A cargo ship that was struck by a Houthi ballistic missile on Monday has created an 18-mile long oil slick in the Red Sea as it continues to take on water, two US officials said Friday.
The M/V Rubymar — a Belize-flagged, UK-registered, Lebanese-owned vessel — was carrying 41,000 tons of fertilizer when it was struck on Monday by one of two ballistic missiles fired from Houthi territory in Yemen.
US Central Command said the ship is currently anchored as it takes on water. “The Houthis continue to demonstrate disregard for the regional impact of their indiscriminate attacks, threatening the fishing industry, coastal communities, and imports of food supplies,” US Central Command said.
The Houthis have been ridiculous about their justifications for attacks, but where was this ship headed? It doesn’t say in the article.
Bulgaria
Doesn’t matter. It’s civil disobedience with missiles. The point is less to destroy an enemy, and more to cause enough fuss that the various Western powers - almost all of whom are supporting the genocide in Palestine - change their behavior under the pressure.
Civil disobedience doesn’t include violence. Much less military power.
It’s literally in the name - “civil”! Do words not mean anything to these bots?
It isn’t civil disobedience because it’s trying to influence international politics. Civil disobedience isn’t always non-violent though. In fact I’d argue it requires a certain amount of violence, usually because it’s met with violence. Non-violent protest has never made a change happen on its own. It always at least requires a threat of violence.
It’s an act of war. The Houthis are not a rogue operation; they are part of a much larger global march to war. Any view other than this is the opening 2 years of a new global conflict is incomplete.
I was just commenting on why it isn’t civil disobedience, because the other comment was wrong in why. Civil disobedience doesn’t necessarily mean non-violent, but it does mean internal to your country. It’s the same root as civics. It isn’t from the meaning of civil meaning polite, just like a civil war isn’t polite.
We are quite certainly in the beginning-ish of WW3.
I call them the Poopy… Poopies. The Poopies.
Infantilizing the precarious scenario the world currently finds itself in isn’t going to make it go away.
I don’t really do that. But that’s what people that say “Putler” sound like to me. Or “Drumpf” or any of that bullshit. Or use the term “pissbaby”. I mean, come on.
Idk, Gandhi and MLK Jr most definitely led peaceful movements that made change happen, and that’s just the two most obvious examples. You could say that civil disobedience can lead to violence, especially from the side of the oppressors, but one of the main tenets of civil disobedience is nonviolence.
I would say that once the protestors or oppressed resort to violence, themselves, it is no longer just civil disobedience.
I agree with you that the Houthi attack isn’t an example of this.
I didn’t say it can’t be peaceful, I just said it doesn’t have to be. That isn’t why it’s called that. Also, MLK’s protests were constantly called riots by the racist media at the time. No one should let the people in power define how they can decent, because they would decide you aren’t allowed to at all.
Insert whatever word you prefer. Agitation, strong-arm tactics… go nuts.
Attention seeking destruction.
Yah, that works.
Civil disobedience: refusal to obey governmental demands or commands especially as a nonviolent and usually collective means of forcing concessions from the government - Merriam-Webster
This is not civil disobedience by any definition. It is violent, and it is not refusing to follow an unjust law.
Tell me, when did Dr. King or Ghandi shoot missiles at people?
It was an analogy, bub. Touch grass.
funny way to spell terrorism.
Lemmy probably defended ISIS too.
DAE stopping Genocide is the same as doing Genocide?
If you don’t even know the difference between ISIS and the Houthi’s because you think every Arab group is the same, don’t comment on foreign policy.