Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

...and Yemen!

Engagement and an answer are not the same things, and THERE HAS BEEN NO ANSWER.
there is an answer. the zionists had the choice of killing lots of people and not killing lots of people and they opted for the former, which looks likely to see a fuckton more people get killed without resolving the cause of conflict. if instead of deciding to kill lots of people the zionists had taken the events of 7/10 as a wake up call, and had decided to end the great conflict once and for all they could have. they could have decided to abide by international law and the un security council resolution i referred to and they would have redeemed the reputation of the zionist entity. but they didn't and now their abominable state is in the dock for genocide. so for me the answer to your question is obvious - the zionists should have shown themselves the bigger people and removed the bone of contention.
 
And if Hamas hadn't done what it did, we would not have the situation in Gaza we have now.

I've asked this question before, and failed to get an answer. What should Israel's response have been to the Hamas attack?
How about an eye for any eye, and a tooth for a tooth, instead of twenty eyes for one eye, and twenty twenty teeth for one tooth? In other words, as proportionate response?
 
What do you think they should have done Sas?

Responded, in a proportionate manner.

It is a an almost impossible question to answer... yes, they had to respond, but how much? When combatants are embedded in the civilian population, any response is going to kill civilians. (Not that the deliberate targeting of civilians has ever been off limits in war, Dresden, Coventry, Berlin, Cologne...). Hamas doesn't give a fuck about civilian casualties, indeed, the more the better from their viewpoint.

In the event the response, by any measure has been disproportionate. The destruction of infrastructure is appalling.

The ending of this requires good will from two entities, neither of which has any at the moment.

Is there a role for the UN to put in troops and enforce a ceasefire?

It isn't just the current carnage that is so depressing, it is also the 'where do we go from here' aspect. Israel isn't going to forgive Hamas any time soon, and the same applies in the other direction.
 
there is an answer. the zionists had the choice of killing lots of people and not killing lots of people and they opted for the former, which looks likely to see a fuckton more people get killed without resolving the cause of conflict. if instead of deciding to kill lots of people the zionists had taken the events of 7/10 as a wake up call, and had decided to end the great conflict once and for all they could have. they could have decided to abide by international law and the un security council resolution i referred to and they would have redeemed the reputation of the zionist entity. but they didn't and now their abominable state is in the dock for genocide. so for me the answer to your question is obvious - the zionists should have shown themselves the bigger people and removed the bone of contention.

I don't disagree with the tenor of your post, but it is an immense ask. It would have brought down the Israeli government, which may or may not have been a good thing. I don't even begin to understand Israeli politics, other than it seems to take months to form a government after elections.
 
I don't disagree with the tenor of your post, but it is an immense ask. It would have brought down the Israeli government, which may or may not have been a good thing. I don't even begin to understand Israeli politics, other than it seems to take months to form a government after elections.
i am glad you now accept it was an answer
 
The shipping lanes must remain clear of threat for the greater good of humanity. It is a cold winter. Heating oil must be readily available. I support the decision of the world's two greatest navies to repulse attacks on neutral shipping


 
Last edited:
What matters is that the UK is killing people in Yemen in support of the slaughter if innocents in the Gaza Strip.

That isn’t the reason for the airstrikes. :rolleyes: Look I think there should be a ceasefire in Gazza, what Israel is doing looks criminal to me. However Attacking civilian, cargo ships is quite obviously going to get a robust response at some point. It’s not like they weren’t warned.
 
Some good quotes:

Radhiya al Mutawakil, chair of Mwatana for Human Rights, in Sana’a:
When we heard the airstrikes’ explosions yesterday, it brought back memories of the Saudi airstrikes of the past eight years and the memories of that ugly war.

We were shocked, not knowing the extent of this new round of violence. Is it just a show of force? Or is it a new round of fighting? As the day passed and we saw that the strikes were almost identical to those of Saudis, the Yemenis in the streets dismissed them, joking: “Ah, they are the same strikes, but this time in English.”
The Houthis, as we can hear and see in the streets today, are happy with these strikes; they are using them as a propaganda victory. They say: “We are finally facing the real enemies: the US and Britain"

The irony is that eight years of war, with the pretext of weakening the Houthis, had, in fact, made them stronger. When the war started, the Houthis didn’t own rockets to hit their targets in Yemen. Now they have missiles that can strike targets in the sea and far into the region,

(And this one is for klang )

The Houthis are the de facto authority that rules Sana’a. They have committed their share of violations, and the people [living in areas under their control] do not have much love for them. Still, as much as the Yemenis are exhausted from their own war, it is hard for them not to sympathise with the Palestinians. So for the Yemenis, even those who are opposed to the Houthis, it is hard for them not to sympathise with the Houthis attempt to support the Palestinians by attacking Israeli shipping in the Red Sea. At the same time, the Houthis are using these strikes to expand their popularity.

Farea Al-Muslimi, a research fellow at Chatham House’s Middle East and North Africa programme:
for sure, the Houthis will now militarily mobilise more Yemenis to fight; they have already mobilised thousands of people in the past few weeks, and now they will recruit more and they will use these new forces to fight their opponents internally. These airstrikes are like a nugget of gold for the Houthis.

Finally, they are in a direct confrontation with the US. Whatever the price for that, it is worth it for them. I do believe they will attack more ships in Bab al-Mandab and the Red Sea and oil infrastructure in the Gulf and US bases there.

The donkey has entered the market.

In Yemen, whenever a problem is out of control, we say khalas – it’s done – the donkey has entered the market and is running havoc, and we can say the same thing after these strikes: the donkey has entered the market.
 
If it were only Israeli ships being attacked, then I would object to the current operations of the USN & RN in the area...
 
That isn’t the reason for the airstrikes. :rolleyes: Look I think there should be a ceasefire in Gazza, what Israel is doing looks criminal to me. However Attacking civilian, cargo ships is quite obviously going to get a robust response at some point. It’s not like they weren’t warned.
The UK and the US were no doubt warned by the Houthis that ships would be attacked if they did not stop supporting the war on the people of the Gaza Strip. However, the UK and the USA chose to bomb Yemen, rather than choosing to cease providing military support to the State of Israel.
 
The UK and the US were no doubt warned by the Houthis that ships would be attacked if they did not stop supporting the war on the people of the Gaza Strip. However, the UK and the USA chose to bomb Yemen, rather than choosing to cease providing military support to the State of Israel.
I think that when the houthi's threat was received the white house filled with a hollow laughter and a 'lol, fuck off you little clowns. Try us.'
 
I support the decision of the world's two greatest navies to repulse attacks on neutral
Pls bare in mind that the houthi's incredibly swift rise to power was saleh's brain child, supported by the us, the uk, the saudis, and others. To crush the arab spring, and as a revenge.

There is a similarity to the muhajideen ----> taliban, in terms of being extremely short sighted, and then turning against allies.

Or using people to one's advantage before turning on them
 
I'd even go further and say that the rise of the houthis is a direct result of the support of the muhajideen.
When yemeni fighters returned from afghanistan they brought with them a new form of radical Islamism, paving the way for the islah party, and thereby making Islamism a viable force in yemeni politics. It was only a question of time before this was seen as a serious political concept to counter western imperialism. The houthis thrive on this.
 
Back
Top Bottom