Assume if there is no citing of source analysis or quote, it's the twitter or tiktok law.

They are attacking ships that have no weapons or have anything to do with Israel.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

I’m noticing a trend


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Except this is not what the Houthi rebels are doing at all, and has no bearing in this.

Nvm.

Jan 19 is the day. Hopefully they can work out some sort of deal over this long weekend.

Quick googling suggests that there's been several laws with that name. Can you give a specific one?

The U.S. has been providing military equipment and other aid to Israel since 1950. Has it been violating this law that entire time?

No, just since 1976. Countries with nuclear weapons must conform to IAEA regulations and have regular inspections.

Symington Amendment - Wikipedia

Correct, they did not kill innocent civilians and an American in international waters.

Houithi's did launch attacks on American service men, which the United States will never allow without retaliation.

And straight up, any President that wouldn't retaliate against a terrorist attack on our service members should be impeached.

The US Navy beating on pirates and slavers like the Houthis is a 200+ year old tradition. I'm not losing any sleep.

Let me know when they get around to the Saudis.

Probably when the oil runs out and the Saudis switch from financial piracy to the real version.

Hard to argue both that Biden can do whatever he wants regarding domestic policy but is dictatorial when he adheres to the War Powers Act.

Where does flying commercial jet liners through buildings fall?

I think that's the point. When it comes to Ukraine's unwinnable war or getting more weapons for the Gaza genocide, he is willing to skirt the law, find loopholes, and give major concessions. When it comes to student loans, homelessness, school lunches, reproductive rights, and so on, it's a shrug of the shoulders.

He has made it clear what his priorities are and what areas he's willing to be aggressive.

The Executive has long had considerably more leeway over foreign affairs than domestic ones, both through the nature of the laws that bind (or don't) and the interest (or lack thereof) of Congress.

I mean, if you ignore the nearly 1.5 billion in student debt he's forgiven, the free school lunch program states can opt into for districts that qualify, the recently announced program that provides money for food during the summer for families of kids that qualify for free lunches, and so on.

I think you forgot some zeros.

From Dec 6, 2023.

Biden-Harris Administration Announces Nearly $5 Billion in Additional Student Debt Relief | U.S. Department of Education

I did, I meant nearly 150 billion. Thank you for the correction.

That's about 10% of all student debt that was out there despite the supreme court ruling.

The school lunch program you're touting is actually worse than the previous one. It was literally free at the end of Trump's term. Insane that you would use that as a positive for him.

Remember when everyone was getting $10,000 or $20,000 during the campaign? That new plan forgives debts of less than $12,000 only after you've paid in for 10+ years with interest.

And lets not forget that Biden is arguably the person most responsible for the student debt crisis. None of this shit would be necessary if it wasn't for him. Like setting a house on fire and leaving a bucket of water behind.

This is incredibly misleading. PSLF already existed. The government was just really shitty about following through and made people jump through tons of hoops to get it (and not tracking the years properly). Props to Joe for simplifying the process, but to count this as money he personally forgave is wrong. He's just forgiving loans that were supposed to be forgiven under a Bush era law.

The rest is for people who have been paying over 20 years. That's really good but it's also a lot of loans that were never being fully repaid anyway. The government already got its pound of flesh off them. Still better than nothing I guess.

Free at the end of Trump's term because it was included as part of the pandemic relief. Not out of any goodwill by Trump or other republicans. They're the ones forcing students to pay for lunches because they don't want to put kids on the entitlement path from an early age. Extension of the free school lunch plan would have required an act of congress, which wasn't happening. I know you think Biden can force Sinema, Manchin, etc to vote for things but it isn't the way it actually works.

You hate Biden and refuse to give his administration credit for anything, I think that's clear to everyone in the thread by now. The fact that you keep trying to boost Trump to tear Biden down shows the weaknesses in your arguments though. Every time you try to claim he's done nothing, the things his administration has accomplished have been pointed out to you and you move the goal posts in dig in on another position.

It's not propping up Trump. Just pointing out how quickly Democrats have become OK with his policies now that a Democrat is in office. Same for how all the anti-war libs under Bush morphed into neocons the minute he left office.

And yeah, I don't like Biden. He has had a remarkably bad record over his career. Wrong on nearly every single foreign policy issue of the past few decades. Some of the most disastrous bills to come out of Congress were spearheaded by him.

Most of you would hate these policies if it was being done by a politician with an R next to their name.

A majority of GOP governors are refusing to take free money from the feds to feed needy kids over the summer. The problem is not primarily with Dems.

Nope. I think most of us here are not blindly following any ideology. I have no problem agreeing with someone with a "R" beside their name the once in the blue moon they are right on something. Being anti anything just because of the party member that suggests it is stupid. Further, I think most here recognizes that most change come incrementally. "My way or the Highway" "All or nothing" politics gets you no where in a system made for compromise. I do think the system is nearly broken at this point, but I do not think the fix will be to allow dictatorial level control of either party. The best change would weaken the party system all together and make politicians more accountable directly to the people they represent, and not the party and the major donors.
All that said, Biden is not king or God. He is not infallible, and he has definitely made mistakes. But he has done some good things, tried and failed to more and I would rather have him than Trump 100%

It is amazing that people don't see that Republicans will happily take Federal money if it goes directly into corporation pockets, but anything that might help the poor they will do anything to block.

Right, GA took a ton of federal money to pay for things, then touted how great they were that they had a surplus and gave everyone $300.

This..

This as well, hard to see why anyone would risk the alternative by holding a singularly narrow perspective.

I would have preferred if Biden didn't run, but that's not the way things went. Now that the choice is Biden or Trump, I have every reason to vote Biden.

"Coach, we can start Mac Jones or Bailey Zappe at QB tomorrow."

"I reject your false choices, we're going to start Tom Brady."

"Coach, Tom Brady a) doesn't play for us anymore and b) is retired."

"Well, that's not my fault, is it? Anyway, things won't get better for us until we have Tom Brady starting for us."

I stated several days ago in this thread that Biden isn't my first choice and probably wouldn't be my 10th choice as a dem. However, I'm also not going to ignore the good things he's done and the challenges he's faced. The guy is a lifelong moderate that ran as a moderate and bi-partisan option opposite Trump and he's governed considerably to the left of where's traditionally been on most issues.

This thread, and the Israel/Palestine one, have been MBBF'd to the point that there isn't any nuance. We've seen that when that happens in threads both sides come off as uncompromising and as blind followers. So if people come off as blindly loyal to their party or whatever, that's likely why.

Trump was probably the biggest setback to the progressive movement since it really picked up with Bernie's jump into the mainstream, but rather than see and understand that as the problem progressives still see other dems as the enemy. I'm a borderline socialist and largely agree with progressive policies, but I also understand you take your wins where you can get them to build toward something bigger. All or nothing doesn't do anything but turn people away from your movement and the progressive movement isn't big enough on its own. It needs help from both Dems and Independents, but most seem like they'd rather walk away from that help because their beliefs don't line up perfectly. How do you expect to be anything other than persistently pissed off with that approach?

3+ years ago Biden ran a moderate campaign against Trump and got 81+ million votes that were more about keeping Trump out of office than a testament to Biden. We now sit less than a year away from the possibility of Trump returning to office because people are disappointed that Biden has mostly been a generic Dem President, which is what people seemed to be more than ok with when he was elected. It makes absolutely zero sense to me.

I'm sympathetic with progressives on the idea that mainstream Democrats are the (or part of the) problem, indeed I've cast aspersions for decades here on the idiots empowered by the Clinton administration and how they mismanaged the party for ages.

But the idea that if only Bernie & Co were to replace the Democratic Party that everything would be better is the most naive hokum I hear. Sure, if you want this new party to be a permanent minority while Republicans do everything they want, sure, but I'm pretty sure no one really wants that.

America's electoral system is FPTP and two-party. That's reality. Work within that to affect change.

Is Bailey Zappe actively committing genocide? Is he getting us involved in another regional war that will cost trillions and countless innocent lives?

This isn't refusing to raise the minimum wage $0.50 or giving a bailout to some banker who donated to your campaign. It's replaying one of the most disastrous foreign policy decisions in this country's history. This isn't a "moderate" decision, it's being a neocon. The fact that W Bush and Romney's image have been restored among liberals, despite those two being far more destructive to America than Trump, is telling.

If we're doing goofy comparisons, this is more like voting for Goebbels or Hitler. Yeah, I'm sure one is worse. I don't have to participate in that though. Don't have anything against people who vote the lesser evil though. Do what you gotta do.

Being opposed to genocide isn't some progressive issue. It should be an issue for anyone with basic human empathy for others. Defining this as some ask from the far-left is ludicrous considering most Dems were screaming about Bush's endless wars and Trump's vapid racism against Muslims.

Regardless, if you are a true Biden supporter who wants him to win, you should be furious that he is signing this suicide pact with Israel, a country that wants him to lose the election. He is setting himself up to lose next year because of all of this.

It's a bad issue for Dems because they absolutely can't lose the Jewish vote. I don't see how there's an obvious political answer.

Do you really want voters who are advocating genocide on your side?

Nope. I don't want the Palestinian supporters that have been calling for a Jewish genocide for decades, any more than I advocate for the Houthis supporters whose flag literally says "death to the United States, Death To Israel, Curse All Jews". Nor do I want the Jewish supporters that want to kill all Palestinians and don't recognize a need for a Palestinian state.

I'm not for any extremist that calls for the death of all of any race, creed, religion or national origin. Since you support the Houthi, you cannot say the same thing. Heck, the Houthis are for the genocide of Muslims that are not of their beliefs. Your supposed moral high ground doesn't exist.

Do you think maybe they hate America because we've been indiscriminately bombing them for decades? Or that now we've gone full neocon, are we pretending they "hate our freedoms" again?

Regardless, the only genocide taking place is being done by Israel. It is being done with our weapons, guidance, and tax dollars. Your hypothetical genocides are not happening and those groups do not have the capabilities to do it. A bunch of whataboutism doesn't change your support for genocide.

This is not true. I haven't heard you say a single negative thing about Israel committing genocide.


I don't support the Houthis. They're a group in a tiny country that is 10,000 miles away from me. I would prefer our focus be on this country and not theirs (or Saudi Arabia/Israel). But I would be vehemently opposed with our tax dollars being given to them to commit genocide

I think they have hated America from their existence. Mostly because they have been funded to hate America from Iran from their existence. I do think it is funny we are supposed to ignore the call for genocide from groups that the far left supports, as long as that genocide is Jews. Everything you post is Whataboutisms and moving goalposts. No one is fooled by you.

Really? I have been against the war since the beginning. I just also condemn the killing of innocent Jewish Israelis, and recognize the need for a Jewish state. I am against the killing of anyone because of their race, creed or religion.


But you seem to be fine with it right now. You buy their attacks are for Gaza, when it is really for support of conquering Yemen and the genocide of Sunni Muslims within those boarders. They are attacking ships that have nothing to do with Israel by the order of their Iranian masters. Meanwhile, they have used the exact same tactics in Yemen that you claim as "genocide" in Israel. Starving out cities, cutting power and water, indiscriminate murder of innocent women and children.
Why is it genocide in Israel and not genocide in Yemen? Why aren't you condemning both equally?

I think they hate America because we've been meddling in their politics and bombing them for decades. Also oil companies coming in, taking their resources, and destroying their lands seemed to be a big complaint. Not to mention our continued support of Saudi Arabia's attacks on civilians.


You don't have to make things more complex than they are. People hate those who are killing them.

As long as you ignore actual history, sure. But there was no US bombing in Yemen when they were formed, and they have hated the US long before there was any conflict in Yemen which they created. But tell yourself what you need to support genocidal terrorist.

I don't care about Yemen. It's a tiny nation comprised of mostly desert halfway around the globe. Their civil war should not involve US intervention.

I also think you're confusing sides here. The Saudi coalition has killed most of the civilians in Yemen. Houthis work with Sunnis too. It's what caused such a conflict with many Zaydis that used to support them. It's more a nationalist movement than a ideological or religious movement. And if you're concerned with terrorism, the side the United States supports is the side that harbored Al-Qaeda and ISIS. The Houthis are less a threat to the United States although they won't let us gut their resources.

Regardless, Yemen is a proxy war between the Saudis/UAE and Iran. The only reason we're involved is because after the Iran deal pissed off the Saudis, Obama had to make it up to them by bombing the shit out of Yemen. Then providing weapons for the Saudis so they could bomb the shit out of Yemen too. We're just the Saudis puppet in the conflict (although now I guess we're doing this to protect Israeli commerce).



One is using my tax dollars. The other is not. The United States should have nothing to do with this regional conflict.

Your view works great as long as no one reads the actual history of the region. Enjoy the terrorists support.

No they haven't. We were on great terms with them up until the Six-Day War. It went to further shit when Carter sided with the military dictator and providing weaponry in North Yemen during their second civil war.

They hate us because we meddle in their politics and bomb them (or provide bombs for their enemies). Are you sure you're talking about the same country?

You learned about Yemen a week ago and the Houthis 4 days ago. You're just making up shit because you know nothing about the region. I figured the "they hate us for our freedoms" shit was laughed out after the Bush era, but guess we're bringing back the classics.

You said that. I said they hate us because there is money in it, which is just factual.

So they hate us over a financial dispute?

Worth noting all these groups explicitly lay out the reasons for hating us. You don't have to go far for an answer.

Actually, you even admitted that. Read your own statements and get back to me.

I mean they are mad about corruption from the previous regime but still seems like their ire is more about being relentlessly bombed for 15 years over some proxy war. And the last half century of supporting their enemies who are killing them.

They have been killing people a lot longer than 15 years. Try again.

Who has?

Like I genuinely think you're confusing the Houthis with someone else or just running with the "all Muslims are terrorists" argument. They have nothing to do with a genocide that I know of or starving anyone.

It's a pretty small group in a pretty small country. Their rise came during the Arab Spring when they were able to remove a crooked dictator put in power by the West. That crooked dictator they removed was a huge supporter of Al-Qaeda (another enemy of the Houthis). Their fighting has been limited to Yemen and its civil war. They have nothing to do with the U.S.

The U.S. only got involved militarily to help the Saudis since we're basically their bitch and it could funnel some money to defense companies. I know the Houthis existed before then, but they were pretty inconsequential and just a revolutionary group looking to oust a dictator. I didn't hear about them at all when I was living in the ME.

They are literally slavers. The Houthis are no heros.

They existed before that. They have existed since the 90's. You may have only heard of them in 2014, but they had a history that predates that. Their American hating flag is older than that. They adopted that in 2003.

Agreed. We are allied with the biggest slavers in the Arab world so I don't know why we pretend to be concerned with it in Yemen.

Not the reason they were attacked, but a very good recon not to defend them.

I thought you were all about moral stands. You can't support Biden but you're okay with the Houthis.

I don't live in Yemen and my tax dollars aren't going to the Houthis.

They've been attacked because the Saudis told us to and to protect commerce in Israel.

I guess it's better than nothing.

But I'm thinking we'll continue to have the +2 month continuing resolution until next election, and only if there is a power shift in the House then.

"They've been attacked because the Saudis told us to and to protect commerce in Israel."
Wow, you don't even know what is going on there now. You have to stop TikTok diplomacy and eating at the Hamas propaganda dining hall. SA is trying to pull itself out of Yemen and has been working hard on a cease-fire there. These air attacks are the last thing they want as it makes it harder for them to do that. They asked us directly not to do them. You also keep saying they we are protecting commerce in Israel when the Red Sea is not Israel, and the ships being attacked are not Israeli nor have cargo heading to Israel. This is open sea piracy and disruption of commerce. The literal reason the US Navy exists is to protect that.


Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

What are you talking about? There's been an on and off civil war in Yemen for over 10 years. A proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia. The Saudis and U.S. have been bombing the shit out of the country this whole time.

Obama sent forces there. Trump sold a ton of weapons to the Saudis. We were even refueling their bombers in midair until Trump stopped it after they bonesawed that journalist
Biden made a big proclamation a year or so ago about ending all involvement in Yemen until he changed his mind the other day.

As for disruption of commerce that you say America cares about, we have been aiding in a years long blockade of the country so the Saudis can starve them out. Not exactly something defenders of the seas would do as you say.

This is all undisputed by all governments involved. They talk openly about it. It's even talked about in Congress when they vote for these weapons packages. I don't know what you think this has to do with TikTok or Hamas. The Yemen conflict has been in the news for over a decade. I'm sorry if you haven't followed it, but it's not some vast conspiracy.

I know about the Yemen civil war, and I am talking about what is happening right now in it not what was relevant a few years ago. The Saudi's have been working for months to get a cease fire in Yemen. They are wanting to pull back and deal with internal matters. They did not ask the US to do this attack, on the contrary they are afraid this will cause it to continue. This bombing is dealing with the Red Sea and free international shipping, and I know you want to "whataboutism" and change the goal post on every discussion, but if you do you really should keep up with current events as least.
Yes, the Yemen civil war has been a proxy war between Iran and the Saudi's. One that the Saudi's want out of, not to further encourage. The Houthi's are acting directly on orders from Iran who funds them arms them.

I'm curious, RM, how should the U.S. respond to attacks on shipping going through the Red Sea, in particular, say, shipping with no material going to Israel?

If people from Colombia started attacking shipping en route to the Panama Canal, what should the U.S. response be?

The simple answer would be to demand a ceasefire in Gaza which would end the piracy. It would also end a genocide. So kill two birds with one stone and save lives (not to mention the massive blowback we will see from this conflict).

Otherwise, we should treat these equally. We are allowing Israel, Saudia Arabia, and the UAE to attack shipping vessels of aid in international waters. So if we are bombing Yemen, we should be bombing the others till they stop too. Personally though, I would push to end all blockades diplomatically but understand our master wouldn't approve.

Like we've supported a blockade of food and medical supplies into Gaza and Yenen for a decade. Feels a bit hypocritical to be angry at this.

Blockades during a conflict is common, but to the port of the conflict not all random ships heading to other ports with nothing to do with the conflict. Beyond that, any group or country that attacks our service members are going to rightly get a military response. Surrendering to their demands is a recipe for others to blackmail the US for whatever their next demands will be.

Wait till you read about who is being attacked in those blockades. They had nothing to do with the conflict either.

What if a country attacks and kills an American citizen who was not involved with the conflict? Does that deserve a military response too? I don't think Yemen has killed any Americans.

It depends on what the American was doing. Americans are killed around the world regularly. If it is a service member attack by another military or terrorist group then yes. If it was an idiot placing himself in danger by doing something stupid in the middle of a conflict, then probably not.

This was always how things were going to play out. The GOP isn't going to pass any immigration bill with the Dem in the White House.

Americans are not typically executed by foreign governments in international waters. If China or Russia had done this, it would not only have been an international incident, but the U.S. would not have helped in covering it up for China.

The teenager was on a humanitarian ship that was delivering aid to Palestinians. Again, they were in international waters.

I don't think they'll pass one with Trump in office either. One of those issues that plays well to their base but would upset their donors. Who's their scapegoat going to be if they got everything they wanted?

Every time there is a ceasefire in Gaza, Hamas takes all the aid, uses it to buy more weapons and train children to blow up Jews, and fires thousands of rockets into Israel. A two-state solution would require the other state to be interested as well. Peace and independence is bad business for Hamas.

They'll trade them tax cuts and child labor and business will fall in line.

Israel is not interested in a 2 state solution and they were the ones that aided Hamas because it would prevent that.

"The teenager was on a humanitarian ship that was delivering aid to Palestinians. Again, they were in international waters."
He has a blockade runner trying to enter a port illegally. A blockade that the UN determined was legal and they had a right to divert the ships to another port. He along with his friends were armed with knives and clubs and fought with the Israeli security forces, and ended up getting shot. All of this was under a Turkish flag, not an American one.
Nope, don't see anything the Americans have to do with that. He played a stupid game and won a stupid prize.
Meanwhile, the Houthi blockade of the Red Sea was determined illegal by the UN, and they attacked a US Navy ship. They also play a stupid game and are winning stupid prizes.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

The UN held Israel responsible for the incident (which isn't really shit anyway). Israel even apologized for the incident. You're literally defending a country that has admitted fault.

The ship was in international waters when it was attacked. So much for that "free international shipping" you touted earlier. Trying to put my finger on what makes them different in your scenario. What could it be?

And even if they broke a blockade (which they hadn't yet), it was to provide aid to people suffering in a concentration camp. How could anyone with a concious oppose that? At least we know what side you'd fall on during the liberation of camps in WW2. Those dead soldiers were playing some stupid games too I guess.

Getting furious when you learn about the Zegota.

It wasn't impeding free international trade because the ship was blockade running. Any more than stopping a drug runner is stopping free international trade. You are not stupid. You know the difference as well. They found Israel was over-aggressive, but they again said the blockade was legal and that the raiders were not innocent. Still, not what the Hothis are doing and still just another example of your whataboutism and look over there approach to any discussion.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

I think you should read more about the Zegota, and then read more about this blockade running PR stunt and see they have about as much in common as a dog and an eggplant.

Oh, fuck me. Iran has just launched missiles at the US consulate in Northern Iraq. Not a proxy, but the Islamic Republican Guard. That's the escalation no one wanted to see.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

Sounds like it was more of a warning shot than a direct attack.

You are mocking the death of people who are bringing humanitarian aid to some of the most oppressed people on the planet. Calling people bringing supplies to people in need "raiders". Justifying their slaughter by a commando unit because they had pipes on board their ship.

Just sociopathic shit to defend Biden. In any other scenario (Ukraine for instance), they would be hailed as heroes. Even the neocons that the Democrats have morphed into would feign compassion for the slaughter of humanitarian workers.

They were not. They could have brought the aid through the port in Israel and none of this would have happened. Heck, they knew they were never getting into the port in Gaza. Most of the ships were deep water ships and the port in Gaza is a shallow water port where they would never be able to unload. The whole thing was done as protest which the group themselves admitted. The crew of the Mavi Marmara met the Israel forces with violence, throwing stun genades at the bording boats and attacking them as they entered the ship. Does that sound like a humanitarian mission? All the other ships showed peaceful resistance and there was very little incidents. That one ship wanted violence, which members of that crew admit.
It was a violent protest, and those usually end badly.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

Article below said drones. More to come.

IRGC attack US consulate in Iraq as tensions between the US, Iran rise - The Jerusalem Post

The State Department said no US facilities were harmed, so it sounds like they either missed or were intercepted.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

Or, it actually was a spy facility and the State Department is not claiming it.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

Israel would not let them through the port. They monitor what gets through down to the calorie (not kidding, they calculate the minimum calories required to avoid starvation and only allow that much through).

Do you really think a group wanted to confront one of the most advanced militaries in the world with some pipes and tools on the ship? That they planned to get into a violent confrontation with Israeli attack choppers with a Makita drill? Mind you that stun grenade came from the IDF and someone on the flotilla threw it back at them. Also, the IDF incessantly lies as we've seen these past few months (and past few decades).

Regardless, providing aid to some of the most oppressed people in the world is admirable. Whether it's in Ukraine, Somalia, Gaza, or wherever people are being abused. Only a sociopath would think it's appropriate to execute people for doing this. Especially in international waters.

I also don't know why you keep defending it. Israel apologized for their actions. They aren't even pretending they were in the right anymore.

They apologized because they should have back off once the ship got violent. They could have prevented the ship from entering the port without boarding. They did not apologize for stopping rhe ship. Again, the UN ruled that the ship was violent. They ruled that the blockade was legal.
Btw, Israel delivered all of the humanitarian aid to Gaza just as they promised the ships if they would peacefully come to port to be inspected.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

Again, you think they intended to violently attack one of the most advanced militaries in the world with some pipes and power tools? Like that was the plan. And that the proportional response to a flotilla with humanitarian aid in international waters is to open fire from a blackhawk helicopter.

Like I said, this is sociopathic shit and anyone with an ounce of empathy toward others would be appalled at the treatment of those in Gaza and those who have been trying to aid their torturous conditions.

"Do you really think a group wanted to confront one of the most advanced militaries in the world with some pipes and tools on the ship? That they planned to get into a violent confrontation with Israeli attack choppers with a Makita drill? Mind you that stun grenade came from the IDF and someone on the flotilla threw it back at them. Also, the IDF incessantly lies as we've seen these past few months (and past few decades)."
Yes. They wanted to die. Several of the crew members said they welcomed martyrdom before they left. They knew they couldn't win. They wanted to be hurt/killed. Why? Because people like you make them out to be heroes when they could have easily brought aid to the Israeli port peacefully.
This is all from the testimony from the crew to the UN. Not just IDF propaganda. They also have pictures proving what happened.
And beyond, this was your rabbit hole that we are running on because you are using this to compare it to the Hothis attacking ships in the Ref Sea, which even a curiosity glance will tell you is not even close to the same thing. You have water and boats, but that is about it.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

I have no doubt they expected to die. Israel has been murdering humanitarian aid workers, doctors, and journalists for a long time now. It's a brutal regime that targets civilians. And yes, anyone trying to help those who are being starved and oppressed at the risk of death are heroes in my book. I say the same for those working to help those in Myanmar, Somalia, Ukraine, North Korea, and other parts of the world.

The fact you think they could have just shown up to the port and been let through is comical. Those ports have been locked down and it's nearly impossible to get humanitarian aid through outside of the bare essentials. Israel has openly talked about how they restrict access to aid because they don't want any economy to build up in the strip. They count the calories that are allowed through ffs. I'm sure Israel said they would have let them through after the international uproar over the incident.

And I brought it up because you seem to be a big proponent of free commerce in international waters. However, that may only be true for those of certain religions or skin colors.

Ok. That's a block. I know your love for anyone who hates America and Jews blinds you to simple facts, but I doubt it makes you as purposely dense as you come off. Go sell your racist hate to someone else.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk