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.

  • xor@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    8 months ago

    What are you quoting? All sources I’ve read concur that it’s Japanese owned.

    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.

    Saying that what the Houthi’s is doing is wrong is actively defending Genocide

    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.

    • Linkerbaan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      8 months ago

      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

      According to several media outlets and the US Defense Department, the Houthis on December 3 attacked two other bulk cargo carriers, Unity Explorer and Number 9, and a container ship, AOM Sophie II, with missiles and drones. Unity Explorer and Number 9 are owned and operated by two different UK-based companies, while Sophie II is owned and operated by a Japanese company. The UK company that owns Unity Explorer may be owned by an Israeli businessman, but it is unclear. Unity Explorer is registered in the Bahamas, while Number 9 and Sophie II are registered in Panama. All three vessels are commercial ships and were carrying civilian crews from several countries. None of the ships were bound for Israel.

      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.

      • xor@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        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.

        • Linkerbaan@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          8 months ago

          I understand that sanctions can be effective but they must be appropriately targeted.

          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."

          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.

          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.

          • xor@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            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.

            • Linkerbaan@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              8 months ago

              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.