A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
Related communities:
Yeah, just to be clear. One of the targets hit was a residential high rise building. Local authorities are reporting over 50 people killed.
The target was one, alleged, terrorist and the building, according to the Houthi PC small group message log, was the building of the target's girlfriend.
So, the US just killed at least 50 civilians in order to kill a single target. Just to give you a rough idea of the kind of 'collateral damage' that is acceptable.
Apparently the USA considers this legally acceptable "Proportionality" according to the wording of the Geneva Conventions, and therefore not a war crime. It is a highly bullshit interpretation according to many lawyers, but they have not been dragged to the Hague over it yet and probably never will be for many reasons. For one because nobody ever takes a swing at the USA in the ICC over anything due to political fallout, 2 because most other countriea are guilty of similar crimes and 3 because it is just too gosh darned convenient for the world power nations to be able to bomb apartments to hopefully kill one guy who they're pretty sure is a terrorist to keep their shipping lanes open for business. I actually wonder if there is any real legal line of Proportionality that could be crossed, one terrorist in a fully-booked children's hospital: still OK?
https://casebook.icrc.org/a_to_z/glossary/proportionality
Personally I think any extrajudicial executions are unacceptable. If the guy is a terrorist then arrest, try and convict him. If that's "too hard" then the answer is not to send a drone strike at an apartment building, or a wedding, or a hospital.
You forgot to mention the fact that the US is not a member of ICC
But the USA did the same in Afghanistan, when Afghanistan was a member state. So the ICC could have issued arrest warants for George W. Bush and B. Obama. But there is that thing that the USA has a law that says it will bomb Belgium if they really do this, so...
Oh, the IDF style of surgical precision bombing. How apt.
Kids were killed but the chat leak was funny and that's what has been the people talk about instead.
Imagine being the poor family, who is stuck living in Yemen because they cannot afford to relocate, whose kid has died by Trump's bombing. Then all you see in the news about how they joked with emojis in chat killing your kid. "Oh your kid was killed in that emoji airstrike." Tell me why the fuck you would grow up anything but radicalized.
No one is surprised by America indiscriminately bombing and leaving 150 casualties.
That's because anyone who has been paying attention to geopolitics over the last two years knows why the US is bombing Yemen...
Both are really serious problems in their own right, one's just a little closer to home
Also, one is going to spawn more of the other and worse over time.
It's not about the chat specifically, it's about ignoring any sort of rules the government is supposed to be beholden to, and getting away with it consistently as they push more and more.
Houthis are the only international actor acting in open military opposition to the genocide in Gaza. They are doing their best to enforce a shipping blockade pending a cessation of Israeli war crimes. The US obviously wants the genocide to continue, as well as all shipping trade through the area.
They’re bombing the Houthi’s in Yemen because the Houthis have been launching Iranian missiles at ships in the Red Sea since 2023? Including the US navy (don’t touch the boats) and Israel. The houthis are currently holding hostage a number of crews of merchant ships
They leveled a building to hit 1 target
Political context courtesy of the Arab Center in Washington DC:
TL;DR: The Houthis are backed by Iran, in direct regional competition to Saudi Arabian (and subsequently US) interests, and the war in Yemen is a direct result of 10 years worth of failed intervention by the Saudis.
Excerpt:
Exactly a decade ago, Saudi Arabia announced the launch of a military intervention in Yemen, promising to lead a coalition of more than 10 nations—although some would later end their participation—against the Houthi armed group, officially known as Ansar Allah, that had taken over power from President Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi. Backed by the United States, Britain, and other Western states with arms and shared intelligence, on March 26, 2015, the Saudi coalition commenced airstrikes on Houthi-controlled areas, initiating a conflict that would drag on for years. Riyadh’s initial expectation of a swift, six-week military operation to defeat the Houthis became a prolonged and costly entanglement that has tested Saudi Arabia’s ability to impose its will on its neighbor and to force the Houthis to give up their control over a large part of Yemen. Intervention Inception
Saudi Arabia’s rationale for intervention shifted over time as the conflict unfolded. At the outset, it cast the intervention as a direct response to President Hadi’s urgent appeal to the Gulf states and their international allies that he conveyed in a letter to the UN Security Council in March 2015. Hadi called for states “to provide immediate support in every form and take the necessary measures, including military intervention, to protect Yemen and its people from the ongoing Houthi aggression.” The Saudis initially conceived of the intervention as a decisive effort to reinstate Yemen’s legitimate government in the capital Sanaa. As the situation progressed, Saudi Arabia reframed its objective as restoring Yemen’s political process within the framework of the Gulf Cooperation Council Initiative, which in 2011-2012 facilitated the transfer of power from former President Ali Abdullah Saleh to Hadi.
The core rationale behind Saudi Arabia’s intervention, however, stemmed from its perception of the Houthis as an Iranian proxy on the kingdom’s border. Riyadh feared that Iran’s influence through the Houthis posed a direct threat to the kingdom’s regional dominance and interests. The kingdom saw the Houthi takeover of Sanaa not just as a challenge to Yemen’s stability but as a potential game changer in the broader Middle East power dynamics. In this context, Saudi Arabia framed its military intervention as a necessary response to protect its own security and regional influence.
Riyadh feared that the Houthis posed a direct threat to the kingdom’s regional dominance and interests.
But while Saudi Arabia believed Iran to be the principal force behind the Houthi takeover, the extent of Iranian influence over the group at the time was, in fact, relatively limited. Although the Houthis depended on Iranian military and logistical support, particularly for weaponry and strategic advice, they were not fully under Iran’s control. Iran, while capable of advising the Houthis on strategic and policy matters, lacked the leverage to dictate their actions. Rather, local factors such as longstanding tribal rivalries in Yemen, the Houthis’ longtime opposition to the central government, and their pursuit of greater political power, were more influential in shaping the Houthis’ behavior. The Houthi alliances with former President Saleh and certain factions of the Yemeni military also played a crucial role in the group’s rise. In other words, Iran’s influence was significant, but it was not all-encompassing, as the Houthis had their own political and strategic goals. Nonetheless, Riyadh persisted in portraying the Houthis as a tool of Iranian expansionism. Paradoxically, Saudi Arabia’s prolonged antagonism may have ultimately strengthened Iran’s influence, as it pushed the Houthi armed group to deepen its reliance on Iranian military and logistical support.
The MAGA movement have no care about what the administration does, especially when it comes to non-americans in a country literally none of them coudl identify on a map. But if you show them "look how poorly this bombing was planned and carried out" then maybe they will listen.
Because the houthis are raiding merchant ships
Who are the ships supplying? And why are they firing on them? What's the stated reason for the blockade?
The answers to these questions demonstrate why the Signal story is so important.
They stopped all raiding when Israel agreed to a cease fire and they only resumed it when Israel resumed their genocide.
History books will likely see the Houthis as a heroic group that fought against genocide.
And killing innocent people who have nothing to do with any conflict
The Houthis, is a Zaydi Shia Islamist political and military organization that emerged from Yemen in the 1990s. It is predominantly made up of Zaydi Shias, with their namesake leadership being drawn largely from the Houthi tribe. The group has been a central player in Yemen's civil war, drawing widespread international condemnation for its human rights abuses, including targeting civilians and using child soldiers. The Houthis are backed by Iran. The Houthis emerged as an opposition movement to Yemen president Ali Abdullah Saleh, whom they accused of corruption and being backed by Saudi Arabia and the United States.
The bombing is worse, but using signal instead of official communication channels is still really fucking serious. They want to plan and commit war crimes and avoid any responsibility for it by trying to keep it from ever getting under public scrutiny.
I've heard it called Operation Amazon Prime, which is pretty hilarious. But only like 10% of global trade even goes by this area, even less of you're just considered direct US trade. Combine that with the context from that Signal chat and it's clear they bombed Yemen just because Trump wants to.
Because they couldn't fight back
people feel there is more of a chance to hold people accountable for the group chat than the bombing
Because bombing the Houthis for terrorism or attacking Gulf states/western interests has been the status quo for over a decade.
They're brown and poor and our country is deep in the arms trade.
I mean, Houthis have been striking passing civilian ships with missiles and kidnapped people. Not terribly concerned they got shot back tbh.
They are only doing it because of the genocide in Palestine. If you cared about civilians you would be defending them.
opens a post with question in the title that is lamenting that news don't give any real answers and focus just on "trump bad" story.
all top comments are just "trump bad" and "all bad government" and has to scroll deep down to find an actual answer to the question posted.
leaves understanding much better why news don't focus on context and give just emotional side stories.