3 of 17 have Israeli ownership or ports of call. Do you have a source for Israeli ownership or ports of call for 6 more ships? Also, your stated class of "owned by Israel-s…
The “goalposts” are defined by the Houthis and unless you think they’re careless or have ulterior motives compared to their stated aim of stopping the Israeli genocide of Palestine, then there must be other reasons they have. For one I’ve heard they take action if a ship doesn’t respond to their hails.
Maersk ship hit by missile in the Red Sea
481–490 of 500 posts
Re: Maersk ship hit by missile in the Red Sea
#482Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, and? People die naturally, they always eventually do. Does that make murder a nop?
The point is displacement doesn’t necessarily destroy nations. Murder necessarily kills. Forced displacement is a war crime. It isn’t genocide. I’ll go one step further and argue that this sort of bombastic rhetoric hurts the pro-Palestinian cause.
> his sort of bombastic rhetoric hurts the pro-Palestinian cause.
First off, that dichomoty of "pro-Israel" or "pro-Palestine" something I reject. I stand for international law and against Nazis. I know you find that "bombastic", too, but I prefer the company I'm in.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zM2fXTkjU2
Secondly, it's not even that clear cut as you make it out to be.
https://time.com/6334409/is-whats-happening-gaza-genocide-ex...
> Raz Segal, the program director of genocide studies at Stockton University, concretely says it is a “textbook case of genocide.” Segal believes that Israeli forces are completing three genocidal acts, including, “killing, causing serious bodily harm, and measures calculated to bring about the destruction of the group.” He points to the mass levels of destruction and total siege of basic necessities—like water, food, fuel, and medical supplies—as evidence.
If a director of genocide studies says there is a case to be made, there is a case to be made. I can try to make the case, if you want, until dang steps in to curtail a flamewar between two people who aren't even mad at each other and who nobody else reads ^^
But more importantly, what practical difference do you see?
I say our neighbour is murdering his daughter, right now. All sorts of people come from the brushwork to call me a neighbour-hater, berate me in all sorts of ways, seek nuance, blah di blah. Turns out, he didn't murder his daughter, he was "just" raping her and cutting her legs off while people made excuses to do fuck all. And then they feel vindicated even! See? False alarm. It wasn't crime A that is beyond that pale, it was crime B that is beyond that pale!
Hannah Arendt explained how totalitarianism can only by fully understood by obduction, and how people who can't get mobilized by what is already known, wouldn't be mobilized by the full picture either.
Don't criticize me for doing imperfectly what you are not doing at all and expect anything but a tired groan. Put people on trial and then the judges can and should be nuanced. Until then, nope.
Re: Maersk ship hit by missile in the Red Sea
#483Earlier quoted context omitted.
My point is it’s not cheaper it’s more expensive, at precisely the wrong time. Sure shipping costs might be a small fraction of the costs of goods…but…unless it’s TLDR: it’s more than 2%, the average value of a shipping container is 50k, it costs 3k to mover. This is an issue, let’s resolve it. https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/mari...
FYI: You misread your link, it quotes the average value of a Twenty Foot Equivalent Unit as 55K, so 109K for an FEU which costs 3K to ship. Furthermore, these numbers are wholesale values; a reasonable rule of thumb is to double that for retail prices. That puts the cost of sea freight at about 1.3% of retail using your numbers. Even a doubling would be dwarfed by other factors driving inflation.
Re: Maersk ship hit by missile in the Red Sea
#484Earlier quoted context omitted.
wait so your logic is its Ok to attack unrelated civilians in order to promote a political agenda ? that sure sounds like what you're supporting is literal terrorism "it can be seen as a form of treating israel" - thats the most feeble of excuses for terrorism
That's not what I said or believe. And regardless, the fact the intent of attempting to stop ships is missing from the article is abhorrent
what is the intent?
Re: Maersk ship hit by missile in the Red Sea
#485Earlier quoted context omitted.
>>As if the houthis in yemen are attacking ships because they like it or just because they "hate developed societies". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slogan_of_the_Houthi_movement
It looks like they adopted the slogan in the early 2000s, so wonder why attack Maersk ships now…
Re: Maersk ship hit by missile in the Red Sea
#486Earlier quoted context omitted.
The “goalposts” are defined by the Houthis and unless you think they’re careless or have ulterior motives compared to their stated aim of stopping the Israeli genocide of Palestine, then there must be other reasons they have. For one I’ve heard they take action if a ship doesn’t respond to their hails.
Do you have a fact source or just things you’ve heard?
Re: Maersk ship hit by missile in the Red Sea
#487Earlier quoted context omitted.
For you it seems to be all about having a nice site. For me it's about having a nice world in which people can enjoy intellectual curiosity without being monstrously guilty for it. > Between 8 December 2023 and 7 February 2024, the entire population in the Gaza Strip (about 2.2 million people) is classified in IPC Phase 3 or above (Crisis or worse). This is the highest share of people facing high levels of acute food…
> For you it seems I appreciate you saying "seems" because that's not how I feel. I hear what you say and trust that you sincerely feel strongly about this, but it's not ok to channel that into posting abusively. Moreover, since we've had to ask you this before, in an unrelated context, this isn't just about the current topic. Commenters often assume that feeling strongly about being right (as they see it) on an impo…
Okay, I'll try. That is, name-calling and personal attack I can do without, that's obviously more than fair.
I'm just not entirely sure what the "flame war" thing is about, what I do to start or prolong them in your mind. When someone says something I consider incorrect, I refute it. Yeah, I added a lot of extra here I guess, but even without that, long comments with a bunch of quotes and links tend to be my thing. FWIW, they tend to be a LOT longer first draft, if you can believe that. As much snark or passion may have remained in some, it's not that I'm not trying at all. If that (long comments and not letting someone have the last word unless I agree or we're going in circles) is considered "flamewar" I can't help it and must plead guilty and unrepentant and be removed. No hard feelings, either.
But I honestly I don't understand why "too much activity" becomes a problem for you, even on day old threads -- or if it even does, I don't really grok you in that regard. But that's been my impression, as if you think it takes away from discussion of other topics?
During times like these, just like, say, when Appelbaum got cancelled, I do kind of get this thing that Brecht described, where you feel you can't discuss innocent topics while this elephant is in the room. At least not endlessly. Unless it's right in my ball park, something else I deeply care about or know a lot about, I pass, I'm not going to read up and learn on something new and then form a comment based on that, as I otherwise might. Just not in the mood. What I'm trying to say is, if I didn't post these comments (minus the personal attacks, but let's call them activist or political and maybe a bit too long) I would post none, I wouldn't post on other subjects instead.
But I don't post in random threads and try to make them about the chip on my shoulder, either. That's the best I can do, really.
And we don't even have notifications, so when people keep posting in week old threads back and forth, it's because they're both manually checking to see if the other replied. In other words, it's between consenting adults, and as long as it's really just disagreement and splitting hairs and all that, and not abusive, is that really a problem?
Again, other points taken, please don't take this as a long-winded way of say "yes, but" to name-calling and getting personal. It's just your usage of "flamewar" that is hazy to me. To me, flaming someone is name-calling and getting personal, but not a lengthy or "endless" debate as such.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flaming_(Internet)#Flame_war
The tricky things in society, the ones that matter deeply to people or which they literally need to live, just aren't like programming anecdotes and all that, where people can have different experiences and no friction. Of course you're right in that this means one should take extra care to not add friction, and I'll renew my efforts for that. But I don't think friction as such is always bad. Too much of it is, but having zero is also a red flag IMO.
Re: Maersk ship hit by missile in the Red Sea
#488Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Israel has the means to kill far more people, if it wanted to - it just doesn't. That you say this and still come on to me with that "I share your values" stuff is just gold.
I don't understand people who say this, I really don't. If I were to say "the US is capable of nuking Iraq and killing most of their civilians", that would just be a true statement of the capabilities of the US. That they chose not to do so during the Iraq war is proof of something about the US's intentions . It's proof of the value that the US places on human lives, despite it sometimes costing the US dearly. Of cou…
> If we act strategically correctly, there will be immigration and we will live in the Gaza Strip. We will not allow a situation where 2 million people live there. If there are 100-200 thousand Arabs in Gaza, all the talk about the day after will be different.
https://twitter.com/GLZRadio/status/1741347524693127398
That is the intention of those I stand against.
https://twitter.com/MiddleEastEye/status/1742199071761142056
These are the values of those I criticize.
To say "we could have murdered more" and think one can be in any sort related or even adjacent to the tradition of enlightenment and human rights at the same time is preposterous.
Re: Maersk ship hit by missile in the Red Sea
#489Earlier quoted context omitted.
> For you it seems I appreciate you saying "seems" because that's not how I feel. I hear what you say and trust that you sincerely feel strongly about this, but it's not ok to channel that into posting abusively. Moreover, since we've had to ask you this before, in an unrelated context, this isn't just about the current topic. Commenters often assume that feeling strongly about being right (as they see it) on an impo…
Man, you do have a thick skin, I'll give you that. How could I have been snarkier? Yet you breeze right past that to comment something generous and constructive. That's not something I am any good at, but I do respect it greatly. Okay, I'll try. That is, name-calling and personal attack I can do without, that's obviously more than fair. I'm just not entirely sure what the "flame war" thing is about, what I do to star…
Re "long comments with a bunch of quotes and links", there's nothing wrong with that in principle but sometimes people arrive with pre-existing talking points and whatnot and that's not curious conversation—it feels like being recited to tediously. I'd try to avoid that. But if you're relating to what the other person is saying, remaining respectful, and not just copy-pasting, there's no reason that can't be curious conversation, and it certainly doesn't need to be flamewar.
Ok I think I made my main points after all so I might not need to come back later :)
Edit: But you can't post stuff like https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38849625 - that's just too aggressive, and "what part of X don't you understand" is both a swipe and a flamewar trope!
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38849701 is also borderline by HN standards, I'm afraid - but would probably be ok without the last sentence. Your comments will be better (for HN) and also more persuasive if you don't use overwrought rhetoric like that.
Re: Maersk ship hit by missile in the Red Sea
#490Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you have a fact source or just things you’ve heard?
My facts were from various Twitter posts - I don't have them on hand but you can search fairly easily. It's pretty clear that wikipedia data doesn't cover this level of detail - but using game theory - it's pretty reasonable that the Houthis have a political goal and being random or scattershot in their attacks would dilute that goal.
The Houthi org certainly has some motivation. Do the facts match the claimed motivation or not?