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.
Britain is on the no-go list since they started bombing Yemen to defend israel’s Genocide. As is America.
Initially they were not on the list. They put themselves on there.
You can’t seriously expect Yemen to let through ships from countries actively at war with them right?
Have fun googling the rest of the list yourself.
Saying that what the Houthi’s is doing is wrong is actively defending Genocide. I will not retract that statement.
The way that we ended the Apartheid in South Africa is by economic pressure, sanctions and boycotts. No different than what the Houthi’s are doing right now.
What are you quoting? All sources I’ve read concur that it’s Japanese owned (it is owned by Kyowa Shipping, based in Tokyo).
What happened to “I’ll tell you how they’re secretly linked”? That was the entire purpose of this exercise. You had clearly accepted that targeting unrelated ships is unacceptable, yet failed to actually provide any evidence that the ships, which make up the majority of those attacked, were legitimate targets.
If the houthis were consistently actually targeting Israeli ships then my stance would be different.
Apartheid was not defeated by attacking Japanese ships for a bit of banter, was it, though?
It turns out, entities can claim a different reason for taking an action to their actual goals.
I’ve made it extraordinarily clear that my issue is not with the goal of blockading Israeli ships, but with the fact that this is not actually what is happening. If you’re not even going to pretend to debate in good faith, then we’re done here.
Edit: You know I absolutely do not support Israel’s genocide, and actively support BDS actions against it. To argue I’m defending their genocide is what we in the business call “a dick move”.
Wait you are correct my bad. I was checking the HRW site and misread that it was UK as it was grouped in with a few others
What I can find about AOM Sophie ii is: Registered Owner 1 : KYOWA KISEN CO., LTD. 2 : GREEN SPANKER SHIPPING S.A.
Kisen seems to be Japanese but Green Spanker is weird. It sounds like a merger between companies called Green and Spanker but the owner is supposedly also Japanese. There is a shipping company called Spanker which is registered in HK but does seem to have ties to London
Dato Capital has the registry of Green Spanker
In the related list it shows multiple companies with the Spanker and Green name, involved in shipping
According to the Dato Capital Green Spanker is two companies, however I would need to purchase a 30 bucks document and that’s a step too far for me
TLDR: There seem to be similarly named UK companies that might be linked, and there’s a lot of British naming, but I have not been able to obtain direct evidence as obtaining that document costs 30 bucks. I’m going to tap out on AOM Sophie II screw Panama.
I understand that your issue is with the Houthi’s attacking non combatant ships (of which the majority have still been linked to banned countries) but it remains one of the most direct way to put global economic pressure on the world to stop the Genocide in Gaza. Our governments are incentivized by money they do not care about human lives. When the pockets start hurting they suddenly start finding solutions.
It’s not unusual for Japanese companies that trade internationally to have English names that sound strange.
So it’s a joint venture between two Japanese companies, meaning it is not a valid target - in fact Japan has been highly critical of Israel iirc.
42% is not a majority - and it’s most certainly nowhere near your initial description of “almost all” except for that one mistake.
And yet you still consider me a supporter of genocide for criticising the targeting of innocent civilians.
I understand that sanctions can be effective but they must be appropriately targeted.
As sad as it may be, it’s very common for nations to act in their own interest under the guise of doing something noble. Assuming that all countries that side with an oppressed party are acting purely out of the goodness of their heart is an easy way to find yourself supporting a country doing appalling things for their own benefit. A broken clock etc.
You are very correct in that statement
I had checked around 8 hit ships linked before and almost all all had ties to israel but those usually just come up if it receives big damage. The first Galaxy Leader was also told not to be linked to israel but was owned by israeli business man Rami Ungar.
The two hit last week were supposedly Greece-based firm Star Bulk Carriers Corp. But that turned out to be a US-listed company And UK registered Rubymar of the current post took a massive hit but that was also a valid target.
Strinda was also initially claimed as just going to italy but had a stop planned in israel right after. These are just a few examples were all initially claimed to have no links and subsequently actually had some.
Because ships have such a massive web of shell companies it’s really difficult to find out who actually owns and operates them. I just checked another random one from your list called Clara and the Houthi’s claim they gave the ship a warning which it ignored but direct links are not shown.
“The attack was launched after the two ships refused to obey orders of the Yemeni naval forces,” Saree added in a statement."
Of course, everyone is just working in their own self-interest. This might be a great opportunity for the Houthi’s to “gain some rep” but the fact of the matter is they actually undertake action against israel’s Genocide by these costly disruptions. Though these ships you are linking are indeed concerning.
So, are we now agreed that one can criticise the houthis without being a “supporter of genocide”?
If so, I’ll take that apology now, please.
Yes I will apologize for that one, criticism on their targeting seems valid. Thank you for providing a list of evidence.
I do still support the goal of turning the Genocide in Gaza into a financial problem for all the parties involved, but it does look like non-involved parties have been targeted.
One caveat I still hold is that we often only hear of links to banned nations after major damage on a ship. But the burden of proof for that initially lies on the Houthi’s themselves. If Houthi’s don’t show how they believe a ship is linked to a banned nation, then they are not providing sufficient justification to attack it.