Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

African Ports Overwhelmed by Red Sea Reroutings

gcaptain.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 219 posts

Re: African Ports Overwhelmed by Red Sea Reroutings

#161

Post by j4yav »

Geisterde wrote: post #139
j4yav wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their grievances are pretty simple and straightforward, they even put them in writing on their flag, which is just green and red text on a white background. Which ones specifically are you willing to support or concede for peace? Here's the list: 1. God is the Greatest 2. Death to America 3. Death to Israel 4. A Curse Upon the Jews 5. Victory to Islam

Does it make you feel intelligent to reduce a complex organism to whats on a flag?

I don't know why we wouldn't listen to them if they tell us exactly what they want in no uncertain terms. I guess you don't have an answer then.. is it because you don't find any of their demands palatable, or because you don't want to admit you at least partially agree with them?

Re: African Ports Overwhelmed by Red Sea Reroutings

#162

Post by bozhark »

ceejayoz wrote: post #25
chef0 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“The Houthis aren’t going to stop what they’re doing, until the Israeli offensive in Gaza concludes,” Gregory Brew, an analyst at the Eurasia Group, told Al Jazeera, “and even then they are likely to continue for some time after.” Their demands and intentions are quite clear and solely focused on Israeli-bound ships, although it does seem like this is giving them more leverage with respect to Yemen's agenda which has…

> Their demands and intentions are quite clear and solely focused on Israeli-bound ships... Their actions haven't been, though. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houthi_involvement_in_the_2023... > On 12 December 2023, the Houthis launched an anti-ship cruise missile attack against the Norwegian commercial ship Strinda, an oil and chemical tanker operated by the J. Ludwig Mowinckels Rederi company, while it was close to…

Isn’t one of the owners of the ship’s company an Israeli Billionaire?

Re: African Ports Overwhelmed by Red Sea Reroutings

#163

Post by taeric »

Geisterde wrote: post #139
j4yav wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their grievances are pretty simple and straightforward, they even put them in writing on their flag, which is just green and red text on a white background. Which ones specifically are you willing to support or concede for peace? Here's the list: 1. God is the Greatest 2. Death to America 3. Death to Israel 4. A Curse Upon the Jews 5. Victory to Islam

Does it make you feel intelligent to reduce a complex organism to whats on a flag?

This is literally what they put on their own flag, though? Not like it is an ancient flag, either; so you can't "contextualize" it in a way that does it any favors.

I'm curious what makes you want to ignore it?

Re: African Ports Overwhelmed by Red Sea Reroutings

#164

Post by Geisterde »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #146
yard2010 wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're oversimplifying I'm afraid. Just because people make money out of war doesn't necessarily mean it's for no reason. Just like the war on Nazis, some wars have to be fought, especially if your goal is to save lives.

> like the war on Nazis, some wars have to be fought The commenter you’re responding to would have preferred we’d let the Nazis do their thing [1]. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38734555

That is quite disrespectful, on the contrary hitler did have a lot of support fron the US, and I wont quickly forget the all star cast of bankers, politicians, and media that supplied that aid. Nor will I forget the top picks from the Nazi experiment that were wisked away to safety. I believe it far more likely that you would come to their defense than I.

Re: African Ports Overwhelmed by Red Sea Reroutings

#165

Post by JumpCrisscross »

AlecSchueler wrote: post #160
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Aren't China consistently critical of violent aggression? No, they frequently support violence when it’s internal suppression. They also support violence for e.g. taking Taiwan. The simple answer is China can have its cake and eat it too, so why not.

Sorry, I thought aggression on the international stage was more clearly implied. I understand there are issues in Taiwan, Tibet, Ugyyhur province. But they aren't invading countries around the world to involve themselves in other people's problems. I'm not sure what you're saying in your last paragraph. China have worked consistently with SA and Yemen to try to facilitate peace talks. They were opposed to the wars in…

> they aren't invading countries around the world to involve themselves in other people's problems

China invaded and annexed Nepal (EDIT: Tibet). They’re also prominently involved in Central Asian and African politics.

> not sure what you're saying in your last paragraph

China depends on Middle Eastern oil. The Strait of Hormuz and Bab-el-Mandab closing pose an existential crisis to it. Letting America deal with the problem lets Beijing focus on messaging.

Re: African Ports Overwhelmed by Red Sea Reroutings

#166

Post by bozhark »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #80
Geisterde wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, we never had to be involved. In fact, the holocaust started after we declated war, and we kept it a secret that we sunk a japanese submarine that was near Hawaii because it would have tipped off the forces there that they needed to be ready to defend themselves. Pearl harbor was allowed to happen to justify going to war, soldiers and sailors killed for what exactly?

> we never had to be involved [in WWII] Ffs, can we have someone defending Arab interests who doesn’t pivot to de facto defending the literal Nazis?

Any chain of comments longer than 7…

Re: African Ports Overwhelmed by Red Sea Reroutings

#167

Post by JumpCrisscross »

Geisterde wrote: post #164
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> like the war on Nazis, some wars have to be fought The commenter you’re responding to would have preferred we’d let the Nazis do their thing [1]. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38734555

That is quite disrespectful, on the contrary hitler did have a lot of support fron the US, and I wont quickly forget the all star cast of bankers, politicians, and media that supplied that aid. Nor will I forget the top picks from the Nazi experiment that were wisked away to safety. I believe it far more likely that you would come to their defense than I.

> hitler did have a lot of support fron the US

Straw man. Also, in the 1940s. We condemn them for it. Very different from saying we should have let them be today, with the benefit of hindsight.

> believe it far more likely that you would come to their defense than I

Says the person who already has.

Re: African Ports Overwhelmed by Red Sea Reroutings

#168

Post by JumpCrisscross »

zdragnar wrote: post #157
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay, now do the Clara and Swan Atlantic. What you’ve got is independent militant groups firing off while a rear PR group tries to project control.

Both the Clara and Swan were supposedly refusing to answer hails: https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/ukmto-ambrey-repor... Houthi spokesperson Yahya Sarea identified the vessels as the MSC Clara and Norwegian-owned Swan Atlantic, and said the attacks were carried out after their crews failed to respond to calls from the group. There's no mystery here. Nobody anywhere is wondering just what hijinks these groups…

> Both the Clara and Swan were supposedly refusing to answer hails

Right, which is a touch broader than “targeting Israeli ships.”

(It’s also convenient retcon. Where would I go next…paperwork wasn’t promptly provided? Paperwork appeared forged? We thought they were lying?)

Re: African Ports Overwhelmed by Red Sea Reroutings

#170

Post by AlecSchueler »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #165
AlecSchueler wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, I thought aggression on the international stage was more clearly implied. I understand there are issues in Taiwan, Tibet, Ugyyhur province. But they aren't invading countries around the world to involve themselves in other people's problems. I'm not sure what you're saying in your last paragraph. China have worked consistently with SA and Yemen to try to facilitate peace talks. They were opposed to the wars in…

> they aren't invading countries around the world to involve themselves in other people's problems China invaded and annexed Nepal (EDIT: Tibet). They’re also prominently involved in Central Asian and African politics. > not sure what you're saying in your last paragraph China depends on Middle Eastern oil. The Strait of Hormuz and Bab-el-Mandab closing pose an existential crisis to it. Letting America deal with the…

When did China invade Nepal? I'm aware that they have close relationships politically with many countries but that's very different than invading them, overthrowing their leaders or arming groups that will destabilise them.

I'm not sure I agree with your last point. It feels like you're assuming that the American solution is necessary or the only way. As I said above, other actors may see it differently.

Post reply on HN