World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
But the houthis continue to attack civilian vessels again.
One can both oppose the US' (horrifying) support of Israel's genocide, and also criticise the indiscriminate targeting of civilian vessels by the houthis.
Yes. Because israel broke the ceasefire
There is nothing indiscriminate about it. They only target ships from nations participating in the Genocide of Palestinians. Their ships are illegally trespassing until a ceasefire is reached.
The Houthi's have done an outstanding job at selective targeting and upholding international law. Meanwhile you are here advocating for Genocide.
I'm aware of why they continue the strikes - but I take issue with the strikes themselves.
The problem is the ships targeted are frequently not linked whatsoever to Israel, or its supporters. The houthis are attacking ships far outside the entire Yemeni exclusive economic zone, so no, the ships in international waters are not trespassing.
Targeting civilian ships, especially those unrelated to the conflict, is absolutely unacceptable. Additionally, their approach directly drives up food prices, which disproportionately affects those most affected by food scarcity, including but not limited to the Palestinians themselves.
Oh get the fuck out of it. I directly oppose Israel's war on Gaza, and frequently attend protests against my own country's support of them.
No the ships are virtually all linked to israel (and more recently also America and Britain since they started bombing Yemen).
I have debunked this myth like 50 times by now but if you fancy just name one ship and I can show you how it was linked very quickly.
I have only seen one single instance of false targeting; a ship going to Russia that used to be British owned half a year ago which was falsely fired at because the Houthi's used an outdated ownership list.
Also good job on going to protests that's highly commendable and praiseworthy.
Sophie II, Japanese, flying Panamanian flag.
Ardmore Encounter, Bermudan, Marshall islands flag. An Israeli previously held shares of the company that owns this one, but had divested months before.
Maersk Gibraltar, Danish, Hong Kong flag.
Al Jasrah, German, Liberian flag.
MSC Palatium III, Swiss, Liberian flag. The company that owns this one had "cooperated with Israel" in the past, though I don't know the extent of this cooperation.
Swan Atlantic, Norwegian, Cayman Islands flag.
MSC Clara, Swiss, Panamanian flag.
Blaamanen, Norwegian owner & flag. This ship was carrying vegetable oil, which would have been an environmental crisis if damaged, and is critical to food supply.
Saibaba, Indian, Gabonese flag.
MSC United VIII, Swiss, Liberian flag.
Maersk Hangzhou, Danish, Singaporean flag. The Israeli "link" for this one is that it has shipped to Israel before, last in October 2023.
These are just the non-israeli-linked ships attacked in Nov/Dec 2023 alone. I can't be arsed to go through Jan and Feb 24 because I'm deeply bored.
In the window I covered, 19 ships were attacked. Assuming I haven't missed any connections for the ones above, that makes a total of 11 non-Israeli-linked and 8 Israeli-linked ships. I'm including US ships as Israeli-linked as an upper bound.
Giving us a total percentage of 42% of ships being Israeli-linked.
Thanks for the praise, but frankly I'm not looking for it. I'm still not super pleased you played the "genocide supporter" card. I would much prefer an apology for that uncalled for statement.
Britain is on the no-go list since they started bombing Yemen to defend israel's Genocide. As is America.
Initially they were not on the list. They put themselves on there.
You can't seriously expect Yemen to let through ships from countries actively at war with them right?
Have fun googling the rest of the list yourself.
Saying that what the Houthi's is doing is wrong is actively defending Genocide. I will not retract that statement.
The way that we ended the Apartheid in South Africa is by economic pressure, sanctions and boycotts. No different than what the Houthi's are doing right now.
What are you quoting? All sources I've read concur that it's Japanese owned (it is owned by Kyowa Shipping, based in Tokyo).
What happened to "I'll tell you how they're secretly linked"? That was the entire purpose of this exercise. You had clearly accepted that targeting unrelated ships is unacceptable, yet failed to actually provide any evidence that the ships, which make up the majority of those attacked, were legitimate targets.
If the houthis were consistently actually targeting Israeli ships then my stance would be different.
Apartheid was not defeated by attacking Japanese ships for a bit of banter, was it, though?
It turns out, entities can claim a different reason for taking an action to their actual goals.
I've made it extraordinarily clear that my issue is not with the goal of blockading Israeli ships, but with the fact that this is not actually what is happening. If you're not even going to pretend to debate in good faith, then we're done here.
Edit: You know I absolutely do not support Israel's genocide, and actively support BDS actions against it. To argue I'm defending their genocide is what we in the business call "a dick move".
Wait you are correct my bad. I was checking the HRW site and misread that it was UK as it was grouped in with a few others
What I can find about AOM Sophie ii is: Registered Owner 1 : KYOWA KISEN CO., LTD. 2 : GREEN SPANKER SHIPPING S.A.
Kisen seems to be Japanese but Green Spanker is weird. It sounds like a merger between companies called Green and Spanker but the owner is supposedly also Japanese. There is a shipping company called Spanker which is registered in HK but does seem to have ties to London
Dato Capital has the registry of Green Spanker
In the related list it shows multiple companies with the Spanker and Green name, involved in shipping
According to the Dato Capital Green Spanker is two companies, however I would need to purchase a 30 bucks document and that's a step too far for me
TLDR: There seem to be similarly named UK companies that might be linked, and there's a lot of British naming, but I have not been able to obtain direct evidence as obtaining that document costs 30 bucks. I'm going to tap out on AOM Sophie II screw Panama.
I understand that your issue is with the Houthi's attacking non combatant ships (of which the majority have still been linked to banned countries) but it remains one of the most direct way to put global economic pressure on the world to stop the Genocide in Gaza. Our governments are incentivized by money they do not care about human lives. When the pockets start hurting they suddenly start finding solutions.
It's not unusual for Japanese companies that trade internationally to have English names that sound strange.
So it's a joint venture between two Japanese companies, meaning it is not a valid target - in fact Japan has been highly critical of Israel iirc.
42% is not a majority - and it's most certainly nowhere near your initial description of "almost all" except for that one mistake.
And yet you still consider me a supporter of genocide for criticising the targeting of innocent civilians.
I understand that sanctions can be effective but they must be appropriately targeted.
As sad as it may be, it's very common for nations to act in their own interest under the guise of doing something noble. Assuming that all countries that side with an oppressed party are acting purely out of the goodness of their heart is an easy way to find yourself supporting a country doing appalling things for their own benefit. A broken clock etc.
You are very correct in that statement
I had checked around 8 hit ships linked before and almost all all had ties to israel but those usually just come up if it receives big damage. The first Galaxy Leader was also told not to be linked to israel but was owned by israeli business man Rami Ungar.
The two hit last week were supposedly Greece-based firm Star Bulk Carriers Corp. But that turned out to be a US-listed company And UK registered Rubymar of the current post took a massive hit but that was also a valid target.
Strinda was also initially claimed as just going to italy but had a stop planned in israel right after. These are just a few examples were all initially claimed to have no links and subsequently actually had some.
Because ships have such a massive web of shell companies it's really difficult to find out who actually owns and operates them. I just checked another random one from your list called Clara and the Houthi's claim they gave the ship a warning which it ignored but direct links are not shown.
“The attack was launched after the two ships refused to obey orders of the Yemeni naval forces,” Saree added in a statement."
Of course, everyone is just working in their own self-interest. This might be a great opportunity for the Houthi's to "gain some rep" but the fact of the matter is they actually undertake action against israel's Genocide by these costly disruptions. Though these ships you are linking are indeed concerning.
So, are we now agreed that one can criticise the houthis without being a "supporter of genocide"?
If so, I'll take that apology now, please.
Yes I will apologize for that one, criticism on their targeting seems valid. Thank you for providing a list of evidence.
I do still support the goal of turning the Genocide in Gaza into a financial problem for all the parties involved, but it does look like non-involved parties have been targeted.
One caveat I still hold is that we often only hear of links to banned nations after major damage on a ship. But the burden of proof for that initially lies on the Houthi's themselves. If Houthi's don't show how they believe a ship is linked to a banned nation, then they are not providing sufficient justification to attack it.