The title of the article, "when Yemen does it...", "it" is referring to blockades, misleading readers to believe that the US is labeling the houthis as terrorists because of the blockade, while the terrorist label has been applied because the houthis keep shooting missiles at ships without provocation.

The article is ignoring the weeks of being fired upon first that the US shot down missiles without any retaliatory action.

Then the US labeled the group firing missiles on ships and attacking ships without provocation terrorists.

The author seems concerned that if the people firing missiles at international ships without provocation are labeled terrorists, they might receive less aid, even though aid exemptions have been added?

Potentially receiving less aid seems like a reasonable consequence given that the ships providing aid are being fired upon without provocation by the government receiving aid.

[–] homura1650@lemm.ee 9 points 10 months ago (1 children)

How do you think blockades work? The Houthi's didn't fire at ships for no reason. They fired at ships for violating the blockade. If they didn't do that, there would be no blockade.

[–] Varyk@sh.itjust.works -3 points 10 months ago

The guys whose flag reads "God is the Greatest, Death to America, Death to Israel, A Curse Upon the Jews, Victory to Islam” had no partisan interest in attacking US and Israeli ships?

That is magnanimous of you.

[–] gnuhaut@lemmy.ml 8 points 10 months ago (1 children)

The "Houthis" (Ansarallah) didn't shoot at ships without provocation. They did it as a response to the genocide in Gaza, out of solidarity, to implement a blockade. They said as much, and the article explains this.

The author seems concerned that if the people [...] are labeled terrorists, they might receive less aid, even though aid exemptions have been added?

First of all, the author is not (only, primarily) concerned with aid, but rather trade.

Secondly, and the article explains that but maybe not clearly enough, but sanctions cause lots of companies to stop all dealings with the sanctioned entity, despite humanitarian exceptions. This causes massive friction not just for trade, but also for humanitarian aid, as the humanitarian aid groups need to contract out e.g. logistics to companies, and they need to be able to do payments. Sanctions always cause collateral damage in this way, because they create lots of paperwork and legal grey areas, and companies do not want to deal with this.

Potentially receiving less aid seems like a reasonable consequence

You are aware that thanks to the previous Saudi (and US backed) blockade and US sanctions on Yemen, hundreds of thousands of people died, mostly due to starvation and such, and most of them children. Starving children may very well be the consequence of the US's actions. Do you really think that's fucking reasonable?