US and UK striking Houthi targets in Yemen to retaliate for spate of attacks

By Eleanor Watson | Updated on: January 11, 2024 / 7:53 PM EST / CBS News

The U.S. and U.K. carried out strikes on targets in Yemen to retaliate for Houthi attacks in the Red Sea, President Biden announced in a statement Thursday night. “These strikes are in direct response to unprecedented Houthi attacks against international maritime vessels in the Red Sea—including the use of anti-ship ballistic missiles for the first time in history,” Mr. Biden said, adding he will “not hesitate to direct further measures to protect our people and the free flow of international commerce as necessary.”

A U.S. official told CBS News the targets included drone and missile launch sites used by the Houthis as well as radar capabilities. The U.S. had previously warned the Houthis of consequences should the attacks, which started shortly after the Israel-Hamas war began, continue. The statement from the White House said the strikes were carried out by the U.S. and U.K., with assistance from Australia, Bahrain, Canada and the Netherlands.

The Houthis launched one of the largest attacks in the Red Sea yet on Tuesday. Three U.S. destroyers along U.S. F-18s and a British warship shot down 18 drones and multiple missiles launched from Houthi-controlled areas of Yemen, U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) said in a statement. 

Tuesday’s “complex attack,” as CENTCOM described it, occurred within a week of a joint statement from the U.S. and several other countries warning that the Houthis would face “consequences” if the attacks continued. “The Houthis will bear the responsibility of the consequences should they continue to threaten lives, the global economy, and free flow of commerce in the region’s critical waterways,” the joint statement released by the White House last Wednesday said

A congressional source familiar with the matter on Thursday told CBS News that “the Biden administration briefed congressional leaders today on the plans to strike Houthi rebel targets in Yemen.”

Comment: I don’t think anyone’s surprised that this finally happened. There’s not much out yet on the full extent of this strike. CENTCOM has yet to put out a media statement on their website. All we know is that it was a combination of airstrikes and sea launched Tomahawk cruise missiles against a dozen or so targets including missile and drone storage and launch sites and radar sites. I’m sure we’ll know more in the coming hours or days.

The reaction so far has been as expected. The Houthi General Staff has pledged retribution. Pro-Palestinians claim this is the start of WWIII. Pro-Israelis are shouting about time and want more. Some in Congress say this strike is not authorized. I’m not sure about that. I got the feeling these strikes were undertaken reluctantly. I also doubt this is the start of any shock and awe treatment. I don’t think that would impress the Houthis. We’ll just have to wait and see where this leads.


This entry was posted in Middle East, TTG, Yemen. Bookmark the permalink.

234 Responses to US and UK striking Houthi targets in Yemen to retaliate for spate of attacks

  1. TTG says:

    CENTCOM just released a terse statement:

    “On Jan. 11 at 2:30 a.m. (Sanaa time), U.S. Central Command forces, in coordination with the United Kingdom, and support from Australia, Canada, the Netherlands, and Bahrain conducted joint strikes on Houthi targets to degrade their capability to continue their illegal and reckless attacks on U.S. and international vessels and commercial shipping in the Red Sea. This multinational action targeted radar systems, air defense systems, and storage and launch sites for one way attack unmanned aerial systems, cruise missiles, and ballistic missiles.”

    The rest of the statement is just saying the Houthis are bad people doing bad things.

    • Eric Newhill says:

      Today there is reporting that, last Thursday, the US Navy raided an Iranian ship bound for Houti land and anti-ship missile components were seized. Unfortunately two SEALs have been lost in the raid. One got knocked overboard in rough seas and the other jumped in after him. Both are still missing.

      I’m so not sure “Iran backed” is so far off the mark

      • TTG says:

        Eric Newhill,

        Iran backed is spot on, but that doesn’t mean the Houthis are controlled by Iran. Ukraine is NATO backed, but is not controlled by NATO or the US.

        • Eric Newhill says:

          I dunno – it seems to me that what the Houtis are doing is participating in Iran’s Shiia v Sunni plan to damage Saudi Arabia; currently by threatening Saudi shipping of oil and everything else. Also damaging the Abraham Accords (another Shiia desire).

          So either the Houtis’ plans have by accident become closely aligned with Iran’s, there is a quid pro quo with Iran (weapons for actions) or the Houtis have always been straight-up Iranian operatives. The collaboration is at least at the level of some amount of control by Iran because I don’t believe in coincidental alignment of actions and Iran giving the Houtis weapons out of pure Shiia brotherhood goodwill.

          Incidentally, it looks to me like those most harmed by the ongoing piracy, beyond the Saudis, are countries in Africa.

          The irony of the Houtis talk v their actions should not go without mention. Israel is accused of genocide and the Houtis declare war on Israel ostensibly for that reason, yet the Houtis, in addition to killing a few hundred thousand other Yemenis are now impacting struggling African regions such that death by starvation is a real possibly.

  2. Stefan says:

    In talking with friends in Yemen the bombing is more than the media is letting on. If they are wanting to stop Houthi drone and missiles they will need to hit Hudaydeh hard, but that risks damaging one of the only ways of getting food aids in the county. Tens of millions rely on international aid for daily food.

    The question is, if the Saudis could not stop the Houthis with thousands of attacks over 8 years, what makes us think we can do it with much smaller, limited attacks with no boots on the ground?

    • Jovan P says:

      As far as I remember, the Colonel used to write that the Houthis are people of their own kind. It was my impression that he had a lot of respect for them. Technically these are not only Houtis, but most of the Yemenese army as well.

      I see no way the USA can stop the Houthis with bombs, except by stopping the bloodshed in Gaza. By not doing so, further escalation is very likely.

      • Stefan says:

        The Colonel had a lot of respect for the Yemenis as fighters. If you look at the history books you’ll see these barefooted mountain men have been the bane of many empire and army. Not much the UK or US can do if the Yemenis dont want to stop their attacks.

        • wiz says:


          The way you describe them reminds me of the Fremen from the Dune novels. Fierce desert warriors.
          This is not surprising since the story of Dune is taking a lot of inspiration from the Arab and Islamic world.

          However, even these fierce warriors have to eat and get supplied from somewhere.
          The Taliban had Pakistan as a neighbour, the Houthis have Iran but it is far away.

        • Eric Newhill says:

          More of the good Colonel’s romanticism. A sensitivity that made him a superb author of historical novels and a talented case agent. But that has no bearing on the US’ ability to destroy Houti anti-shipping capabilities.

          • Barbara Ann says:

            Eric Newhill

            Right, it was the good Colonel’s profound depth of knowledge and superb analytical skill that would have been able to assess the US’ ability to destroy Houthi anti-shipping capabilities. As for romanticism, how’s this: The Houthis consider themselves blessed by God and honored to confront the US & UK over their support for the Israeli genocide* in Gaza. Here is what one of their leaders; Abdul Salam Jahaf said yesterday:

            I completed a prostration of thanks to God Almighty, as the great Yemeni people chose to confront the infidel West after their honorable stances with #Gaza and here is Yemen being bombed because it took the greatest stand, the most honorable stance, and the dearest stance with the oppressed in Gaza.

            It is a great blessing that God chooses you to discipline the arrogant.


            Whether or not he’d have supported their stance, Col. Lang would have understood this sentiment perfectly. What is honor but a romantic concept? In this case solidarity with one’s fellow man. Our real enemies are ones for whom honor and romanticism are outmoded concepts. A future in their world is not one I wish to share.

          • Eric Newhill says:

            Barbara Ann,

            I understand the Houtis’ sense of honor. As an American, I too have a sense of honor. An aspect of it demands that the Houtis be crushed for trying their their David v Goliath act on us (and our friends).

            I also totally agree with you regarding sniveling cowards who manipulate and put honorable men (and women) at each others’ throats from behind hidden closed doors. That group includes politicians, academics and religious leaders of all stripes, mercenary, left, right and just plain spaced out doofuses.

            That said, sometimes honor mandates that two honorable parties fight each other to the death over irreconcilable differences and ambitions.

          • cobo says:

            Barbara Ann,

            I’m so glad to find you’ve returned to commenting here. I’m afraid that for all the vast knowledge and experiences of the commenters here, there is one thing that minimizes their assessments of the world’s situation. If the underlying intentions of deep, dark, global power are neglected, then no matter how accurate projections of capacities, relationships and strategies, their assessments completely miss the underlying reality.

            I just went through (again) the list of past PL posts on Yemen, and he didn’t let this little fact get away. I remembered that he had said this, but here it was again, so let me emphasize the point I’m trying to make concerning the current US administration and the objectives of most Western leadership: 😮 “Pat Lang says:
            September 17, 2021 at 3:55 pm
            ancient archer
            Biden does not do strategy. He does delusion. IMO he wants to withdraw from overseas because >>> it is a distraction from his goal of sovietization of the US as a building block to a world socialist state.”

            Without knowing Antony Sutton’s work about Wall Street’s collaboration with both the rise of Naziism in Germany and Communism in the USSR and understanding that the control of opposing forces, resulting in generations of wars has been stage managed for centuries, one cannot make sense, really, of the actions of any “side.”

            That the greater agenda is being served must be included in any analysis of current geopolitical, economic and social trends, events, situations. What is that agenda, the pushback is picking up steam, although subterfuge is well afoot.

    • Eric Newhill says:

      Then they can starve. They brought that upon themselves by having a failed society that can’t feed itself, by infighting and by making war on external giants. I don’t get all this being perpetually sucked in by every tear soaked sad story that bad actors offer to the west.

      The Saudis are not exactly competent actors, whereas when it comes to wiping out an enemy in open desert areas, we are. If the Houtis are relegated to the mountains, where they can hide from us, then good. They won’t be threatening shipping from their craggy hiding holes.

      • Stefan says:

        Yeah, The Saudis have tried to starve them for 8 years. It didnt work. The definition of insanity is trying the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.

        What, exactly, do you think the US and UK just did that the Saudis did not do? They, along with the UAE and others bombed the crap out of Yemen for years. Tens of thousands of attacks on Yemen. They both funded and armed various different factions in Yemen to try and stop the Houthis. Didnt work.

        The UK and US will not be able to “relegate them to the mountains”. Short of a full scale ground invasion there is nothing the US and UK can do to stop these attacks. If the Houthis want to continue their attacks, they will. It is unclear that even if the US and UK did a full scale ground attack that the Houthis would be stopped.

        Your views on Israel, as well as on Yemen, are light years different from the Colonel. He was well aware of the ability of the Yemeni fighters and respected them.

        • TTG says:


          The Saudis are the worst soldiers I have ever seen. A few good ones manage to emerge, but it’s not due to the Saudi system. We always said they would be much better off buying their armed forces. A spent a couple of years managing DoD intel in Iraq, Iran and the Arabian Peninsula and learned the Yemenis were a wily bunch, but not supernatural. We will not deter them. We are foolish to even suggest that. We can smash much of their capabilities to launch missiles and drones at ships, but I’m sure the Houthis were expecting an attack. I bet they were hoping for one. I also think they were smart enough to disperse some of their ship killing capability before this attack.

          • Eric Newhill says:


            However, not so sure the Houtie tooties moved their anti-ship weaponry before our attack – or if they did, we probably tracked the movement and targeted (or will target) anyhow.

            It is common among certain classes of web users (those apparently being paid by US’ enemies, like LJ, marxists, college students) to make fun of US military and IC capabilities based on stupid moments that should usually be more appropriately blamed on politicians. So, many readers of this type of content have no faith in our military capabilities. They also have a tendency to worship “underdogs” and anyone who pokes at the US and friends is their hero.

            Generally speaking, the US doesn’t lose battles and hasn’t for a few generations. Rather, it loses interest in prosecuting wars. It suffers political defeats, not military defeats.

          • Jovan P says:

            @Eric Newhill

            During the organized revolt in Syria, you could read on SST that it’s impossible to defeat a respectable opponent without boots on the ground. Trying to bomb the Houthis until they surrender (and they would surely suffer under US bombs) is like waiting for the ,,Russians to change their regime because of the sanctions”.

            The desire to cheer for the ,,underdogs” is natural and kind of a psychological need, just like you probably didn’t cheer for the Goliath when reading as a kid.

            Finaly, your stance towards human casualties of bombings, however you may dislike or hate the enemy/enemies, is sad.

          • Eric Newhill says:

            I didn’t say we should kill all Houtis or even 100% militarily destroy them.

            I said that we should 100% destroy their ability to threaten shipping. I do not think that necessarily requires boots on the ground.

            If the mission does turn out to require some boots on the ground, then the USMC should be able to establish operating bases in coastal Yemen that effectively negate the Houtis’ ability to set up their weapons systems.

            That kind of Littoral campaign is the real reason the USMC exists and has been their mission since Nov 10, 1775. They’ve been training for this day, right across the Red Sea, for a few years now. In fact, it looks like round 3,000 Marines are on their way to Yemen. if they do indeed land, you will quickly understand that Houtis are no match for the USMC – though I do hope that mission creep doesn’t rear its ugly head with Marines chasing Houtis into the hills.

            Sorry you are upset by the idea that war means casualties. I guess when the US or Israel kills people it is terrible and we should cry and demand it stop, but it is acceptable – or at least we look other way – when the likes of Hamas or Houtis do it? Do you really believe that we can have a world in which all manner of war lords can run wild killing people at will + interrupt processes that lead to second order suffering and death all across the globe? Do you not understand that, ugly as it is, squashing these war lords and terrorists today, albeit with unavoidable civilian deaths and hardship, is saving lives and reducing suffering in the long term?

          • Stefan says:


            Your comment about sending the USMC to Yemeni coastal areas as a way to stop Houthi attacks on the Red Sea is interesting.

            I would be interested in any references that show that the Houthis are only able to launch from coastal areas. They have repeatedly shown over 8 years they are able to launch from anywhere in Yemen and hit targets hundreds and hundreds of kilometers away.

            The Houthis are masters of innovation and making due with almost nothing and still carrying the fight to their opponents. If you think the Houthis will be stopped by the USMC on Yemenis coasts I have a like side casino in Hadhramout I’d like to sell you.

      • Muralidhar says:

        Mr. Newhill your callous and I might even say barbaric comment “Then they can starve.” baffles me since I had such a high opinion about you from your past posts. First for your kind attention the Huthis have said they will attack only Israeel related vessels and as a matter of fact the other vessels are sailing pretty freely in the Red Sea. Oh by the way did you know that the great nation of Israel specified in the past the amount of calories of food and water allowed into Gaza enclave for the past 10 or so years? It is like the neighborhood bully taking your lunch and telling you that you are hungry because you didn’t bring enough food.
        Now the matter of fact is the British after years of colonial rule were eventually kicked out of Yemen in spite of their mighty empire. Now the Saudis after 10 mind you 10 years of bombing (with our help and guidance of course) couldn’t beat them. Hell we couldn’t beat the Afghans after 20 years and had to leave in a hurry. So the question arises what gives you the idea we can beat these battle hardened warriors (you might think they are inferior but evidence shows other wise)? Like Sun Tzu said “know yourself, know your enemy you will win, not knowing ourselves and at the least the enemy we face is a a good recipe for loosing the war and all the consequences that carry with it such as our super power status. Just my thoughts, not meant to offend any one.

        • Eric Newhill says:

          The punch line is that they’re already starving under Houti rule.

          Barbarian? Is that supposed to be a negative?

          Anyhow, the middle east is almost entirely populated by barbarians, thinly veiled at best. Being 50% of middle eastern genes, I guess I can’t help myself; just those genes expressing. Do I get a pass too?

          The Romans knew how to deal with such people. We should follow their example. It works.

          • Muralidhar says:

            Mr. Newhill I am glad you are excusing yourself with “Anyhow, the middle east is almost entirely populated by barbarians, thinly veiled at best. Being 50% of middle eastern genes, I guess I can’t help myself;”. Since Israelis also claim to be middle eastern as a matter of fact GOD has given them this promised land they can excuse themselves in stead of 50% even 100%. That would be a great argument they can put forward for the ICJ. The only problem is they might face the same fate as the Germans in 1946.

          • James says:

            Wow – Eric Newhill just called for us to crucify the entire population of Yemen including women and children.

            And the population of Yemen would not be starving if we had not blockaded their importation of food.

    • Eric Newhill says:

      So the Houtis rule a starving nation at gunpoint (such competent and excellent people!) and the results of their piracy could be more starvation in Africa and well as in Houti land. I thought the Houtis hated Israel and wish for death upon it because of alleged Israeli genocide. The Houtis only hate genocide/mass death when Israel does it? It seems that there is nothing but death in the Houti’s wake.

  3. leith says:

    Bahrain? That is not going to go over well with the Shia majority. But then they also supported the Saudi Coalition in Yemen and survived that.

  4. wiz says:


    what do your friends in Yemen tell you about Houthi’s motivation in all this ?

    They seem to be in a very vulnerable position. US/UK strikes even in a limited format will only add to their troubles.

    • Stefan says:

      The Houthis dont care. It is interesting because the Yemeni people are very divided and many do NOT like the Houthis at all. The Houthis stance towards Israel is the one thing that has actually caused those who hate the Houthis to rally around them.

      I know Yemenis that have hated the Houthis since day one, with a passion that is almost obsessive, that are now squarely behind the Houthis. At least in regards to their stance on Israel. Will this last? Good question.

  5. Fred says:

    So the great Democrat leader let the Borg/UK lead us into another foreign war for foreign purposes. Wonderful. Can’t wait to see the usual suspects demand escalation when they guys Col. Lang told us about for years sinks one of our ships.

    • Stefan says:

      Do you think Trump, or any of the GOP leaders, would allow attacks against US military assets go without response? I dont think so. I am surprised Biden waited as long as he did.

      I think “Big Hands” Trump would have attacked sooner. His ego would have demanded it. I, personally, dont think there are really two many differences between the two parties. They both serve the interests of the 1% elite in the US. When it comes to foreign policy the differences are even smaller.

      • wiz says:


        “I, personally, dont think there are really two many differences between the two parties. ”

        Chomsky calls the US political system a one party system with two factions. The one party being the business party.

        I’ve heard others call the US “a business masquerading as a country”.

        • Stefan says:

          I agree with these sentiments. It is nothing more than the rich supporting the rich at the expense of everyone else. These “culture war” issues are just to keep the American populace at each other’s necks whilst the fleecing of America continues. The two party system in the US is broken beyond repair.

        • Peter Hug says:

          Well, I had a friend who worked at GM – and he called it “a pension plan that makes cars.” He wasn’t wrong…

      • Fred says:


        Lets put things straight: there would have been no Ukraine war, no NS2 destruction, and no collapse of the German economy, or any proding the Houthi’s had he been in office. But by all means Trump Trump Trump!

        Where is the Egyptian armed forces, oh right, they are no longer taking our, or the EU’s, marching orders; even though traffic through the canal represents 5% or more of GDP. They also said ‘pound sand’ to Israeli, ie. “the West’s” proposals to taken on a couple million Gazans. Did anyone in Europe notice that before hand?

        Whose navies, besides most of our alleged NATO allies, are missing: All the BRICS. Whose oil supplies and imported commodities essential for domestic industrial manufacturing go through the canal? Correlate that with whose ships are NOT being attacked.

        I know, hard questions for our vaunted think tanks and flag ranks to ask.

      • leith says:

        @Stefan – “I am surprised Biden waited as long as he did.”

        You are right about “big hands” Trump. He would have flailed around and immediately tomahawked a blank spot in the desert. Or maybe he would have waited while whining to his buddy Little Kim to make the Houthis stop being mean?

        Biden’s wait was needed because of the time to gather precise intel on Houthi drone storage sites. And to get the Canadian, Australian, Dutch, Bahraini and Brit governments to agree. General Mark Hertling has some further reasons:
        “It takes a little time to put together a expansive multinational strike w/ precise targeting,
        – multinational target packages,
        – suppression of enemy air defense & electronic warfare,
        – ingress & egress routes,
        – airspace coordination,
        – on dozens of targets.

        I feel sorry for Colonel Lang’s Houthis of past years. But they are no longer little brown men wearing skirts and chewing qat and carrying Enfields. They are now led by the nose via Iran’s IRGC. They claim they are targeting Israeli shipping but in fact are trying to shut down all Suez traffic. I’m surprised Egypt didn’t join the coalition – but I’ll bet ten to one odds that el-Sisi quietly gave implicit approval of the strikes.

        The main problem I see with the strikes is that in Iraq and Syria the US boots on the ground are now going to be targeted even heavier by Tehran’s proxies in those countries.

        • Stefan says:

          If you think the Houthis are being led by Iran I don’t know what to tell you. The only people who think this are anyo Iranian or anti Houthi extremists. Does Iran help the Houthis (and Hizb’Allah and Hamas)? Sure. Do they supply some arms and know how? Of course. Does Iran issue marching order’s to any of these groups? No.

          As to Colonel Lang’s time line wrong, he never told stories about Houthis because his time in Yemen was before the Houthis, as an organization, existed. I could be wrong about that but he certainly knew and met Yemenis who later might have played a role in the Houthis. Keep in mind the men (Houtjis) that the Saudis have been bombing for 8 years are the grandsons of the men the Saudis supported during the Civil War of the 1960s. Interesting juxtaposition.

          • leith says:

            Stefan –

            I am not anti-Houthi. I cheered them on in their fight against the Saudis and Emiratis plus several other Sunni majority countries. At the time I cursed my own country for providing logistical support to MbS and his bumbling airstrikes that killed so many civilians.

            But yes, I’m anti-Iran in its current leadership. Tehran’s theocracy is just as bad as Riyadh’s. Iran has for a long time supported the Houthis with advisors, weapons, weapon components, financial help, intelligence, etc. They continue to do so in some cases. That doesn’t mean that Sana’a is under strict command and control of the Ayatollahs. But that support fathers an immense amount of influence. And that gives Iran significant clout within Ansar Allah decisions.

        • Peter Hug says:

          I think the Israelis in Gaza have moved to using AI to shortcut the process of generating a strike package. (At least in terms of cycle time.)

  6. Barbara Ann says:

    It was inevitable that the Houthis’ kinetic form of BDS would invite a kinetic response. But what stands out for me is that the coalition, supposedly tasked with securing the most critical waterway in the world, consists of a mere six countries: 4 of the Five Eyes plus the Netherlands and Bahrain. Heck, the mission to kill Gaddafi attracted far more support, what is going on?

    If victory here means permanent suppression of the Houthis’ ability to target ships in the Red Sea I have to wonder, like Stefan, how this will be possible without boots on the ground. What would failure look like? Watching the Taliban celebrate the ‘defeat’ of the US was one thing, but what if this bunch of little brown people who wear skirts and chew qat were to prevail?

    There is lots of scope for a Suez moment down to road here I think. Bab-el-Mandeb in Arabic is literally the ‘Gate of Lamentation’.

    Btw, some very useful background on Yemen from the man who knew it well:

    • Stefan says:

      We wont be able to do it. Even with “boots on the ground” it wont happen. It will make Afghanistan look like a walk in the park. It is rather clear the people here who are acting like we can walking in and “remove the nuisance” have never read a single book on Yemeni history. Such comments are nonsense, at best.

    • leith says:

      Barbara Ann & Stefan –

      I have the utmost respect for Colonel Lang’s military opinions. However, I believe it has been at least four or five decades since he was in Yemen. Wasn’t he there in the 1970’s? Please let me know if that chronology is incorrect. The Houthis are no longer a mountain tribe wearing skirts and chewing qat. Those times were different. Weren’t the Houthis then fighting the communists in South Yemen, backed by the Soviets, East Germany and others? Now they seem to sympathize with, if not outright allies with, Xi’s communist China and also Putin who is trying to cosplay as Stalin.

      When did the Houthi flag start using the term “Death to America”? Around the early 2000’s perhaps? Probably about the time they started getting arms and technology from Tehran, whose Ayatollahs have always considered us the Great Satan.

      I agree we should not insert troops. That would be a bad mistake IMO unless it is just hit and run raids by SOF that don’t stay. Can we shutdown Houthi attacks on shipping? I’d say ‘Yes’, but only in the short term. Or will they stop trying eventually?

      • TTG says:


        The Yemen I knew was in the late 90s. There was still plenty of qat being chewed by Houthis and other Yemenis. But it was a political backwater back then and an easy part of my portfolio. With the rise of the Houthis and Iran’s increasing interest in them, it is no longer a quiet backwater.

      • Stefan says:

        In a previous comment you said something that lead me to believe that you thought Colonel Lang knew the Houthis. Now you are saying you don’t think he has been there since the 1970s. You need to bone up on Yemeni history. There was no Houthi organization in the 1970s. They were nothing more than a marginal Hashemite family from Northen Yemen. The genesis of the Houthis is from the 1980, coming from an organization called the “Believing Youth”. Their initial remit was the fight the Wahhabi influence amoungst Zaid men who had traveled the Saudi, and the rest of the Khalij, to work and send money back to Yemen. They were known for handing out cassette tapes calling for a return to traditional Zaidi beliefs.

        A combination of heavy handed tactics by Saleh, the long time leader of Yemen, and Saudi importing armed Wahhabi extremists into the Zaidi heartland like Dammaj, caused a small, religious movement, into a paramilitary.

        The Colonel knew a lot about Yemen. We had some interesting conversations behind the scenes on the subject. But the Houthis did not exist when he lived there and if he met or knew anyone who ended up being a part of the Houthis it was long before the organization existed.

        I knew we both knew some of the same people who ended up supporting the Houthis. Although I know and have connections with some Hashimi family in and outside Yemen, I dont personally know anyone from the Houthi family.

        • leith says:

          Stefan –

          I respect your first hand knowledge as mine is only from history books. You are surely right if speaking about the Houthi Movement, which did not exist back in the 70’s. But I understood the Houthi family as you call it has existed as a tribe or subtribe for centuries in the mountains of North Yemen. They have been very influential within the Zaidi community. Many of those Zaidis were fighting in the civil wars back in the 60’s and 70’s. Are you claiming that is not correct?

          I understood that Colonel Lang in his younger years was in Sana’a as a Defense Attache. Whether that was before or after his service in Nam, I have no idea. Or whether it was during one of the several wars or rebellions there. But I recall he wrote very respectfully of the mountain people of Yemen and their grit as fighters. I need to dig out a copy of his memoirs to find his specific wording.

          • Stefan says:

            There have been various wars within Yemeni going back to the 1960s. Whether it was local issues or the Southern issue. The Houthis have never been a mover and a shaker in the Zaidi community. That started to change to a small extent in the 1980s with the Believing Youth, even more so in the series of small conflicts in the 2000s.

            They were a Hashemi family, but a minor one. There were no well known scholars or leaders coming from the family that I am aware of. The over reaction and misreaction of Saleh changed that.

            My understanding is that the Colonel was in Yemen in the 1970s. So long before the Houthis as a movement, came into existence. The family itself was a minor family. They were not known and respected like Bayt al Wazir, al Mutawakkil, ect. They were “prominent” in that the Zaydi religious doctrine places Hashemites in a leadership position and sets them up as religious authorities. But even within the Hashemites there is a hierarchy.

            The situation is Yemen is complicated by regional and tribal alliances that often make zero sense to those from the outside. That is why some of the Houthis biggest enemies are other Hashemites, whereas the alliance around the Houthis include Sunni tribal groupings who otherwise have little love for the Hashemi.

  7. Eric Newhill says:

    Yep – no surprise.

    I’m normally a non-interventionist. However, I’m glad we are helping destroy this nuisance that dreams of being a menace. We cannot live in a world where any pissant rebel group can interrupt critical junctures of global commerce with their cheap drones, etc.

    I hope that we persist – even going to shock and awe levels – until they’re all destroyed.

    And, no, it isn’t WW3 in the making. No one is going to do anything meaningful in retaliation for the action any more than they are for Israel cleaning the trash out of Gaza.

    • Stefan says:

      Get ready for the age of the pissant rebels and their cheap drones. It is the modern world, catch up with it. Every small little group with an issue WILL be able to do all sorts of things. This isnt the 1980s.

      • Eric Newhill says:

        Prepare to be disappointed, Stefan.

        Your Houtis are going to very quickly lose this little game they’re involved in, as will any other pissants that try something similar.

        How are you hero’s, Hamas and supporters, holding up against Israeli attacks? You know, there is no problem replicating the current destruction and carnage of Gaza in other pissant strongholds.

        It’s funny, you sort of encourage – or at least cheer on – the pissants. Then when their inevitable destruction occurs, you bitch and moan about it and call bad names at the country that took up the pissant’s challenge. Then you turn around and start all over again in saying that the pissants will prevail in the next contest of arms and wills. Do you like the destruction of pissants or not? Make up your mind man.

        • LeaNder says:

          How are you hero’s, Hamas and supporters, holding up … pissant stronghold …

          Eric, you didn’t–to the extent I recall–stick out that much during the Trump reign on Pat Lang’s blog(s). You do now with your repetitive image-of-the-enemy stereotype pattern.

          Do you miss the warmth the shared hatred of the Trump-derangement-syndrome-crowd created? I wonder.

          Us vs them. Caroline Emcke translated by Tony Crawdford:
          Sometimes I wonder whether I should envy them. Sometimes I wonder how they do it: how they hate the way they do. How they can be so sure of themselves. Because the haters have to be at least that: sure. Otherwise they would not talk the way they do, hurt the way they do, kill the way they do. Otherwise they could not insult others, humiliate others, attack others the way they do. They have to be sure of themselves. Beyond all doubt. You cannot hate and be unsure about hating at the same time. If they doubted, they could not be so besides themselves. Hating requires absolute certainty. Any ‘maybe’ would be a disruption. Any ‘possibility’would undermine their hatred, sap the energy they are channelling into it.

          Easy to accept TTG’s military position. But in spite of trillions (?) dollare the US spent, “we” do not have moved a lot forward since 9/2001. Have we?

          US strikes on Yemen won’t solve anything
          The Houthis have withstood similar onslaughts and the attack only adds fuel to the widening of Israel’s war on Gaza
          PAUL R. PILLAR
          JANUARY 12, 2024

    • Yeah, Right says:

      “However, I’m glad we are helping destroy this nuisance that dreams of being a menace.”

      And if they refuse to be destroyed?

      What does Genocide Joe do then?

      This is a poorly thought out knee jerk reaction, and it simply isn’t going to achieve the aims that it claims to be their intent.

      After all, the USAF and US Navy can keep bombing Yemen as often and as heavily as they want, but if shipping companies continue to avoid using the Red Sea then the USA will be losing this battle.

      • TTG says:

        Yeah, Right,

        The Houthis don’t have to be destroyed. It’s just their ability to strike at shipping that has to be degraded.

        This was hardly a knee-jerk reaction. The military aims were achieved. Storage and launch facilities, radar sites and maybe commo sites were hit. Another radar site was hit today. It may require more, but it’s an eminently doable mission. The diplomatic goal of deterrence, on the other hand, is a forlorn hope. The Houthis will not be deterred. They’ll manage to launch a drone or suicide speedboat now and then, but that’s a manageable threat.

        • Eric Newhill says:

          100% agree.

          Btw, I’m sure there have been US “boots on the ground” for a while now, most likely in the form of SEALs and MARSOC and, more recently, USMC RECON.

          This operation – eliminating anti-shipping assets and killing, basically, 21st century pirates – is small enough to be managed well by the US Navy/Marines, who have ample accumulated wisdom and specific capabilities to do so. This is text book stuff. The fantasies to the contrary are really quit humorous.

          • leith says:

            Eric N –

            The op was carried out by USAF and RAF as well as other allied forces, not just the USN. And the last I heard about the 26th MEU/Bataan ARG was that they went back to the Med via Suez and were on their way to Greece.

          • TTG says:


            It was the USN that did most of the strikes, not the USAF, although they were involved somehow, maybe refueling tankers for the RAF and reconnaissance assets.

          • Eric Newhill says:

            I don’t know what direction the 26th MEU is heading at the moment. Take some time to check out what our Marines stationed at Camp Lemonnier, in Djibouti, have been up to. Their mission is to prepare for ops in Somalia and Yemen and has been for a few years. Pretty sure they have a good game plan worked up by now.

        • Stefan says:

          What happened the following day? The Houthis launched another missile. The Houthis will be launching missiles as long as they choose to. Nothing air strikes can do to stop it. Degrade? Sure. Stop? Nope.

          Israel had destroyed Gaza and Hamas are still launching missiles into Israel. Not like they used to, but it is still happening . The same will happen with the Red Sea. Unlike Israel, which cannot move, the ships can and will.

          If the US cannot stop the missiles they have lost.

          • Eric Newhill says:

            What did they hit with that missile they launched? In fact, their fired to hit ratio is pretty low; piss poor actually. But you think they can launch successful attacks from hundreds of miles off the coast and continue to threaten shipping that way once the coastal area is denied from them? With what? Range? Accuracy? Guidance system vulnerabilities? How many do they have?

            One’s man’s superheroes are another’s flunky pirates that can’t even defeat the Saudis. Time will tell.

        • Yeah, Right says:

          TTG, it wasn’t *ME* who called for the destruction of the Houthis, it was Eric, so I’d be grateful if you address your point of order to him.

          “This was hardly a knee-jerk reaction.”

          Of course it was. It was a reaction born of frustration.

          “The military aims were achieved.”

          Oh, fer’ cryin’ out loud. The “military aim” is to restore normal commercial shipping through the Red Sea.

          These air strikes will not achieve that aim, and so the Americans will launch more air strikes. Which will also not achieve their “military aim”.

          “Storage and launch facilities, radar sites and maybe commo sites were hit. ”

          Whoop-de-do. In the absence of an end-game then that is just making rubble bounce around.

          “It may require more, but it’s an eminently doable mission.”

          Yeah, let’s bounce that rubble around again, and again, and again as if “military aims” are a game of whack-a-mole.

          Remind me again: when do you expect commercial shipping through the Red Sea to return to normal?

          “The diplomatic goal of deterrence, on the other hand, is a forlorn hope. The Houthis will not be deterred. ”

          Then the “military aim” has failed. Commercial shipping through the Red Sea will not return to normal and so THE USA WILL HAVE LOST THIS BATTLE.

          “They’ll manage to launch a drone or suicide speedboat now and then, but that’s a manageable threat”

          Good grief. How flippant.

          Define the meaning of “a manageable threat”.

          Because to my mind the threat is “manageable” if it means that commercial shipping through the Red Sea can return to normal.

          It is doesn’t then THE USA HAS LOST THIS BATTLE.

          • Eric Newhill says:

            Nope. I call for exactly what TTG said.

            The USA has not lost this battle. Oh yee of little faith.

            You might want to consider stopping being so easily and thoroughly swayed by pundits who’s job it is to distort, sow angst and unrest and propagate general negativity throughout the west. This would include Larry Johnson and Scott Ritter – two men who once upon a time made a fair amount of good sense, but who now who have taken 90 degree turns into complete Alex Jones level “analysis”, whacko, America hating; probably under Russian sponsorship.

          • Yeah, Right says:

            Eric, that’s an entire post from you consisting of nothing but condescending homilies, as if you were Genocide Joe himself.

            What is the *endgame* here?
            What is the policy objective?

            I’ve said what I think it is: The return of regular commercial shipping in the Red Sea.

            But from reading both TTG and your posts I’ll be damned if I can see any strategic thinking at all, just Let’s Blow Shit Up To Prove We Mean Business.

            How shallow. How terribly neocon.

            Is all this blowing shit up going to return commercial shipping in the Red Sea? Yes? Or no?

            And if you say “Yes” then please explain how.

            Take your time. I’ll wait.

          • TTG says:

            Yeah, Right,

            Are the Houthis shallow and neocon in their continuing attempts to blow up commercial shipping in the Red Sea? Are they just blowing shit up to prove they mean business? Perhaps they are. They’re certainly not using diplomacy. The Houthis have been taking shots at ships since 2021, long before the latest Israel-Hamas war. Sometimes blowing shit up is required to solve a problem. If the Houthi capability to attack shipping is severely degraded or destroyed, this problem is solved.

          • Yeah, Right says:

            TTG: “Are the Houthis shallow and neocon in their continuing attempts to blow up commercial shipping in the Red Sea? ”

            No, they are being extremely PRECISE in their efforts in the Red Sea.

            Look, sorry, but the Houthis formally declared war on Israel, and formally declared that pursuant to that declaration they will attack any vessel bound for or from Israel.

            All perfectly legal AND all perfectly justifiable under the plain text of the Genocide Convention.

            I note that you never once mention those salient facts. Are you unaware of them?

            TTG: “Are they just blowing shit up to prove they mean business? ”

            No, they are being extremely precise in the shit that they are blowing up.

            I will draw your attention – again – to the Genocide Convention, which doesn’t JUST say that you must not commit genocide.

            No, it ALSO says that you must not be complicit in acts of genocide and ALSO that you have a treaty obligation to act to bring any genocidal acts to an end.

            The Houthis are doing the latter and, shamefully, the USA by seeking to intervene are guilty of the former.

            Complicity in an ongoing genocide. How very noble.

            TTG: “They’re certainly not using diplomacy.”

            They most certainly are.

            I’m sorry, but you are (deliberately, I suspect) refusing to acknowledge the wider geopolitical realities here.

            The Houthis insist – with good reason – that Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinian population of Gaza and THEREFORE the Houthis are under a treaty obligation to do something to stop that genocide.

            Hence the declaration of war against Israel.
            Hence the attacks on shipping bound for Israel.

            That is diplomacy, and I’ll repeat this again because it never gets old: Genocide Joe can restore all Red Sea shipping with a single phone call to Netanyahu.

            But that would be “diplomacy”, which is a word that it is blatantly obvious very few Americans understand.

            TTG: “If the Houthi capability to attack shipping is severely degraded or destroyed, this problem is solved.”

            And *if* wishes were horses we’d all be Kings.

            But they’re not, so we aren’t.

            There is NO WAY the USA can “destroy” the Houthis ability to prevent commercial shipping in the Red Sea from returning to the status quo ante.

            It makes no difference how much the USAF and US Navy makes the rubble bounce, because the Houthis will simply receive new and better aerial and seaborne drones from Other Actors Of Unknown Origin *wink* *wink*.

            This is a Fool’s Errand, which is predictably exactly the course of action that Washington has decided upon.

            Do you really think that those Other Actors Of Unknown Origin didn’t game this out months ago?

            I’m seeing a lot of neocon thinking in this thread: Let’s Blow Shit Up and then declare victory!!!!

          • TTG says:

            Yeah, Right,

            The commercial vessels targeted by the Houthis have mostly not owned by Israel or carrying cargo bound for or originating from Israel. That’s just piracy. They’re probably on firmer legal ground targeting US and British warships, but they can now hardly complain that they are targeted in return.

            We’re a long way from being reduced to making rubble bounce. The strikes so far have targeted missile, drone and radar facilities. Even the Houthis claim there were few casualties and I believe those casualties were among the Houthi military.

          • cobo says:

            Are you sure that, “…return commercial shipping in the Red Sea” is really the goal? Perhaps the objective lies closer to 1984, dividing the world into perpetual warring camps… As it has been divided since 1945.

          • Yeah, Right says:

            TTG: “The commercial vessels targeted by the Houthis have mostly not owned by Israel or carrying cargo bound for or originating from Israel.”

            Simply untrue.

            TTG: “That’s just piracy. ”

            A false proposition. The Houthis issued a formal declaration of war against Israel, so viz the Israelis the Houthis are LEGALLY entitled to act under the provisions of International Humanitarian Law.

            A belligerent power is indeed perfectly entitled to declare a naval blockage against another belligerent, provided that they follow the articles in the San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea.

            Which they have.

            I’ll point out **AGAIN** that you scrupulously avoid acknowledging that point: the Houthis formally declared war on Israel, and have been following the Laws of War ever since.

            TTG: “They’re probably on firmer legal ground targeting US and British warships, but they can now hardly complain that they are targeted in return.”

            The corollary is actually the more accurate legal situation: the Houthis formally declared war on Israel, and so USA and UK warships have NO LEGAL STANDING to intervene in that armed conflict between those two belligerents.

            None. Whatsoever.

          • LeaNder says:

            The corollary is actually the more accurate legal situation … and so USA and UK warships have NO LEGAL STANDING

            what about this?


            U.S. Security Cooperation with Israel
            FACT SHEET

            The United States and Israel have signed multiple bilateral defense cooperation agreements, to include: a Mutual Defense Assistance Agreement (1952); a General Security of Information Agreement (1982); a Mutual Logistics Support Agreement (1991); and a Status of Forces Agreement (1994).

            Israel has been designated as a U.S. Major Non-NATO Ally under U.S. law. This status provides foreign partners with certain benefits in the areas of defense trade and security cooperation and is a powerful symbol of their close relationship with the United States.

          • Yeah, Right says:

            LeaNder, what about it?

            The Houthis declared war on ISRAEL, they did not declare war on ISRAEL AND THE USA.

            That the USA considers Israel to be Its Best Buddy Ever!!! does not change that fact, nor does it grant any special favors under international law for the USA.

            Even NATO’s Article 5 is clear on that point: an attack on (just saying) Belgium does not automatically mean that attacker is at war with all the member states of NATO.

            The same is true of any dinky “bilateral defense cooperation agreements” between the USA and Israel.

            (and, note in passing, none are Treaties within the accepted meaning of the word, unlike the NATO Charter).

            ABSENT a declaration of war by the USA on the Houthis then this is strictly a fight between Isael and the Houthis, and the USA has absolutely no legal standing to direct kinetic strikes against Yemen.

          • TTG says:

            Yeah, Right,

            The Houthi’s shot at our warships. They also shot at commercial vessels who then asked for our assistance. Both US and international maritime law oblige us to render assistance. At a minimum that authorizes us to shoot down Houthi missile and drones and to destroy their attacking boats. Destroying the missiles, drones and radars on the ground is an extension of that self-defense and rendering of assistance. The Houthis enjoy no immunity to such retaliatory actions.

          • Yeah, Right says:

            OK, I’m going to say this again, because apparently it doesn’t get through: the Houthis DECLARED WAR ON ISRAEL.

            International Humanitarian Law allows belligerents to do things in wartime that mere “armed forces” are not allowed to do during the absence of war.

            That is true, is it not? That was what you were taught in Shootin’ ‘n’ Shoutin’ War School, was it not?

            Because once you have declared war and therefore have become a belligerent power then IHL *****allows***** you to declare a blockage of the ports of the other belligerent.

            Do you accept that point, TTG? Yes? Or no?

            Because all the previous times I have pointed this out all I have received is a thundering silence from both you and Eric.

            Now, with that said – yet again, one more time – onwards and upwards….

            TTG: “The Houthi’s shot at our warships.”

            YOUR WARSHIPS have no legal standing to get between two belligerent powers who are at war with each other.

            No. Legal. Standing. Whatsoever.

            You would *if* the US Congress declared war on Yemen, but Genocide Joe hasn’t even asked Congress to do that, much less received their blessings.

            TTG: “They also shot at commercial vessels who then asked for our assistance”

            Commercial vessels heading towards Israeli ports or carrying Israeli goods in defiance of a Houthi-declared naval blockade can not ask ANYONE EXCEPT ISRAEL for assistance, because only ISRAEL is a belligerent party in the war that was declared on them by the Houthis.

            I mean, honestly, you are talking about a convoy system here. The ONLY warships that can legally perform to duty of escorts for such a convoy are warships from belligerent powers.

            How is that not obvious to everyone here?

            TTG: “Both US and international maritime law oblige us to render assistance. ”

            NO IT DOES NOT, because this is a war – a formally-declared war – and parties that are not belligerent powers in that war are NOT entitled to involve themselves in it.

            It. Is. A. F**king. War. Formally. Declared. By. The. Houthi.

            Because of that then the Houthis are entitled to do things under International Humanitarian Law that is not available to navies from countries that are not belligerent powers in that war.

            Here, look, a thought experiment: Erdogan has a brain-explosion and allows a brace of Arleigh-Burke class destroyers into the Black Sea.

            Q: Are those destroyers “obliged” to put themselves between the Russian Black Sea Fleet and the Ukrainian shoreline to then shoot down Kalibr missiles that have been fired by the former into the latter?

            Yes? Or no?

            Because I’m telling you here and now that absent a declaration of war on Russia by the US Congress the answer under international law is a resolute “No”.

          • TTG says:

            Yeah, Right,

            The Houthis may have declared war on Israel, but they continue to attack ships that have no connection to Israel. That’s piracy. Those ships and even Israeli connected ships can call for assistance and other naval vessels, including ours, are obliged by international maritime law to render assistance.

            If our destroyers were in the Black Sea, they would be obliged to assist commercial vessels calling for assistance. Whether they would do it is another question. They would not be obliged to defend against Russian missiles targeting Ukrainian shore targets. That’s beyond the scope of international maritime law. BTW, they’d also be under obligation to assist a Russian tanker struck by a Ukrainian missile. Again, whether the’d do so is a separate question.

          • Yeah, Right says:

            TTG: “The Houthis may have declared war on Israel,”

            Progress at last. You and I now both agree that the Houthis are entitled to act within the rules of International Humanitarian Law, including those that pertain to naval blockades on belligerent ports.

            TTG: “but they continue to attack ships that have no connection to Israel. ”

            Define the phrase “no connection”. If the ship is bound for or sailing from an Israeli port or is carrying Israeli contraband then the ship is violating a declared naval blockade.

            TTG: “That’s piracy.”

            Always I good read.

            I can especially recommend Articles 67-69, and Articles 93-108. Cracking stuff.

            TTG: “Those ships and even Israeli connected ships can call for assistance and other naval vessels, including ours, are obliged by international maritime law to render assistance.”

            I’m going to ask you to take a step back and think in generalities:

            Two belligerents are at war. One declares a naval blockade on the other’s ports.

            A commercial vessel seeks to break that blockade and, naturally enough, the blockading belligerent power attempts to stop it.

            Q: Does *your* navy have a right to escort that commercial vessel through that blockade and, furthermore, does *your* navy have a right to interfere with the efforts of that belligerent power to enforce its blockade?

            Yes? Or No?

            Because I’m telling you here and now that International Humanitarian Law says “No”.

            The fight is between those two belligerent powers. It is **only** between those two belligerent powers, and non-belligerent warships have NO right to interven.

            If a commercial vessels seeks to break a blockade then it is up to the belligerent power that is under blockade to escort that vessel, just as much as it is up to the blockading power to stop that vessel.

            Nobody. Else. Is. Entitled. To. Do. Anything.

            You are wrong. You don’t get to be any the less wrong by repeating the same untruths time after time.

            The US Navy has to be a belligerent power in order to interfere with an armed conflict between two other belligerent powers. It can’t pretend that it is upholding some “international maritime law” when IN WARTIME those laws do not apply to the BELLIGERENT POWERS ENGAGED IN THAT WAR.

            Genocide Biden needs to come clean and say that the USA is now at war with Yemen and has been ever since he ordered the US Navy to carry out Operation Genocide Enabler.

            But if he did that then he’d run foul of Congress and the US Constitution. So he won’t, which makes the US Navy’s actions in the Red Sea incompatible with International Humanitarian Law.

            You can’t be a “not-belligerent” but also actively using your warships to break a naval blockade involving two parties that are belligerents.

            I mean, honestly, how is that difficult to comprehend?

          • Yeah, Right says:

            TTG: “Those ships and even Israeli connected ships can call for assistance and other naval vessels, including ours, are obliged by international maritime law to render assistance”

            Ladies and gentlemen, our word-for-the-day is “assistance”. Which is, admittedly, a nice-sounding and quite neutral – indeed, even noble – word.

            But in this context what does TTG mean by that word?

            If he means “Help, we’re sinking! Men are in the water!” then I agree with him 100%. Any other vessel in the area should pluck those poor unfortunates out of the water.

            But if he means “Help, we’re trying to break a naval blockade, and they are shooting at us!” then, sorry, no.

            Naval Blockades are covered by the San Remo Manual of War At Sea, and nowhere in that does it say that a neutral warship is entitled to interfere with one belligerent power’s naval blockade of the other belligerent to that conflict.

            If a commercial ship in the Red Sea is attempting to run a naval blockade legally declared by the Houthis then it is up to the ISRAELI navy to sail through the Suez Canal and escort those blockade-running into Eilat.

            NOBODY ELSE’S NAVY has any right to step into the middle of that fight.

            Or, put another way: the very fact of Genocide Joe ordering the US Navy to carry out Operation Genocide Enabler means that the USA has gone to war with Yemen in support of Israel.

            I actually got no problem with that, provided that Genocide Joe (and you too, TTG) are honest and open about that: the USA has made the decision to go to war against Yemen in order to prevent the Houthi from interfering with Israel’s ongoing genocide against the civilian population of the Gaza Strip.

            It presents some domestic legal problems for The Big Guy, sure, I accept that. The Constitution being what it is.

            It also presents something that might be of future interest to the ICJ and the ICC but, you know, the “Hague Invasion Act” of 2002 is his friend.

            But at least be honest and open about it, rather than hide behind increasingly laughable weasel-words.

          • TTG says:

            Yeah, Right,

            If a commercial vessel is being attacked by Houthi missiles, drones or little boats full of armed Houthis, it can call for assistance. To render that assistance, we may blow those Houthi missile and drones out of the sky and blow those little boats full of armed Houthis out of the water, which we have done quite successfully. That’s true even if the commercial vessel is bound to an Israeli port or is owned/managed by an Israeli citizen. We are under no obligation to honor some blockade declared by the Houthis. If they want it enforced, they have to do it and accept the consequences for doing so.

            The Houthis have also tried to attack British, French and US warships. Declaring war on Israel (and death to America) does not give the Houthis any legal protection from retaliatory attacks. Declaring war is not a “diplomatic immunity” kind of thing.

          • Yeah, Right says:

            TTG: “We are under no obligation to honor some blockade declared by the Houthis.”

            You appear to miss my point. Deliberately so, it seems.

            I shall try again….

            The Houthi declared war on Israel. There is, therefore, an armed conflict between those two belligerents.


            Therefore the conduct between those two belligerents are permitted by – and constrained by – International Humanitarian Law.


            Other powers that are NOT belligerents in that war are NOT entitled to claim any permission nor entitlement from International Humanitarian Law because, axiomatically, those are the Laws of War and a power that is not a belligerent is not at war with anyone.


            TTG: “To render that assistance, we may blow those Houthi missile and drones out of the sky and blow those little boats full of armed Houthis out of the water, which we have done quite successfully.”

            Now, to my point: for the USA to claim that it is legally entitled to do that it must, again, axiomatically, be a belligerent power in that war.

            Correct? Yes? Or No?

            My point is that I have no problem with the US Navy blowin’ up Houthi shit ‘n’ stuff ***PROVIDED*** that Genocide Joe has the honesty to come out and declare that the USA has joined this war between Israel and the Houthis, and is doing so on the side of the Israelis.

            He has not done that. Nobody in the USA – including you – has done that. Nobody in the USA is willing to admit that.

            Why, exactly?

            Isn’t the USA committed to a “rules-based international order”? And isn’t one of those “rules” that if you are going to get yourself into a f**king shooting war then you should be honest enough to stand up and actually admit that?

            The USA doesn’t have the courage of its conviction and if – as you insist – the USA outright refuses to “honor some blockade declared by the Houthis” then it should also outright declare that “we are at war with Yemen, and are doing so to facilitate the Israeli genocide against the Gazans”.

            But, no, not a single person in the USA has the courage to actually stand up and say that, and BECAUSE they are refusing to stand up and say that then the orders that Genocide Joe has given and the actions of the navy that he commands is contrary to International Humanitarian Law.

            If you are going to take Vienna then f**king take Vienna, but don’t pretend that yours is an altruistic action.

          • TTG says:

            Yeah, Right,

            You’re awfully hung up on the notion of a formal declaration of war. The last time we did that was against the various Axis Powers in WWII. In all the wars we’ve been involved in since then, there was no declaration of war. There was plenty of rhetoric about a war on terrorism, but no formal declaration on any terrorist group.

            Israel did declare war on Hamas, but not Yemen or the Houthis. We certainly won’t declare war on Yemen and have no need to declare war on Hamas. Similarly, we have no intention on declaring war on the Houthis. Biden even removed the terrorist designation. I doubt he’ll replace that designation even though he did recently call them terrorists. You’re hanging your hat on an outmoded concept in modern politics and international relations. Maybe it shouldn’t be outmoded, but it certainly is today.

          • Yeah, Right says:

            TTG: “You’re awfully hung up on the notion of a formal declaration of war.”

            No, actually, I’m awfully hung up on the notion that a country *cough* USA *cough* can GO TO WAR while pretending that they aren’t.

            The Houthis declared war on Israel. You admit that. So there is an ARMED CONFLICT (aka “a war”) between the Houthi and Israel, and because of that fact the Houthis are perfectly entitled under International Humanitarian Law to declare a naval blockade of Israel AND to enforce that naval blockade.

            That Joe Biden then orders the US Navy to intervene to break that blockade means that the USA has NOW ENTERED THAT ARMED CONFLICT ON THE SIDE OF ISRAEL i.e. the USA is at war with the Houthis.

            Yet Joe Biden refuses to admit that.
            YOU refuse to admit that.

            That’s my problem. That’s what I am hung up about.

            That’s why I consider your repeated claim that what the Houthis are doing is “piracy” and what the US Navy is doing is rending “assistance” against those pirates is laughable.

            It’s a war. Because “it’s a war” what the Houthis are doing can’t be called “piracy”, it can only be called a “naval blockade”.

            The US Navy has entered that war on the side of Israel. The USA is therefore at war with the Houthis, and its actions can not be characterized as “assistance” or “anti-piracy” because what it really is under International Humanitarian Law is “belligerency”.

            WHY is that so very difficult to comprehend, let alone admit?

            TTG: “The last time we did that was against the various Axis Powers in WWII.”

            And I understand precisely why the USA doesn’t issue formal declarations of war.

            Do you?

            My point here is that the requirements in US law that flow from the Constitution still apply: the POTUS can prosecute a war, but only after the US Congress gives their approval.

            By refusing to admit that the USA is at war with the Houthis then that means ol’ Genocide Joe is prosecuting a war that he has ZERO authority to conduct.


            TTG: “We certainly won’t declare war on Yemen and have no need to declare war on Hamas.”

            The POTUS always needs to gain the consent of Congress to any war, declared or not.

            So he is simply pretending that the USA isn’t at war with the Houthis, when the USA most definitely is at war with the Houthis.

            TTG: “Biden even removed the terrorist designation.”

            QED, Biden has ZERO authority under any existing Congressional AUMF to conduct a war against the Houthis.

            He needs to either seek Congressional approval *or* he needs to go all Alice In Wonderland and pretend that the USA hasn’t entered this war on the side of the genocidal maniacs.

            Yeah, I’m a bit hung up about him choosing the latter option, like the unprincipled scoundrel that he is.

            Israel and the Houthis are AT WAR. When the US Navy intervened then that means the USA is also AT WAR the Houthis.

            Which also means that the USA has entered that war on the side of a bunch of genocidal maniacs hell-bent on destroying an entire civilian population.

            So, yeah, I can sorta understand why Biden doesn’t want to admit that. But what’s your excuse?

          • TTG says:

            Yeah, Right,

            US ships and commercial vessels with no connection to Israel have been fired at by the Houthis. We shoot back. It’s that simple.

            I also heard today that the Houthis have been, or will shortly be, redesignated as a terrorist entity. That doesn’t have much bearing on why we’re shooting at them, but it does affect their funding and supply chain.

            You’d be on firmer ground if you stuck to Israel’s bombing of civilians in Gaza and our supplying of weapons used to do so. The Houthis screwed the pooch by firing at ships other than those affiliated with Israel.

          • Yeah, Right says:

            TTG: “US ships and commercial vessels with no connection to Israel have been fired at by the Houthis.”

            I’m going to point out the obvious: when discussing “cause and effect” it should be obvious that the “cause” comes before the “effect”.

            The Houthis went to war with Israel.
            The Houthis declared a naval blockade of Israel.
            The Houthis (as is required by IHL) enforced that blockade.

            Any ship – of any nationality – that did not attempt to break that blockade were free to come and go through the Red Sea.

            They still are:

            Genocide Joe: I’m having none of that! Send in the Navy! Launch Operation Genocide Enabler!

            For reasons that I’m just too weary to repeat, that intervention by the US Navy means that the USA intervened in that war to break the blockade, which inevitably means that the USA was now at war with the Houthis.

            Which is a long-winded way of bringing us all back to…..
            TTG: “US ships and commercial vessels with no connection to Israel have been fired at by the Houthis.”

            Well, yeah, you went to war with the Houthis, remember?

            Your comment isn’t “simple”, it is “simplistic” because it reverses the normal interpretation of “cause and effect” so that you can claim that the USA decided to intervene in this war BECAUSE of the USA intervening in this war.

            Manifestly. Absurd.

          • TTG says:

            Yeah, Right,

            The following commercial ships not affiliated with Israel or Israeli citizens and not en route to or from an Israeli port were fired upon by the Houthis:

            CMA CGM Tage
            Al Jasrah
            Swan Atlantic
            MSC Clara
            Palatium III
            Sai Baba
            Ardmore Encounter
            Maersk Gibraltar

            That makes the Houthis guilty of piracy… or terrorism… or both.

          • Yeah, Right says:

            TTG: “I also heard today that the Houthis have been, or will shortly be, redesignated as a terrorist entity.”

            Oh, entirely predictable. Indeed, inevitable.

            By designating the Houthis as a terrorist entity ol’ Genocide Joe is attempting to retrospectively place the entire Operation Genocide Enabler under the AUMF granted to previous Presidents by Congress.

            He is doing that because (did I mention this before? I think I did) he does NOT want to do his Constitutional duty and stand before Congress to ask for their approval to use force against a group that is attempting to stop an ongoing genocide that he is personally and directly complicit in.

            It’s a…. how to describe it?

            That’s right: it’s a hard sell.

          • Yeah, Right says:

            TTG: “You’d be on firmer ground if you stuck to Israel’s bombing of civilians in Gaza and our supplying of weapons used to do so.”

            The lack of awareness inherent in that statement is, honestly, stunning.

            Are you really going to pretend that what the Houthis are doing ISN’T related to exactly that topic?

            Because I’m telling you know – and the Houthis have been telling you this for months – that this is exactly why they have imposed a naval blockade on the state of Israel.

            TTG: “The Houthis screwed the pooch by firing at ships other than those affiliated with Israel.”

            And, once again, Ladies and Gentlemen, our word-of-the-day is “affiliated”.

            It is a word that TTH uses without making the slightest attempt to define its meaning.

            Naval Blockades are a real thing under International Humanitarian Law, and under that what you are blockading is the ports of the other belligerent party.

            So under IHL what matters is not the “ownership” of the vessel, nor its flag of convience. What matters is its destination. It’s purpose vis that blockade.

            Here. I’ll point you to this again:

            And American commercial vessel displaying that signal is of absolutely no concern to the Houthis. They could not care less.

            And as for pooch-screwing, I’m going to let you in on a little secret: it was Genocide Joe who screwed the pooch when he decided that rather that fulfill his treaty-obligations to put a stop to Netanyahu’s genocidal rampage (which he could do) he decided that he preferred to send the US Navy in to prevent the Houthis from doing what he should have done months ago.

            The USA is going to lose this fight, TTG.

            They’ve already lost the fight with Operation Genocide Enabler when it became obvious that the Houthis had more drones that the US Navy had missiles in their VLS cells.

            So he did what only an idiot would do: he escalated. He launched air strikes against the Houthis.

            One air strike didn’t do the trick.
            Two air strikes didn’t do the trick.
            He’s now up to three air strikes and it won’t do the trick either.

            Indeed, he is now so lost up his own befuddlement that the ships he sent in to ensure safe passage through the Red Sea are now warning commercial vessels not to enter the Red Sea because it is now too dangerous BECAUSE OF the developments that their very presence has caused.

            If that ain’t f**ked-up then I don’t know what is.

          • Yeah, Right says:

            TTG: “That makes the Houthis guilty of piracy.”

            Noooooo, demonstrably untrue.

            We know that for a fact because the state of Israel argued in the case of the 2010 IDF attack on the Turkish ship MV Mavi Marmara that the relevant IHL relating to naval blockade (the San Remo Manual, if you want to look it up) permits a belligerent power to act against a vessel under these circumstances:

            67. Merchant vessels flying the flag of neutral States may not be attacked unless they:
            (a) are believed on reasonable grounds to be carrying contraband or breaching a blockade

            The keys words there are “on reasonable grounds”, which in the case of the IDF attack on the Gaza Flotilla led them to argue that they were entitled to attack those boats even when they were still outside the waters declared by the IDF to be under blockade.

            Now, I’ll point you AGAIN to these three links:

            I urge you to look at those three pictures and tell me what you think they represent.

            Because to my mind they mean that those three ships are declaring that they DON’T intend to breach the naval blockade imposed by the Houthis on Israel.

            And I’m now going to challenge you to demonstrate what the CMA CGM Tage,
            Al Jasrah, Swan Atlantic, MSC Clara
            Blaamanen, Palatium III, Sai Baba
            Strinda, Ardmore Encounter, and Maersk Gibraltar were displaying on *their* VL headers.

            Because I’m telling you now that if those VL headers *didn’t* display “LV NO CONTACT ISRAEL” then the Houthis have their “reasonable grounds” under the San Remo Manual to conclude that these ships were blockade-runners.

            And the San Remo Manual says that if a belligerent power has “reasonable grounds” to conclude that a vessel is attempting to be “breaching a blockade” then it can act against that vessel.

            Indeed, under the San Remo Manual a belligerent power is required to act against such a vessel, since one of the requirements of a naval blockade is that it must be “effective” i.e. the belligerent must enforce the blockade.

            So it the case of those vessels you name it ain’t “piracy”.

            It is “war”, and in this war the Houthis – seemingly alone amongst all the belligerents – is doing things by the book.

          • Yeah, Right says:

            I’m going to add further to my last post: The Houthis are ENTITLED under International Humanitarian Law to board a vessel and search its manifest if they have “reasonable grounds” for believing that vessels is attempting to breach their declared naval blockade i.e. they have reasonable grounds for believing that ship is bound for Israel.

            They are ENTITLED to do that, and no non-belligerent warship has any authority to intervene.

            (or, put another way, intervening in such a search IS an act of belligerency and DOES mean that country is now at war with the blockading power).

            And the Houthis had been – I repeat, had been – doing exactly that UNTIL A US NAVY DESTROYER BLEW THOSE HOUTHI BOATS OUT OF THE WATER AND KILLED 10 HOUTHI.

            You can’t deny that: the Houthis were sending men out to check the manifest of a vessel that was not displaying VL NO CONTACT ISRAEL and the US Navy killed all ten of them.

            But the US isn’t at war with the Houthis, right?
            The US hasn’t entered this war on the side of Israel, right?

            Wrong. The US Navy attacked and killed Houthi soldiers who were attempting to carry out a perfectly-legal search of a vessel that they had reasonable grounds to believe was attempting to breach their perfectly-legal blockade of a country with which they were at war.

            Yet YOU insist that it is the Houthi who are the pirates.

  8. Kim Sky says:


    cannot have a mini-group disagree with the empire, tut, tut

    this is some of the sickest shit yet!!! What next?

    half-a-million gaza-folk starved to death, another half-a-million on the verge, something to be proud of eh?

  9. Lars says:

    Hitting the Houtis hard would also get in the heads of other bad actors. Maybe it is time to show the extent of destruction the US military is capable of and cause some needed recalculations. I am sure it would cause a lot wailing, but at times, lessons are necessary.

    Using Saudi Arabia as a military example is wasting time. They spent a lot of money with very little to show for it.

    • Fred says:


      Yes let us bash some wogs so the rest of them get in line with what is demanded of them. An updated version of the Athenian lesson to the Melians. That ought to ensure Joe’s re-election and America’s place in the world.

    • Stefan says:

      You need to read some Yemeni history then get back to us. Times like this the sage voice of the Colonel is well and truly missed. He understood the Yemenis and their fighters and would quickly put to sleep any lingering questions.

      • Eric Newhill says:

        The Colonel wasn’t consist on his wog bashing stance; nor should he have been. While he respected the NVA and Viet Long as fighting men, he insisted that the US would have bashed them all and won the conflict had we stayed a little longer and finished the job.

        Each situation must be considered as a unique circumstances. Blanket statements and assessments are useless and foolish. Sometimes we can and should bash the wogs and sometimes we should let them wreak destruction in their sh!tholes.

        • Peter Hug says:

          Regarding Viet Nam – I think you could make an argument that although we didn’t win a military victory there, we did achieve our strategic goals. There certainly weren’t any falling dominoes (I guess you could argue the point with Democratic Kampuchea, but there I think that Viet Nam was far more nearly in the right than we were.) And now? We’re working hard to partner with Viet Nam to counter Chinese aggression in the South China Sea (any time you want to completely derail a Chinese advocate in an online discussion, start referring to it as the “East Sea”.)

          I think we both mostly won, actually. It’s just a real pity that so many people died to get where we ended up.

          My fiancée’s grandfather was born in Hanoi around 1921. He started fighting against the Japanese with the Viet Minh in 1941, and then fought against the French until 1954, and then fought against the Americans until 1975. The amazing thing is that he was able to find the time to have three kids along the way, IMO.

          • Fred says:


            Why were there peace accords in Paris in ’73 and why did North Vietnam not invade for two years after the withdrawal of US forces if we – and South Vietnam – did not win the war? Who was in charge of Congress when they refused to aid the South at that time would be the next question.

      • Eric Newhill says:

        In addition to being pro-bombing Vietnam and Cambodia and staying resolute to winning that war, “the Colonel” lest we forget, was all for bombing Libya. You know, the campaign that led to Hillary’s “We came, we saw, he died” fit of laughter.

        If you’re going to reference the man, then please do it completely, not selectively to suit your viewpoint. Enough with the revisionist history of everything. Thanks.

        • Jovan P says:

          @Eric Newhill

          I didn’t follow SST at the time of Obama’s destruction of Lybia, but I remember one commentator writting that the Colonel changed his mind on Libya and admitted he was wrong to endorce it.

          Libya is an example how bombing without thinking achieves nothing, but human suffering.

          • Barbara Ann says:

            Jovan P, Eric Newhill

            The Colonel was pro the air campaign to support the rebels and overthrow Gaddafi. “Leave them to it” probably best describes his view on what US involvement should be after that. If you are interested you can read all about it starting here:



            I had to refer back to the old SST archives on Libya to look this up, seems to have a hole in the archives from May 2010 to June 2013 – can this be rectified? It would be a tragedy to lose old SST material that has not made it to the new site.

  10. James says:

    Am I the only one who thinks that the Russians are backing the Houthis in this? We have been backing Ukraine so it would make sense for Russia to retaliate by backing our antagonists – and what the Houthis have been achieving requires a non-trivial amount of intelligence and ISR I would think. More than Iran can muster on its own.

    Even more sobering would be if the Russians, Chinese, and Iranians are jointly involved to jointly improve their Long Range Precision Strike capabilities.

    • TTG says:


      Don’t sell the Iranians short. They have plenty of intelligence and ISR capabilities and smarts. Remember it’s Russia who’s going to Iran hat in hand for drone and probably missile capabilities.

      • James says:


        You know far more about such things than I ever will so “well noted” as my Kenyan team members like to say.

        • Eric Newhill says:

          Maybe the Russians are happy to help provide a distraction from Ukraine. If they’re not actively helping, I’m sure they’re at least still happy.

    • Barbara Ann says:


      “Backing the Houthis” may be too strong, but Russia, China and Iran sure don’t seem too upset about the US having been dragged into yet another asymmetric war.

      China in particular conspicuously has no interest in Operation Prosperity Guardian despite much of the traffic being Chinese, I found an interesting 5 minute video (below) which may help explain why. As well as transmitting messages like “NO LINK TO ISRAEL” instead of their AIS destination, vessels transiting the Red Sea are also using messages like “ALL CHINESE CREW” etc. It is worth noting that no Russian ships have been hit either. The Houthis maintain that all their targets have some link with Israel and in several examples these seem to be via hard to uncover ownership structures. The intel. required to identify and hit an individual vessel is trivial in comparison. Take a look for yourself. It is not hard to imagine the Houthis running their targeting past the big 3 so as to avoid ‘mistakes’.

      • Stefan says:

        The missile launched today, causing more attacks on Yemen, was actually aimed at a Russian oil tanker. Sure it was by mistake.

        I believe that the Houthis have intentionally not caused any serious damage to ships despite their ability to. This may not remain the case.

        • Barbara Ann says:

          Seems the Houthis thought the tanker was British:

          Ambrey assessed that the vessel was mistakenly targeted based on outdated publicly available information linking the vessel to the United Kingdom.

          “This appeared to be five months old but was still listed as UK-affiliated on a public maritime database,” the report said.

          • leith says:

            That tanker carrying Russian oil was also sailing ‘dark’, meaning she had her AIS transceiver turned off and not broadcasting her ID. It was attacked in the Gulf of Aden and not in the Straits or in the Red Sea itself.

            Interesting that the Iranian surveillance, command & liaison ship MV Behshad just recently moved south thru the Bab-el-Mandeb into the same area where the oil tanker was attacked. The move to the south was reportedly just prior to when the Eisenhower Carrier Strike Group hit those Houthi targets. Which perhaps implies Tehran was warned of the impending strike by the US via back channels.

    • Yeah, Right says:

      I am going to suggest the obvious: the Russians have a big incentive to dish out some payback for American assistance in the sinking of the Moskva by Ukrainian forces.

      So as far as the Kremlin is concerned there would be no reason for Washington to complain if it suddenly turned out that it was the US Navy’s turn to lose a major warship in a confined theatre of war.

      So I for one would not be the least bit surprised if the Houthis suddenly come into possession of precision weapons that are an order of magnitude more sophisticated than they have hitherto revealed, and that these weapons are perfectly capable of sending a destroyer to the bottom of the Red Sea.

      Washington: Where did THAT come from?
      Moscow: Dunno. Ask Kiev.

      • Fred says:

        Yeah Right,

        The Russians don’t even need to give them intel or new equipment, there’s plenty of stuff in their arsenal to do the job. They put a hole in an Arleigh Burke frigate with nothing more than C4 and a beat up boat. That was 3 decades ago. I doubt the navy has improved close in support that much. Sinking a bunch of fishing smacks out of fear wouldn’t do much for the PR war either.

        • Yeah, Right says:

          IF (as I strongly suspect) the Russians have gamed this out and supplied the Houthi with newer and better stuff than they have so far revealed then all this bombing is pointless: The Houthis have *other* stuff that the US military isn’t attacking because they don’t even know about it.

          So *Bang* *Crash* *Boom* There, done, all finished, send those container ships through because it’s now safe….

          *kerrrrrrrpoweeeeeeeee* Oops, no, not safe.

          The USA has to get the commercial shipping companies to return to the Red Sea, otherwise they’ve lost.

          I’ll be damned if I can see how escalating this confrontation achieves that aim.

          • Fred says:

            Yeah Right,

            “The USA has to get the commercial shipping companies to return to the Red Sea…”

            No we don’t. The Europeans need this to resume. So do the Egyptians and probably at some point the Chinese. It isn’t our economy being impacted and it certainly isn’t in our interest to be in yet another war in another third world country. Lots of people would sure like to tell us how it is.

          • Yeah, Right says:

            Oh, sure, I agree on that point: trade between the USA and Europe goes via the Atlantic, and trade between the USA and Asia goes via the Pacific, and as far as the USA is concerned the Red Sea is of monumental unimportance.

            But Genocide Joe has decided to hang his hat on an interventionalist foreign policy that makes e.v.e.r.y.t.h.i.n.g. the business of the USA, and so the Houthi challenge to Israel to stop its genocide is a US national interest.

            OK, if that’s the case (and it is) what marks “success” in that foreign policy butting-in-where-you-are-not-wanted?

            I’ll say it again: “success” is getting the commercial shipping that has been disrupted back into the Red Sea.

            Anything less than that is a waste of money, effort and lives i.e. a “failure”.

          • TTG says:

            Yeah, Right,

            Red Sea trade doesn’t mean much to Israel, either. Israeli trade is mostly done through its Mediterranean ports rather than through Eilat. Most trade also goes through the Mediterranean rather than through the Red Sea or Suez Canal. Eilat imports mostly cars from Asia and exports potash.

            Around 600 cargo vessels are owned/managed by Israelis. Of those, about 13 passed through the Red Sea weekly. Since the Houthis starting shooting at commercial vessels, that number has been reduced to 6 or 7.

          • Yeah, Right says:

            TTG, The Houthis do not expect nor intend that their naval blockade of Eilat will cause the Israeli economy to collapse.

            Take the Houthis at their word and listen to what they say.

            Their statements are simplicity itself: there is a genocide being waged by Israel against the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, and because of the Genocide Convention ALL SIGNATORIES are under a legal obligation to actually do something about it.

            Not just ignore it.
            Not just refuse to be complicit in it.

            The treaty places an obligation on signatories to actually do what they can to prevent/stop that genocide.

            The Houthis (along with South Africa) take treaty obligations seriously. (Again, I know, an odd proposition to a western mindset)

            They understand that they are limited in what they can do. But they can do this, so that’s what they are doing.

            They understand all that. Why can’t you?

  11. F&L says:

    The US intends to “help” Ecuador with intelligence and investigations

    U.S. law enforcement officials will travel to Ecuador to assist with “investigations related to the dramatic escalation of the situation” in the South American country and will also begin providing intelligence to Quito.

    America’s so-called drug problem is actually policy. It Pay$$$ AND it powers the prison industrial system which the elites need to keep running smoothly and voluminously or face revolts, guillotines or parting with some of their wealth.
    ▪️ All this, the State Department reports , is in the name of “deepening cooperation in law enforcement through American security assistance programs.”
    Cooperation has been announced regarding cybercrimes and prison democratization. True, instead of the leadership of, say, the FBI or the NSA, for some reason the head of the US Southern Command, General Laura Richardson, will visit Ecuador.
    This is quite consistent with the ardent desire of Ecuadorian President Noboa , expressed the day before , to transfer all available Soviet, Russian and Ukrainian-style weapons to Kiev. Replacing it with American products.
    ▪️ South America, albeit with some hesitation, is gradually loosening the US stranglehold on its throat. Therefore, Washington is scaling up the scheme worked out in Mexico to Ecuador and other vulnerable places on the continent, such as Colombia: there seems to be a government there, but it is difficult to understand where its power ends and the “powers” ​​of the drug cartels begin. Which the United States seems to be struggling with, but the cocaine trade is growing from year to year.
    Cartels are interested in selling their “products” in the United States and around the world, and the intensity of the fight against them depends on the counter “shadow” services. For example, the cartels have absolutely no need for worsening relations with Washington, which could result in a tightening of the border crossing regime.
    This is why cartels are a little-known but extremely effective force that keeps entire countries in the orbit of American influence. Ecuador is still three times smaller in cocaine production than Colombia, but this is a profitable business.

  12. jim.. says:

    Our Southern Hemisphere..Should Be The Main Arena..For The Bull Fights…But
    The United States… Supply alot of Bull…And No Matadors..

    You are Smart to Look at the Role The Cartels..Play here..With Subversive/Covert Chinese Power/Pills/ And Other Assets..Supporting Everyone..and Reality is..
    Chinese Fentanyl…is Here in Large enough Doses To Do What The Gas Chambers Did in Germany..

    The Cartels Have Free Range Grazing..Mules..Gangsters…Massive Weapon Supplys..
    to Be Used in any Future Major Attacks Inside The United States..Police Stations..Etc..

    No More National Guard..NO Homeland Defense..Because The FENCE..and ALL Wires are Down…All Along the Rail road Tracks..

    The PUNCH will Be…I Adssume.. JOINT Cyber Attacks..on All US Systems…
    Perhaps Co-ordinated With Similar Attacks..By Fuzzy Bears and N. Europe/and or Areas of Asia..

    You are writing Good Stuff..

    • jim.. says:

      Regarding Cartel Weapons brought Across Our Boarder From The Other Southern Swamp.. What can the Cartels Bring..? What Do they Have..?

      Would thier Use Match What Hamas Attackers Did Inside Israel.. RPGS..Grenades..Full Auto…Look at that Damage..Top Line..Planning.

      Imagine that Inside Our Cities..

      In Addition to Police Stations..LEOS…What other Areas would They Targets..

      How About Vunerable ..OIL and Gas Refinerys…??

      How About the ICC Adding Weather Reports to Daily Briefings,,

      How About An Record Low Wave Right Across Germany.Europe…Just like the Oscillating Wave..That Went Right Across the Middle of The United States
      Yesterday..West to East…Bring This Operation DEEP FREEZE to The United States..

      How About The West…And Friends..Learning Fast..To Adapt..and Survive..

      • TTG says:


        The weapons flow is the other way around. The US public is armed to the teeth with legal and illegal weapons. Didn’t the BATF get its ass in a sling for funneling weapons south of the border?

        • jim.. says:

          Those Civilians Dont take their Semi Auto Weapons to Work,, in Washington State with its Woking Govenor…

          Gun Dealers cannot sell anything like ARs…AKS,,or High Cap Clips…This Is NOT the America of The Pioneers..

          The Israels do have Full Autos…and Still Got Damaged..

          • TTG says:


            They take their semi auto weapons to work, to the local gin mills and strolling down the streets in plenty of states besides Washington. High capacity magazines are ubiquitous. Even ghost gun and kits to convert to automatic fire are not that hard to come by.

        • Fred says:


          Fast & Furious and nobody in government went to jail for that. Eric Holder didn’t no a thing about it either. How is that “ass in a sling” for breaking the law?

  13. Razzumovv says:

    There is a plan.

    Phase 1- Russia exhausts the west militarily and politically in Ukraine.

    Phase 2 – Iran draws the American Navy into a conflict in the shooting galleries of the Persian gulf and the red sea.

    <== You are here

    Phase 3 – China invades Taiwan and sinks whatever is left of the American navy.

    What did you really think would happen when you blatantly released a biological weapon on the world?

    • Eric Newhill says:

      That is quit a fantasy. Enjoy it while you can because it isn’t going to last long. It will be dispelled like smoke in the wind.

      Yes, the Russians are prevailing in Ukraine and will militarily be victorious in short time, but those idiots will have achieved nothing of importance geopolitically. They will have merely shifted their border with NATO to the west by a few hundred Kilometers – and at a cost. They have proven that they struggle to defeat a corrupt second rate nation with no real weapons producing industry and, mostly, second hand junk from the west. Based on the Ukraine performance, I am now convinced that if Russia directly faced the US in a conflict, Russia would lose, badly at that.

      There is ample reason to believe that China would suffer the same fate. A massive costly/weakening struggle to take Taiwan and then be finished off by the US.

      As for Iran, they would be slaughtered militarily. Yes, taking and holding Iran would be a Herculean feat for the US, but it isn’t necessary to do that. Kill their military sufficiently and the people will revolt against the Islamic regime. Besides, the Turks aren’t going to let Iran embarrass the US and thereby ascend be the leader of Islam. The Turks want that themselves. Muslims aren’t ever going to form meaningful longterm partnerships with anyone, including other Muslims. The ability to do so is absent in the cultural DNA. But yeah, their stupid little speed boats must be terrifying to the US admirals (sarcasm).

      Of course I deeply hope and pray none of that comes to pass. The US would be mauled in the process, despite ultimately winning – nothing that couldn’t heal in time, but I’d hate to see it.

      • English Outsider says:

        Eric – On the Ukraine part of your comment.

        Neither the US nor the RF are going to engage in open conflict with each other. They are in fact taking precautions to make sure it doesn’t escalate to that level. We may be sure that the deconfliction arrangements we saw in Syria, which in the main operated as designed, have their counterpart in Ukraine right now.

        Doesn’t mean we’re entirely safe. Accidental nuclear is always more likely at times of greater tension.

        The proxy war in Ukraine will be won by Russia. That’s still a fairly limited police operation as far as the Russians are concerned, though of course nothing like as limited as it was at the start. We’ll keep feeding arms and other assistance in but all that means is that more people will get killed. It won’t alter the result.

        The Russians will then neutralise remnant Ukraine to ensure there’s no more annoyance from that quarter.

        They don’t have a lot of choice on that now. They can’t leave a hostile remnant Ukraine on their border that’s being given long range weapons by the West and that will continue attempting to mount sabotage operations within Russia. I always found it difficult to believe that our politicians ever thought the Russians’d put up with that any longer than they had to. Clearly they no longer have to. They used to be worried about sanctions but have now got to the stage where the sanctions help their economy rather than hinder it.

        That’s all cut and dried. Where it gets interesting is how they’ll deal with the Euros. They might introduce counter-sanctions to dissuade Scholz and Stoltenberg from fooling around on the RF border. But the Euros seem intent on wrecking themselves anyway, so the Russians might just leave them alone to get on with it. Have to wait and see.

        But this? “Based on the Ukraine performance, I am now convinced that if Russia directly faced the US in a conflict, Russia would lose, badly at that.” Best have a chat with Martyanov about that, but it’s more of an academic point than a real one. The red line we saw in action at Yavoriv is real and won’t be overstepped. Neither the Washington neocons nor the Russian Hurrah Patriots really want to see mushroom clouds close up.

        As for dealing with the Houthis, what we’re doing there is just grandstanding. Necessary for reasons of internal US politics, no doubt, and HMG just loves flexing muscles it no longer has, but of no greater significance than that.


        Brief footnote. In this context “the Euros” includes, regrettably, HMG, We’re still thick as thieves with the losers in Berlin/Brussels.

        • English Outsider says:

          Also “Yavoriv”, above. One of our volunteers was at the International Peacekeeping Centre at Yavoriv and gave a graphic account of the strike there.

          Details of the training ground/reception facility from early on:-

        • TTG says:


          While Russia certainly is not happy with the NATO or US long range weapons in Ukraine, they now have to worry about NATO weapons along their border in Finland, including nuclear capable F-35s. Oddly they’re removing forces from that border rather than reinforcing it. They’re also removing forces from Kaliningrad. I don’t think they’re near as worried about NATO as they are about reclaiming Ukraine, or a good chunk of it, to satisfy their dreams of a resurgent empire.

          • Yeah, Right says:

            I would suggest that the answer to your puzzlement is to be found here: The Russians don’t consider the Finnish leadership to be batshit-crazy.

            The piano-playing-penis that passes for the President of Ukraine? Well, that’s another issue altogether…..

          • Eric Newhill says:

            Just saw this comment of yours. I agree. The Russian excuses for attacking Ukraine don’t add up, as you said and as I have also concluded and have been saying for a year or so now. Originally, I bought into the ant-west Russian propaganda. I feel foolish, but at least cleared my head in time. It was all the Marxist, woke crap in the west v Russia as a bastion of western and Christian ideals meme that left me vulnerable.

          • Peter Hug says:

            At this point, I think they should start becoming worried about a complete collapse of the Russian army along large sections of the front. I suspect that’s something that does actually keep then up at night.

        • Eric Newhill says:

          I don’t disagree re, Russia/Ukraine. I was not implying that now that we see Russia’s weakness, we should attack. Not at all. I have always believed that the US and Russia should be close allies. I fear that opportunity has passed, but who knows? Never give up hope.

          Actually, I’ve been thinking about the evolution of my position on that conflict. I now agree with TTG and Col Lang that Russia was wrong to attack and invade Ukraine. It was, indeed, an act of aggression and I am fairly confident that the whole NATO expansion excuse was just that; an excuse. As I said, Donbas or no Donbas, Russia still has NATO on it’s borders. They knew that. They’d have to be in a coma to not understand it. There were other, diplomatic, means of handling the situation. I objected at the time to TTG and Col Lang propagating ISW mis-info as to the course of the war, but I get it.

          I continue to understand that Russia is prevailing and will prevail in that they will end up with a secure Crimea and their new Donbas territories (or republics or whatever they are). I further continue to believe that a peace should be negotiated as soon as possible. Continuing the slaughter is pointless. On the other hand, if a bunch of corrupt slavs want to go on with killing each other, I don’t care. Just keep my tax dollars out of it. We have enough problem at home.

          Which is also how I generally feel about Muslim on Muslim violence, which is ample. That said, when civilized, productive people, like Israelis, are attacked in the most vile fashion (i.e. typical Muslim fashion), then we should support the elimination of the perpetrators.

          • English Outsider says:

            I can’t dispute your underlying view, Eric. It’s quite possible to construct a scenario in which Putin was taking emergency measures to safeguard the Donbass and at the same time was seeking to recover lost empire.

            All he had to do was wait until the Nuland types in Kiev and Washington went too far – it was predictable they’d do that – and then he had his excuse. So a valid excuse and we were fools to give it to him, but only an excuse for what he wanted to do anyway.

            I don’t myself think that scenario works for a great number of reasons but “I don’t myself think” is scarcely proof.

            Where I’m quite sure of my ground is in saying that we’ve led the Ukrainians down the garden path; and that’s cost them what could have been a perfectly viable country and the best of them dead crippled or fled. We shouldn’t do that to our proxies and we’ve done it far too often.

            When the SMO started I was flying solo with that view amongst all I knew in England or Germany. Still am. But several months later I came across an interview with a British authority who, it turned out, had been thinking that from the beginning. He was advocating eventual NATO intervention, by the way, so not a Putinversteher. Amazingly – because this man’s definitely no fool – he gets the military situation at the time wrong by 180 but that’s not relevant here. At 4.20 approx he gets to the crucial bit. “Well, I’m rather mindful of our failings in Syria …


            (Starts by referring to Syria) ” I was Chief of Defence Staff at the time and I did come up with a plan that I think would have, plausibly, have resolved the situation early on in 2013, before, by the way, before the Russians became actively engaged. But the message came back from America, the General’s plan is more than the market will bear.

            “But what we’ve then ended up doing is stoking the war by feeding in weapons and resources and some advice, but never giving our proxies the means of winning it; and I thought at the time that that was morally questionable because it would result in a huge number of deaths which is exactly what happened.

            “Probably around 800,000 Syrians died because of this – I wouldn’t grace it with the term strategy, it was a policy – and millions of lives have been ruined.

            “We’ve got to be very careful that through our current approach to Ukraine we don’t end up with the same result which is, over many months to come – who knows how long till this insurgency prospect comes about(unclear) – and more than that – we’re talking potentially years – in which many many fine Ukrainians will die, will lose their lives, but we’re not actually making sure that they can win at the end of it.

            ” Now that seems to me morally questionable and strategically very short sighted.

            “So I think we now need to get ahead of the game, in our strategy in the West – at the moment we seem to be entirely reactive – start being a little more self-confident collectively, and try to change the agenda ourselves rather that relying on just Ukraine and Russia to do so.

            As said, he then gets the military position wrong. That’s serious – if a top military man gets it so wrong it’s not surprising the analysts and journalists did.

            But then later – ” … it sticks in my gullet to think that we can go on, watching day after day, the Ukrainians being battered, bravely, on our behalf – as many Western politicians keep reiterating – if that is the case, and I believe that in many many ways it certainly is, we’ve got to come off the fence more actively and get ahead of the game – just stoking the war, in the way we did in Syria, without guaranteeing success … is morally questionable and strategically over time a very unwise course.”

            Then General Lord Richards goes on to suggest NATO intervention – Yavoriv made it clear that was never on the cards – and a scheme to get the NATO forces ready for, by the sound of it, a full scale combined arms war. I think the General’s being tactful there. The only way NATO forces could be ready for that sort of war in any useful timescale – if ever – would have been if the Americans came in in force. And the American army of that time was simply not ready for that – still isn’t – and had it been the war must have gone nuclear.

            So I’m selecting one short passage of an interview with a British military authority, an interview in which he gets just about everything wrong, and transcribing the one passage where I believe he gets it dead right. Is that fair?

            I think so. He has seen what happened in Syria when we failed to adequately support those we were backing. He can see the same thing happening in Ukraine. And it has.

            There I believe we see eye to eye. We can hold different views on who’s in the right in this war but there can be no question but that the Ukrainians would never have got themselves involved in it had they not believed they’d get full backing from the West.

            We haven’t given them that and were wrong to lead them to believe we could. That being the case it’s time to call it a day before tens of thousands more get pointlessly killed.

          • English Outsider says:

            Bit of a disaster there, Eric.

            I’m getting fed up with submitting comments with misprints, etc. The etc. being the bolding and italicising – if you get that wrong the bolding runs on to the end and it’s a mess.

            So I had an inspiration. And did something that was, frankly speaking, a sin. I put the reply to you above on an English Discus site, thinking I could check whether all the HTML stuff came out right and if it did I could delete at once and submit the comment here. Knowing I’d got it right.

            Didn’t work. The reply went straight into “pending” and stuck there. So I couldn’t delete it.

            Blast, I thought. Well, I don’t suppose they’ll print it anyway. Nothing to be done so I left it at that.

            Today Discus alerted me to the fact I’d got a reply. It was a reply from a football fan asking me what I thought I was doing. My reply to you above had been printed on the site in the middle of a lot of football talk.

            So I suppose you’re famous now. Only as “Eric”, fortunately. Fame at last for General Lord Richards as well, but not perhaps of the sort he’d be grateful for.

            I apologised and deleted hastily. This comment, which also contains italics, I shall not check in the same way. Sinning is one thing. Sinning so publicly is quite another.

  14. leith says:

    Houthis have been letting Russian and Chinese ships through the Bab-el-Mandeb unmolested. Or reportedly even some other shipping that jigger up and falsify their AIS broadcast to display a RU or CN vessel flag code – or they modified their destination code to a port friendly to Iran or Russia or China – or other ruses:

  15. jim.. says:

    Correct look at Phases,,From one Perspective…Mabe..
    But…I do not Believe COVID and its Mutals..and Progressive (sic) Variants..Are The ONLY Biologicals..Of the Tons of Developments For A Few Hundred Years…Starting or Most Noted in America (s)….Measles..and Shingles..Its Good to Take & Make..NOTE,

  16. Yeah, Right says:

    Time to point out, yet again, that this particular conflict can be ended in a day by simply leaning on Netanyahu and forcing him to accept a ceasefire with Hamas.

    Houthi attacks on Red Sea shipping heading towards Israeli ports ends immediately.

    • TTG says:

      Yeah, Right,

      The Israelis shouldn’t accept a ceasefire with Hamas. Their goal of destroying the military capability of Hamas is fully reasonable given Hamas vows to continue terrorist strikes against Israelis. What they should do is stop the indiscriminate bombing of Gazan civilians and assume humanitarian responsibility for them. That would mark a stark contrast with Hamas and take the wind out of a lot of the anti-Israeli protests. But the Netanyahu government will never do that.

      • Yeah, Right says:

        Very erudite.

        Remind me again why Washington should give a rat’s arse about any of those reasons.

        Shipping is being distrusted in the Red Sea BECAUSE OF Israel’s genocidal assault on Gaza.

        Biden: Stop the bombing
        Bibi: But, but, but…
        Biden: I don’t care, pony-boy.

        After all, who is the superpower, and who is the mini-me, in that relationship?

        • cobo says:

          I don’t know how close to the edge your intellect ventures, but there is not a subtle suggestion in play that the entire hamas… thing, is more stage managed than truly organic. Perhaps due to the natural gas offshore, perhaps due to the India2Europe expressway, Netanyahu’s Israel needs this.

          • Yeah, Right says:

            And, again, why should Genocide Joe care two hoots about any of those reasons, or give a tinker’s cuss for what Netanyahu needs or wants?

            “Netanyahu’s Israel” is laying waste to Gaza, and the Houthis have massively disrupted commercial shipping in the Red Sea to force Netanyahu to stop.

            All that BIDEN should care about is getting that commercial shipping back to normal, and the quickest, easiest and most efficient way of doing that is to threaten Netanyahu until he stops that bombing campaign.

            Again, “offshore natural gas” is an ISRAELI interest, not a USA interest.

            And any “India2Europe expressway” is an ISRAELI interest, it is not a USA interest.

            And, after all, I have it from the highest authority (Joe Biden’s Bed Partner) that every morning ol’ Genocide Joe wakes up with only one thought on his mind: how best to do the right thing by the USA.

            Jill definitely did not say that Genocide Joe wakes up asking himself how best he can serve the interests of the state of Israel.

    • Fred says:

      Yeah Right,

      What else would the Houthis like to get the West to do? Did they succeed in getting them to stop aiding Saudi Arabia or ending the blockade of Aden due to attacks on European bound shipping? Did college campuses erupt with pro-muslim support due to the 85,000 starved Yemeni children? One wonders how all those activists did not get activated over that tragedy.

      • Yeah, Right says:

        “What else would the Houthis like to get the West to do? ”

        Holy Shit, Fred, what is it with the West refusing to listen to what Brown People say?

        Is it because they are Brown and, therefore, it’s just all White Noise to Western ears?

        Q: What do the Houthis want?
        A: They want what their leader says they want.

        Q: And what is that?
        A: They want Israel’s genocidal assault on Gaza to stop.

        I…. honestly, is this concept really that hard to understand: The Houthis mean what they say, and they say what they mean.

        • Fred says:

          Yeah, Right,

          The Houthi’s, planet Earth’s spokespeople for “brown people”. Not to include brown people in the USA or elsewhere; Gaza excepted as they are now officially “brown people” and the Houthis are their true defenders.

          Once the Israelis “cease fire” and “stop the genocide” the Houthis will have zero other demands. Except when they do, then they will mean what they say; and the West better do what you are told by the spokespeople for “brown people” – or else. They will not, of course, demand Hamas stop attacks that kill Israeli citizens, kidnap Israelis, or all the rest such as was seen on October 7th.

          Should we have an SST reminder on the escalation chart?
          White Supremacist!
          with various ***phobias in between. Feel free to add a label to make it easier for the newbies to ignore discussion that violates the narrative.

          • Eric Newhill says:

            Between 2017 and 2021, Houti forces launched at least 16 maritime drone attacks on commercial vessels in the waters around Yemen, with the majority of those being Saudi-flagged; kind of calling into question their latest excuse for attacking shipping. Last I checked, the Saudis qualify as “brown skinned”. Some brown skin is more equal than other brown skin, I guess, or something like that. I think other Yemenis who the Houtis shoot at are brown skinned too, but I’m just guessing as I sit on the front porch of my trailer surveying my empire of junked cars and listening to the hound dogs treeing that ‘possum I’m fixin’ to have for dinner.

            You know, since inception, which was a few years ago, the Houti slogan has always been “God is the Greatest, Death to America, Death to Israel, A Curse Upon the Jews, Victory to Islam”. That is literally what they have said and is on the flags they fly, no artistic license taken on my part.

            So, given the Houtis are to be taken seriously (they mean what they say!) and they are the super bad ass fighters the some here understand them to be, then the imperative to neutralize them becomes even stronger (or maybe we should just surrender and have our heads chopped off?).

            I mean, we have these honorable to the marrow, mean-what-they-say, desert ninjas, who want death to my country. Does that mean 330 million people drop dead, including the brown skins in America? Should we ask Obama what he thinks about that? What would Saint George Floyd think?

            Anyhow, since these supremely competent martial masters, men of steel, mean what they say, then it would seem that they have de facto, at the least, declared war on the US too, and it’s arguable that we need to minimally try to neutralize them (I like my head attached to my neck and neck to shoulders), even if we lose two of three Marine Corps divisions, a couple of Army AB divisions, a couple of our carrier groups and half of our Airforce, or more. I shudder to think what the Houti could do to our nascent Space Force should that outfit get involved in the fray. No doubt the Houti have developed intergalactic drones (perhaps manned craft even) that are lying in ambush, within the rings of Saturn, for our satellites to enter the kill zone.

            It’s going to be a horrendous time in US history, but those Houtis mean what they say and what they say is that we must die. Hug your loved ones, get your affairs in order, the most fiercest, most hardest, most smartest, most mean what they say army on the planet is coming for us!

          • Yeah, Right says:

            Fred: “Once the Israelis “cease fire” and “stop the genocide” the Houthis will have zero other demands.”

            If Genocide Joe were to have a moment of lucid thought and ordered Netanyahu to stop his genocidal attack on Gaza then, yes, the Houthis will stop attacking shipping bound for Israel.

            That’s what they said, and so that’s what they will do.

            They aren’t Zionists, Fred, they don’t say one thing and do another.

          • Yeah, Right says:

            Eric: “Between 2017 and 2021, Houti forces launched at least 16 maritime drone attacks on commercial vessels in the waters around Yemen, with the majority of those being Saudi-flagged; kind of calling into question their latest excuse for attacking shipping”

            Gee whiz! Houthis, you say? Saudi Arabia, you say? “Between 2017 and 2021,”, you say?

            Hmmmmm. I do seem to remember that something else was happening between those two parties during the times that you mentioned, but for the life of me I can’t remember what it was.

            A garden party? Nah, not that.
            A court case, perhaps? Nope. Not that.

            Help me out here, Eric, because I’m sure you’ve looked it up: what WAS the legal status under international law between Saudi Arabia and the Houthi between 2017 and 2021?

          • Fred says:

            Yeah Right,

            If only Genocide Joe and the Houthis showed as much concern for Christians in Nigeria, or Afghans being expelled from Pakistan, or, well, lots of others, then I would believe their concern for humanity. You make it sound like a business deal, which is certainly very believable to me.

          • Yeah, Right says:

            Two points, Fred:
            1) What makes you think that Genocide Joe thinks anything beyond which flavor of ice cream he wants today?

            2) Please explain to me how the Houthi can do anything about any humanitarian atrocity taking place in Nigeria, or in Pakistan?

            But they can do something about a humanitarian atrocity taking place in the Gaza Strip, so they are doing what they can.

            Again, why is this so difficult to understand: when you see a genocide taking place you are obligated to do what you can to prevent it, but you can only be expected to do what you can.

            Nobody can expect you to do something you can’t do anything about.

  17. mcohen says:

    I could be wrong.
    Let’s say there are houti’s fighting in Gaza.Trapped underground at khan Yunis.
    What to do.
    What if hamas and co misjudged Israel and thought that Southern Gaza would never be besieged.
    In this light the houti’s actions are a bargaining strategy.
    The second scenario concerns wheat supplies to Yemen.

    It is possible that yemen is heading towards a famine.This could lead to a favourable outcome for Saudi Arabia who struggled to fight yemen and could be bankrolling the intervention by Western navies.Those tomahawk missiles are not cheap

    The third scenario involves china.

    Choking the trade routes via the Suez will boost china’s new overland silk road iniative.At the same time it will hamper European trade routes..

    The worst part of all this is that the houti’s are in
    The way of “progress”.

    Probably better off doing a deal.

    • leith says:

      mcohen –

      Houthis would be better off if they took lessons from the Ukrainians. They sank or destroyed six ships of Putin’s Black Sea Fleet, and damaged another five.

      Have the Houthis seriously damaged any shipping yet? Other than hijacking the RORO Galaxy Leader, the first ship attacked back on 19 November, and bringing her to Hodeida. Using her as a tourist attraction. They still haven’t released the 25 crewmen. Any Toyotas stolen from her or was she returning to Japan for another load?

    • Mark Logan says:


      Another theory is the Houthis are doing this for internal reasons. It’s a coalition of historically fiercely independent tribes and the Saudis have given up. Perhaps they feel they need an enemy to keep it together.

    • Yeah, Right says:

      Or, of course, the Houthis are doing what they are doing for the precise reasons that they state.

      An unusual proposition, I know, but maybe there are some honest actors on the world stage.

      • Eric Newhill says:

        YR, “God is the Greatest, Death to America, Death to Israel, A Curse Upon the Jews, Victory to Islam” is the Houti slogan and has been since the day they appeared on the political scene of Yemen and started killing other Yemenis.

        I thought you are a sensitive soul, horrified by the idea of genocide. Yet, there are you are hero worshipping a group who’s political slogan is blatantly genocidal – and who kill other brown skins of their own country. Does that end your wonder as to why I – and perhaps others – struggle to take your points seriously?

        Think about it. Would you vote for a party who’s campaign platform largely consisted of a pledge to exterminate entire races and countries and who kill political opponents in their own country? It almost sounds like the Nazis. No. Scratch that, it is exactly like the Nazis.

        And you like like to toss around the “Genocide Joe” meme. I don’t care for Biden in the least, but that moniker is totally undeserved; especially given that you are all for genocidal maniacs as long as they are going after western civilization. Your lack of self-awareness is astounding.

        • Yeah, Right says:

          Eric: “Yet, there are you are hero worshipping a group who’s political slogan is blatantly genocidal”


          We can dismiss the first and the last without any real effort:
          That they think their God is Great is, well, great (I suspect you think the same about your God)

          That they think their religion should be the winner is a bit ho-hum, and I suspect that you would also enjoy marching to victory under the banner of your religion.

          Death to America?
          Death to Israel?

          OK, harsh, but the last time I looked (just double-checking and, nope) the Genocide Convention lists “a national, ethnical, racial or religious group” but not “a state”.

          What is America, Eric?

          Because to my mind it is “a state”. The same is true of Israel: it is a State, it is not a group of people.

          And as for “A Curse Upon the Jews”, honestly, are you serious?

          Death to this country. Death to that county. A curse on you guys.

          As Sesame St says: “One of these things is not like the others, One of these things just doesn’t belong, Can you tell which thing is not like the others By the time I finish my song?”

          I’m thinking the odd one out is the cursing one.

          Which is, again, harsh but, you know, shouting “A Curse On You Lot!!” is not exactly going to land anyone in the dock of a criminal court.

          And you accuse me of being a sensitive soul!

          Well, I don’t believe in the Power of The Curse, and I suspect neither do the Houthis, not really.

          You do, apparently, which seems overly-sensitive to me.

          “Does that end your wonder as to why I – and perhaps others – struggle to take your points seriously?”

          Eric, I know *exactly* why you are so dismissive of my points. It ain’t no mystery to me, since you are an astonishingly unsubtle human being.

          Indeed, about as subtle as Netanyahu ranting on about Amalek while claiming he isn’t advocating genocide.

          “Would you vote for a party who’s campaign platform largely consisted of a pledge to exterminate entire races and countries and who kill political opponents in their own country?”

          I don’t live in Israel, Eric, so no, I don’t get that chance to vote there. Not that it matters, since all the main parties are in lockstep over the need to commit genocide against the Palestinians.

          “I don’t care for Biden in the least, but that moniker is totally undeserved;”

          Article 3(e) of the Genocide Convention begs to differ.

          “especially given that you are all for genocidal maniacs as long as they are going after western civilization.”

          Annnnnnnd, there it is: the inevitable straw man that Eric always erects for the singular purpose of knocking it down.

          Regular as clockwork.

          • Eric Newhill says:

            I’m glad we have you to tell us what the Houtis mean when say things because without you we mistake them for meaning what they say.

            So you have met with the ruling Houti council and they have revealed to you the nuances and subtleties of “Death to America” and “Death to Israel” (which according to you is a Jewish state leaving their statement to perhaps be equated to desiring death to all Jews), but, of course, the Houtis declared war on Israel. So that apparently means they can kill them all and let God sort them out. After all, when they launch missiles and drones at Israel, surely there is no guarantee they won’t hit civilians (ditto Hamas rockets). How about the crews of the commercial ships? More collateral damage? And I thought you decried civilian collateral damage.

            Next I suppose you will explain to us that the Houtis and Hamas held their own form of the Geneva convention – the Camel Rider and Goat Fanciers convention? – in which it was declared that raining rockets and drones on civilians, raping and murdering them, etc. is lawful. So they can legally do those things. However, Israel and the US were not signatories. So they cannot.

  18. Christian J Chuba says:

    I hate how Houthi actions are being portrayed in the U.S. MSM, ‘Iranian proxy group attacking ‘international shipping”. This makes it sound like the Houthis, under orders from Iran, have decided to attack the world but they are selectively targeting Israeli linked merchant ships. It is never mentioned that the Houthis said they would stop if there was a ceasefire in Gaza. I understand being against when the Houthis are doing but at least acknowledge the link to Gaza and that we are choosing escalation over forcing Israel into a ceasefire.

    Regarding our so-called belief in ‘international shipping’, we ignore the Saudis blockaded of Yemen. We only believe in free trade and commerce between our allies and no one else. As Caitlin Johnstone says, ‘rules are only rules if they apply to everyone, not just used against our enemies’.

    • TTG says:

      Christian J Chuba,

      I share your frustration with the persistent use of the phrase “Iranian backed Houthis.” One seldom hears “US backed Israelis.” Both entities make their own decisions and are not puppets of either Iran or the US.

    • Fred says:


      Obama’s silence since 2015 is violence, too. Our best and brightest at Harvard didn’t say much either for the last decade.

  19. Barbara Ann says:


    Ambrey are a British-based maritime risk management firm and their latest circular on the Red Sea, issued yesterday, makes interesting reading:

    A couple of quotes:

    “Though the Houthi capability is likely to have been significantly degraded, Ambrey
    assesses that attacks by the Houthis on merchant shipping are highly likely to continue
    and broaden.”

    And under the heading ‘Mitigation’:

    “Ambrey strongly advises conducting a thorough pre-voyage check of the vessel’s affiliations with Israel and those involved in strikes on Houthi military targets.”

    They even suggest up-armoring your vessel in “key areas”. The usual caveat ought to apply to such sell-side analysis I guess as Ambrey’s services include anti piracy PMC’s and other ‘solutions’.

    • Eric Newhill says:

      Barbara Ann,
      Good catch on the “sell-side analysis”. I call it “supply induced demand”.

      As an insurance guy (actuarial) for the past 20 years, I am seeing something interesting here. Shipping is having to pay an increased insurance fee for the seven days they are in the Red Sea. The fee is based on the value of the ship. It is a percent of the ship’s value.

      So a pure economic analysis by shipping is to continue using the Red Sea/Suez Canal *if* the increased insurance cost is less than the increased cost of taking the alternative route around the horn of Africa. If insurance can work the pricing v actual risk right, they have an excuse to levy what amounts to a special “tax” on Red Sea shipping and make some extra profits. That assumes that the risk can be artificially inflated, to some extent, by insurance. Based on Houti missiles fired to hit ratio – which is extremely low – one has to wonder about the true risk to shipping.

      IMO, if the risk was truly severe, insurance would simply declare that they are not covering shipping in the Red Sea (head for the Suez and you’re on your own). Use the horn of Africa route!

      Also, given how the increased insurance rate is calculated, shipping is incentivized to send their B fleet ships through the Red Sea (lower value ships nearing the end of their economic life). There are other approaches shipping can take, for example registering under countries that the Houtis aren’t at war with.

      On that note, I’m wondering who is feeding the Houtis info on the shipping destinations and country of origin/registration. If I were running the anti-Houti op., I would fake registration of a few ships and fake the cargo manifests. Make both Houti friendly. Then, if the Houtis still attack the ships, it should be pretty easy to identify who could have passed info to the Houtis as to the true nature of the ships’ origin, destinations and cargo. Then shut that source down – would be interesting to know who it is.

  20. jim.. says:

    I Suspect that Since CHINA Has Deals and Contracts and Contacts.with
    Egypt…Over The Suez Canal…and The Panama Canal..And IRAN..Shipping
    Manifestos,,Alone..Besides Its World Wide http://WWW..Dominance..Thats
    Much of The Source..

    Y wrote a Four Page Poem Ten Years Ago..Theme..Its ALL About..Who Controls,,
    The OIL..

  21. walrus says:

    Eris Newhill, it is extremely unwise of you to underestimate an enemy, especially one so tough and resourceful as the Houthi .

    We are not in a position to “neutralise Houthi anti shipping capabilities” by air. Trying it with American ground forces is suicidal for us,

    If the Russians, via Iran, can supply the Houthi with advanced missiles, then the Red Sea is permanently blocked.

    • Yeah, Right says:


      The USA can’t win this fight if the Iranians / Russians / Chinese / Koozbainians decide that they don’t want Genocide Joe to win this fight.

      They will always be able to supply the Houthis with something smaller/better/stealthier than the primitive drones that are at the crappy launch sites that the F-18 are currently bombing.

      And if the USA finds a way of detecting and destroying THOSE new weapons then Iran / Russia / etc. can always just say “Oh, OK, have *these* instead.

      Washington is entirely reliant on its enemies not taking advantage of its short-sightedness.

      Which is odd indeed, because what is the incentive for them to be so generous?

      Genocide Joe could solve this crisis with a single phone call to Netanyahu.

      Instead he has embarked on a high-risk campaign he can not win, and all because the Zionist tail wags the Neocon dog.

      • Eric Newhill says:

        You really do sound like the love child result of a three way between Larry Johnson, Ritter and Bernard.

        You have no idea of what the US military is capable of. You haven’t seen it yet.

        How are things working out for your Hamas buddies and their Palestinian supporters in Gaza? You don’t think the US could something similar to the Houtis? I mean you’re crying “genocide” every other word. So I assume you realize that it isn’t going well for your side. Why do you think it would go better for the Houtis?

        The Russians, btw, are struggling to prevail in Ukraine. You really think they have anything to spare for Yemen? China is a long way from Yemen and there are a lot of places to trip and fall in between.

        • Yeah, Right says:

          Niiiiiice example of dissembling there, Eric.

          My thoughts are my own, thank you very much, and occasionally they even turn out to be correct.

          More often than you, I’d wager.

        • Stefan says:

          “You have no idea of what the US military is capable of. You haven’t seen it yet.”

          The Afghans did. How did that turn out?

      • Eric Newhill says:

        You know, it also amazes how some people believe everything that murdering terrorists say and 100% disbelieve everything that civilized nations say. It’s a weird mental disorder.

        Hamas are filthy murderers and rapists – no other rational way to call it – even if some warped “pundits” (like LJ) try to create a bizarro world for your enjoyment and have it that Israel killed their own people on 10/7.

        Houtis are nothing more than pirates and are in violation of just about all internationally recognized maritime laws around piracy and a few other related topics. They have attacked ships flying under the flags of nations as far removed from Israel as Japan and Brazil. And you think they are people of their word and can and should be negotiated with? I really don’t even know what to say to people in your camp, other than have fun hallucinating and throwing rotten eggs while adults take care of the problem. Thank you.

        • Yeah, Right says:

          Niiiice straw man you’ve got there, Eric, and you put it all up on your own, heh?


          “Hamas are filthy murderers and rapists ”

          20,000 (and rising) dead civilians say that Hamas are not the filthiest of murders doing the rounds of the Middle East.

          “Houtis are nothing more than pirates”

          Demonstrably untrue: the Houthis declared war on Israel, and from that point on are entitled to act under the provisions of International Humanitarian Law.

          You *do* understand that IHL has an entire handbook relating to naval blockade?

          You *do* know that, right?

          “and are in violation of just about all internationally recognized maritime laws around piracy and a few other related topics.”

          You know, it is a funny ol’ thing: when you declare war on someone then International Humanitarian Law becomes both your friend and your guide.

          This does appear to be a point that is lost on both TTG and yourself, though I fail to understand why.

          Lord knows I’ve pointed it out often enough.

          “They have attacked ships flying under the flags of nations as far removed from Israel as Japan and Brazil. ”

          A pointless point of order: under IHL pertaining to naval blockades it is the *destination* to the ship that matters, not the flag flying at the stern.

          Again, did you not know that?

          “I really don’t even know what to say to people in your camp, other than have fun hallucinating and throwing rotten eggs while adults take care of the problem.”

          The Houthis are going to win this fight, Eric, so have fun wiping that egg off your face.

    • Eric Newhill says:

      If the US cannot defeat the some camel jockeys and has to cave to Hamas demands, then the world is lost. Seriously, I have never encountered a bigger bunch of morally twisted, dull-witted, p*ss**s than at least half of the people commenting here and 100% at places like Larry Johnson’s and Moon of Alabama. I have to conclude that a lot of people are antisemitic, anti-US, antisocial or otherwise mal-formed personalities who are anti-everything good that keeps their weak sorry asses alive and they actually get off on terrorists savaging civilized people – and then they concoct all manner of sophistry to justify their sick base impulses.

      We are absolutely in a position to neutralize Houti anti-shipping capabilities by air + sea and, maybe, land. It is NOT suicidal to send in a MEU. Would there be a few casualties? I don’t know. Maybe? Probably even. The military suffers casualties. Suffering casualties while inflicting more and breaking the enemy’s will to continue is part of how wars are won. If civilized nations can’t handle that like they could back in our fathers’ day, then the world is lost and will return to a brutish primaeval state that none of the p*ssy commenters could endure. So, Mr defeatist, you and the rest might as well just put a gun in you mouth and pull the trigger – oh yeah, scratch that, you gave up your guns….as I was saying.

      Like I said somewhere upstream, the US military does not lose battles. Its politicians, many of whom resemble the aforementioned commenters, are the problem, tying the military’s hands and then losing interest in achieving victory.

      It’s the cold and flue season, shouldn’t you be out getting your 50th booster shot?

      • d74 says:

        After reading your invigorating prose, I can just see you leading a commando unit in an assault on a bunch of Houtis.

        Those barefooters in rags had better watch out, the cavalry is coming…

        • Eric Newhill says:

          I was wish I were young enough.

          Seriously, the US along with English speaking allies, island hopped across the Pacific, defeating a fanatic and well disciplined Imperial Japanese military on land, sea and in the air. There were intense naval battles and utterly vicious land battles for four years. Simultaneously, we faced the Nazi military – highly professional, better weapons for most of the conflict and an excellent industrial base. We pushed through them from Normandy to the German border in a few months. Yes, the Russians were a big factor, but that does not negate that we defeated the Germans on the western front.

          But we can’t break the backs of some camel riding pirates? Seriously? It’s all a matter of will.

          Btw, the ROEs of WW2 were such that we could wage total war, the only way to win. A number of European cities were flattened; not just by aerial bombardment, but by armor and infantry. It looked a lot like Gaza in cities like Aachen (and even in towns of our French allies). Civilians died; quite a few. There weren’t “woke” social media heroes playing gotcha games and thus aiding and abetting the enemy. Most of the French survivors of destroyed towns welcomed the Americans as saviors and still do to this day. They understood.

          • jld says:


            “But we can’t break the backs of some camel riding pirates?”

            You could not break the backs of some goat herders in Afghanistan, even with boots on the ground and in 20 years…

          • walrus says:

            You are delusional. Read John Lukacs on what it took to beat the Nazis.

            The Western front was started when it was realized by Roosevelt (Churchill always knew) that the Russians would roll all the way to the Channel if we didn’t meet them somewhere in Germany.

            Your views on the Pacific are equally bizarre.

      • Barbara Ann says:

        Finally it comes out: Those opposing Israeli – and by extension US knee-jerk policy which does their bidding no matter what the circumstances, must be anti-Semitic. Well Eric Newhill you are right. Under this currently popular definition of the word they are. I am proud to accept this label if it means not signing up to Bibi’s Old Testament exhortation to go all Amalek on the Gazan people. For those not familiar with the reference (in a fair court surely a slam dunk on an incitement to genocide charge) the Israeli PM was referring to 1 Samuel 15:3:

        Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass

        I understand the position of those who want to live in a world where ‘might is right’ is the only law, but such folk should bear in mind a day will come when it is their ass.

        An educational video for those who get their news via the IDF censors at CNN:

        • Eric Newhill says:

          Barbara Ann,
          You might not be familiar with the sentiments of most anti-US/anti-Israel. I think you’re out of touch. To get a feel, read the comments at somewhere like LJ’s sonar21 blog (but it’s all over social media). It’s Mein Kampf level of Jew hatred and blaming. You know, according to these people, the Jews even committed the terrorists attacks on the US on 9/11/2001. They are responsible for the moral decline of the west, robbing the working man through their banking schemes, creating secret globalist cabals that are behind all of the wars on the planet – why, if not for Jews, we’d be living in paradise on earth.

          So yeah, there’s a lot of antisemitism coming from those who do not support Israel. It’s right there in their own words.

          I see how the Israelis consider the Palestinians of Gaza as Amalek and, as incorrigible terrorists and terrorist supporters, who, from an Israeli perspective, should be smote (smited?) – or removed. Everything else kinder and gentler has been tried and failed – or should the Israelis just martyr themselves; perhaps implementing a mass Jones Town solution?

      • walrus says:

        Eric Newhill; your typifying the residents of the Middle East as “Camel Jockeys” demonstrates that your commentary on that theatre is worthless.

        Go ask some veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan about “camel jockeys”.

        My take on the Yemen situation is that if anyone is going to sink a U.S. aircraft carrier, it will be the Houthi.

        • Eric Newhill says:

          I’ve talked to plenty of veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars; two of them being my own children (one of whom was WIA). The biggest running jokes among them and their comrades who I have met are the unsurmountable challenges of teaching our Muslim allies/partners what should be basic things like how to do push-ups, how to use toilets, how not to poop in the water they drink, how to report for duty the next day instead of disappearing for weeks at a time, how to maintain weapons and not run off and sell them on the black market, how to not show up for a mission blasted out of their gourds on opiates and hashish, how to not bugger teenage boys – the list goes on.

          As for the Taliban/alqaeda/ISIS, the vets are confident that the enemy could have been exterminated given more reasonable ROEs. My son’s final deployment as a 1st Lt was at a FOB along the Afghanistan/Pakistan border. They took rocket and mortar fire from Pakistan every day for two months, fire that caused casualties. The Obama/Clinton idiot rules forbade returning fire into Pakistan. The Taliban would hole up inside of mosques and US troops were forbidden to go after them there. The Taliban attached explosives to children and sent them at US troops and ANA. I could go on.

          You really have no idea what you’re talking about and are romanticizing some despicable loser excuses for human beings. These are not “freedom fighters”, they are vile animals. Camel jockeys is a euphonism that is really to good for them.

        • wiz says:


          Wishful thinking doesn’t make it so.
          Whatever we might think about some US policies, it’s navy is top notch.
          Houthis don’t have anything that could contest the carrier and its escorts.
          The Russians might have, but I don’t think they are going to give it to the Houthis, even as payback for all the damage storm shadows and scalps caused.

          Now, if the Houthis could commandeer an oil tanker and set it on a slow moving, collision course with a US warship, they might have a chance of causing some damage. It’s been done before.

          • Yeah, Right says:

            “Whatever we might think about some US policies, it’s navy is top notch.”

            Here is a navy. It is the (second, how sad) largest navy in the world. It is, without a doubt, the most wide-ranging, globe-encircling navy on the planet.

            A blue-water navy without peer, designed and built to fight like tigers on all of the oceans on the planet.

            Q: And where does Genocide Joe order that navy into action?
            A: The constricted body of water known as the Red Sea.

            Q: Is that….. wise?
            A: I’d say “no”, and further say that this is probably the second-worst place (after the Taiwan Strait, no prizes for quessing) a POTUS could order that blue-water navy to stand and fight.

            Still, Victory Shall Be Ours, for Our Cause Is Noble!

            Not actually sure about that but, heh, whatever rocks yer’ boat.

          • wiz says:

            Yeah, Right

            “Here is a navy. It is the (second, how sad) largest navy in the world.”

            not to nitpick but in all ways that matter the US navy is the largest. China (or even Iran with its speedboats) might have more hulls but in tonnage, the US navy is twice as big as Chinese.

            Houthis need to pick their battles carefully. Taking potshots at commercial shipping will not bring them many supporters.

      • Stefan says:

        “If the US cannot defeat the some camel jockeys and has to cave to Hamas demands, then the world is lost. ”

        There are camels in Afghanistan. Do they count? The US spent 20 years there, trillions of dollars and hundreds of American lives gone. We lost that war to Afghan camel jockeys.

        I guess the world is lost.

  22. Larry Johnson makes some good points:

    “Yemen can launch a hundred drones and missiles at U.S. ships and the destroyer escorts will exhaust their supply of air defense missiles.

    Yemen is showing how a so-called third rate military can effectively bankrupt the Naval power of a “Superpower.”
    The neo-cons urging Biden to attack Iran are math challenged. Iran has more missiles, drones and rockets than Yemen.
    If little Yemen is doing this to the U.S., just imagine the havoc Iran could cause.”

    • Eric Newhill says:

      Genius, pure genius analysis (sigh). Long live the CIA and Dept of State!.

      Except what if 99% of the Houti drones and missiles fail to connect with the target and 95% of the US Navy missiles and drones launched at Houti targets do connect; exactly right on Houti launch sites (+radar, etc) – then include bombs and other ordnance delivered from US and UK aircraft doing the same? Do you think they might run out of Houtis and islamo-missiles before the US runs out of money, ships and ordnance?

      The Houtis are operating out of a small piece of Yemen. There is a large swath of the country that is anti-Houti rebels. They don’t have a lot places to run to or hide. Unlike the Taliban, the Houtis don’t have anything like a Pakistan to flee to and re-arm/re-group. The population has been starving under Houti rule. Things are in bad shape generally in Houti land. US precision guided munitions and targeting capabilities are superb. The Houtis look like trapped, sitting ducks, to my eyes.

      • Stefan says:


        You show your fundamental lack of knowledge of Yemen. The Houthis are NOT operating out of a “small piece of Yemen”. They control the vast majority of Yemen outside of the south. They control almost all major population centers in Yemen, and rule over the vast majority of the population of Yemen.

        I suggest you read up some more on Yemen before making such ignorant comments. Hard to take anything you say seriously when you dont even have a grasp of the basics of the situation.

    • Fred says:


      Only if you fight on their terms. The Houthis have local enemies who can be coopted. They didn’t get prodded into action because of Gaza. Larry can’t explain who might have gotten them to take these actions. How many enemies do the supporters of Ukraine and the borg policy have? Might be a good place to start looking.

      • Yeah, Right says:

        “They didn’t get prodded into action because of Gaza”

        They say that they did, Fred.

        Why is it so difficult to take them at their word?

        • Eric Newhill says:

          Why would you take at them at their word?

          But, to answer your question, for one thing, they were attacking shipping prior to Oct 7, 2023.

          Also, the Houtis have been making war on other Yemenis. Close to 400,000 have died in that war. In fact, Muslims kill each other all the time. It’s amusing that they get so upset when Israelis kill some Muslims in an effort to stop terrorism and indiscriminate Palestinian rockets raining out of the sky on Israel.

          Get it? The Houtis kill lots of Muslims. They have been pirates for some time. Now they make an excuse about all their bad behavior – because Gaza!. Some ungrateful, self-hating, anti-west dorks actually believe them. This is ridiculous.

          • Yeah, Right says:

            Eric: “Why would you take at them at their word?”

            Because that is infinitely superior than simply putting your words in their mouth.

            All the latter does is set up whatever straw man argument you want by the simple expedient of YOU using THEM as your mouthpiece.

            What the Houthis really mean is….
            What the Houthis really want is….
            What the Houthis really intent is….

            No, the Houthis are perfectly capable of speaking for themselves, perhaps you should *actually* listen to them?

            I’ll note that you do this quite a bit: erect straw men and then knock them down. Put words in people’s mouths and then decry those statements.

            It is a cheap trick that doesn’t get any more effective with repetition.

          • Eric Newhill says:

            “God is the Greatest, Death to America, Death to Israel, A Curse Upon the Jews, Victory to Islam” – Houti slogan since their day one of their existence. We should take them at their word, shouldn’t we?Enough said.

          • Yeah, Right says:

            Eric: “God is the Greatest, Death to America, Death to Israel, A Curse Upon the Jews, Victory to Islam”

            Hmm. The first, of course, should not be a problem to anyone. The next two are, of course, directed at regimes not people. Both are not different in character to Western talk of regime-changing whoever is today’s Most Hated Regime Ever!

            The forth is a bit of a mystery to me, so perhaps you can help me out here Eric: do you actually believe in the power of “curses”? You know, all Gypsy-like ‘n’ all?

            I personally don’t, and I’d wonder very much if any Houthis think that the Power of Curses is actually a real thing at all.

            But, apparently, you do. How odd. You belong to a cult, do you?

            The last – Victory to Islam – is, well, yeah. You would hope that they believe that victory shall be theirs. You certainly do, as you’ve made clear many, many times in your lamentable posts.

            Eric: “We should take them at their word, shouldn’t we?”

            Well, I’ve heard you say those words, but since you are Master Of The Straw Man Argument you’ll forgive me for questioning whether those really are their words and not yours coughed up ventriloquist-like.

            Eric: “Enough said.”

            No, I’m pretty sure you’ll be back again to verbal someone.

            It does seem to be what you do.

      • Stefan says:

        Again, your lack of knowledge about Yemen is showing. Sure, the Houthies have local enemies, most of whom they have defeated, the rest who are trapped into local spots surrounded by the Houthis, ie Taiz. Their “local enemies” there are Sunni extremists, the Yemeni branch of the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP).

        Are you advocating that the US work with Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood and other Sunni extremists? Wouldnt help much, these groups are mostly surrounded and under siege.

        Never mind there is a ceasefire in place between the Houthis and these groups. You also forget that where as the Houthis are unpopular with segments of Yemeni society, their stance on Israel and attacks in the Red Sea is the one thing that makes enemies of Houthis fall in line behind them.

        Yemenis, the vast majority of them, support the Houthis stance on Israel and their actions perceived as being against Israel. You will not find a large group of anyone in Yemeni looking to fight for Israel and US interests.

        Your lack of understand of Yemen is truly astounding. Of course that doesnt stop you from talking like you arent talking from the side of your neck, which you clearly are.

        Anyone who knows anything about Yemen will disregard everything you say on the issue because it is just pure nonsense. Your hatred of Arabs, the Middle East and Islam causes you to talk gibberish on this issue.

  23. Kim Sky says:

    the best analysist out there…

    destroying & making inhabitable
    interview with matthew hoh

    • Fred says:

      Lots of money in alternative experts; or the guy who carried water for the man who did almost as much to get us into Iraq than GWB himself. You should link to Judge Napolitano’s youtube channel, he has most of these people on every week to play whack-a-mole with the other ‘experts’.

      • Eric Newhill says:

        It’s a market niche; a racket. Even better when you can get additional pay-offs from foreign governments. But people gonna believe what they want to and it seems ample people want to believe anything that paints the west as evil and terrorists as freedom fighters. I guess it’s better than the audience going out and venting what ails them in the form of school shooters and government building bombers.

  24. Jovan P says:

    I found it hard when on SST/Turcopolier the Colonel and TTG chose to drink the koolaid, with the start of the Russian operation in Ukraine. Just like when there is a crystal part in the eye, and the brain manages over time to skip it over in the brain processing, I learned quickly to skip the ,,Zelensky’s taking back Crimea” kind of texts . (Some day I’ll sue F&L for not knowingly steeling my thought, that better predictions on the Ukrainian war were to be obtained from some Brazilian housewife(in my case most of the drunks in front of the little shop in my town) than from the ISW).

    But having open neocons with a quite visible hasbara agenda all over Turcopolier, seems bit too much.

    Good luck with solving everything with bombs and more bombs.

    • TTG says:

      Jovan P,

      I have trouble comprehending your support of the Kremlin’s military adventurism in Ukraine. It’s a war of aggression, an invasion. It is the epitome of neocon behavior. That’s the basis of Colonel Lang’s and my opposition to the Russian invasion. I can fully understand opposition to US involvement on the principle of non-intervention. I can also understand being resigned to an eventual Russian victory based on the size of Russia compared to Ukraine. I don’t agree with either of those propositions, but I can understand them. But cheerleading for the Kremlin’s war of aggression is vile.

    • Barbara Ann says:

      Jovan P

      Whatever one’s position on Ukraine or any of the other big issues worthy of discussion today, there are plenty of places one can go for an echo chamber of uniform views. What makes this blog unique, and what continues to make it unique thanks to TTG’s voluntary and entirely thankless editorial work, is the diverse range of opinions represented here – all in a more or less informed and civilized manner. I think Colonel Lang would be pleased to see this, the essential nature of his blog, maintained.

      TTG’s own position on Ukraine is no secret and yet he allows all manner of comments expressing diametrically opposed opinions. As for hasbara, even Mr pro-genocide, Muslim/wog-despising Newhill’s comments do not (quite) fall into that category IMO. Vigilance must be maintained though, as one tactic of hasbarists is to subvert and suppress discussion through sheer volume of content.

      • Eric Newhill says:

        For the record, I do not advocate neocon adventurism. I am a moderate non-interventionist. I do not advocate random wog bashing, nation building, democracy spreading or any of the foolish, doomed schemes that neocons dream up. As far as I’m concerned the wogs should be left alone to bash each other, as they are wont to do, into perpetuity. I do make an exception to my non-intervention stance when wogs threaten international trade that all civilized people depend on – and when the wogs launch terrorist attacks against the US and/or other civilized people.

        If a wog group commits acts of piracy or terrorism against non-wogs, then they must be destroyed. If the wog group operates within a larger wog society and the larger wog society tolerates those terrorists among them, then, yes, the entire society is subject to being collateral damage. I do not believe that the larger wog society is powerless against the terrorists and if they do not want to risk being collateral damage, then they should at least denounce, if not remove, the terrorists elements from amongst them. I don’t see the Palestinians denouncing their terrorists, not the Houtis denouncing their pirates.

        Btw, declaring war to justify piracy that you were already committing is a shabby rhetorical trick that should be considered a joke.

        • Stefan says:

          FYI, the term “wog” is a term used mostly within the English speaking population in Europe. It is their version of the word “ni**er” in the US.

          So when someone issues an expletive laden rant with the term “wog” it is just the same terminology belief system held by the neo-Nazis and white supremacists.

      • Jim says:

        Barbara Ann.,,

        I agree .. and Appreciate that TTG keeps this community going
        With tolerance .. and allows wide raging debates.. opinions..
        And discussions .. and Topics..

        I am so grateful That This is all done
        In the memory of Colonel Lang With His family’s support and Ham recipes and Marcus moments

        Thanks to Them This is the best Forum on the Web … ..

  25. walrus says:

    Eric Newhill: “That said, sometimes honor mandates that two honorable parties fight each other to the death over irreconcilable differences and ambitions.”

    ….Speaking as someone who won’t be doing the fighting.

    What’s even more bizarre is Mr. Newhill’s underlying assumption that anything the U.S. does or has done in the Middle East and Ukraine could possibly be termed “Honorable”.

    • Eric Newhill says:

      Walrus, I personally concur 100% with TTG’s observation that the Saudis are the worst soldiers ever. Iraqis are competing for second place.

      The Israelis have kicked Arab ass every time they have met on the field of battle. The only thing the Muslims have going for them is terrorism, which will never win anything, even despite squishy minded social justice ninnies in the west buying into it and politically enabling it as a serious and respectable effort to achieve something.

      You are also deliberately overlooking that I was raised with grandparents that barely escaped a true genocide – not this fake crap in Gaza – perpetrated by Muslims (Turks). Real big tough military men, summarily executing 100s of thousands of unarmed men, marching hundreds of thousand of harmless women and children into the desert to rape and slaughter them – or let them die of exposure and starvation, selling children into slavery to the Arabs and Kurds.

      The Muslim world is a sick barbaric place – only the delusional can put lipstick on that pig. The Israelis are correct to go all out to protect themselves from the evil that surrounds them. No one really cares what you think about it. You won’t be there to be killed by the people for whom you make excuses.

      • walrus says:

        Mr. Newhill, the only “sick barbaric place” I am seeing exists in your brain. There is nothing inherently wrong with Islam – in fact muslims sheltered and protected my father during WWII at great personal risk to themselves. There are sects within Islam, just like in Judaism, that hold to extreme versions of their religion. You should know this.

        It is sad that you have been fed stories of the Armenian genocide and allowed them to poison your mind.

        Furthermore, every day that the Israelis keep attacking Gaza, the more frineds Israel is losing. Yes, anti semitism is becoming fashionable but to Netanyahu that is a feature not a bug of his policy because more jews wil move to Israel.

        • Eric Newhill says:

          “God is the Greatest, Death to America, Death to Israel, A Curse Upon the Jews, Victory to Islam” This Houti political slogan is acceptable to you (it’s repeated in Iran, among Hamas and a dozen other groups), yes, apparently; of course it is?

          Fed “stories” of the Armenian genocide? Sure thing pal. Good to know that you’re a genocide denier on top of everything else. Btw, where are the Assyrians? Seen any lately? I guess the Jews were also fed stories about their own Holocaust.

          As I’ve been saying all along, anti-semitism is huge among most of the west – as is anti-wog ideology (e.g. Armenians as just more wogs). Aside from the paid agents of evil and actual members of those groups, the average white people virtue signaling the most over the poor Palestinians are the people that actually don’t give a sh!t. They just want to appear sensitive, in tune, knowledgeable and concerned. Shallow as paint on wall and fake as a whore’s eye lashes.

          • walrus says:

            Eric Newhill, at best you are an ignorant fool who adds nothing to this website and may even be deliberately trying to poison it.


            “As I’ve been saying all along, anti-semitism is huge among most of the west – as is anti-wog ideology (e.g. Armenians as just more wogs). Aside from the paid agents of evil and actual members of those groups, the average white people virtue signaling the most over the poor Palestinians are the people that actually don’t give a sh!t. They just want to appear sensitive, in tune, knowledgeable and concerned. Shallow as paint on wall and fake as a whore’s eye lashes.”

            “The Israelis have kicked Arab ass every time they have met on the field of battle. The only thing the Muslims have going for them is terrorism, which will never win anything, even despite squishy minded social justice ninnies in the west buying into it and politically enabling it as a serious and respectable effort to achieve something.”

            “The Muslim world is a sick barbaric place – only the delusional can put lipstick on that pig. The Israelis are correct to go all out to protect themselves from the evil that surrounds them. No one really cares what you think about it. You won’t be there to be killed by the people for whom you make excuses.”

            “In fact, Muslims kill each other all the time. It’s amusing that they get so upset when Israelis kill some Muslims in an effort to stop terrorism and indiscriminate Palestinian rockets raining out of the sky on Israel. ”

            “You really have no idea what you’re talking about and are romanticizing some despicable loser excuses for human beings. These are not “freedom fighters”, they are vile animals. Camel jockeys is a euphonism (sic) that is really to good for them.”

            “Then they can starve. They brought that upon themselves by having a failed society that can’t feed itself, by infighting and by making war on external giants. I don’t get all this being perpetually sucked in by every tear soaked sad story that bad actors offer to the west.”

            …….and these are just examples of your toxic opinions from just ONE thread!

            BTW your throwaway line about beating “camel Jockeys” if the ROE had been looser makes me want to laugh. The Afghans and tribes of the North West frontier of Pakistan are natural guerilla fighters and the youngest and dumbest of them have more military knowledge in their little finger than a whole West Point Class.

            You and I were NEVER going to defeat them, just like we NEVER defeated the Viet Cong becaue they are at home in their territory and we are the interlopers.

            I hope the Committee remembers what our founder would do with characters like you.

          • Yeah, Right says:

            “God is the Greatest, Death to America, Death to Israel, A Curse Upon the Jews, Victory to Islam”

            Give it a rest, Eric, before you burst something.

            The first and last slogans are not incitement to anything, amounting to Our God’s Better Than Your God, and Our Team Can Beat Your Team.


            Which leaves us with:
            Death to America
            Death to Israel
            A Curse Upon the Jews

            The “two deaths” prove only that they don’t like the USA and they don’t like Israel, and wish they would both drop dead.

            I’d be quietly confident that this is a view shared by a majority of the people in the world.

            If you were a thin-skinned American or a thin-skinned Israeli I can see how those two slogans were hurtful but, honestly, you’d have to be VERY thin-skinned.

            Which leaves us with:
            A Curse Upon the Jews

            Yeah, definitely anti-semitic. If I were a Jew I’d be upset by that.

            After all, it’s a … it’s a … [gulp] it’s a curse.

            You know, a curse.

            Still, could have been worse: the Houthis could have been the gypsies.

            Coz’ we all know about gypsy curses, right?

          • Stefan says:


            He is an open racist. I dont mind freedom of speech, but at what point do the moderators on this forum step in and say that open racial expletives are outside of the decorum to be expected on this site?

            I have regularly met with government officials, elected officials and appointed figures, in my work on Middle Eastern issues in DC. I have touted this website for years as a place to go for in depth, knowledgeable discourse and a wide array of opinions.

            I will have to rethink this if people like Eric can feel that he has the right for a free for all with racist and biased language without even a comment from the moderators telling him to be civil in his discourse.

            It lowers the value of this venue to have to come here and read multiple racists outbursts from someone who is unwilling, or unable, to control themselves.

            If he cannot express his opinions without using racist discourse and epithets he shouldnt be allowed to comment here. My opinion.

            It degrades the venue and the memory of the man who started it.

      • Stefan says:

        The Israelis have not kicked the Arab ass every time. They got spanked by a non state actor in 2006. History, you should try it sometime.

        • Eric Newhill says:

          Well now, there’s a small crumb for you to hold onto.

          Death to Yemen! A curse on Islam!

        • Eric Newhill says:

          So you work in DC with he federal government on MENA issues. My Lord. You see people who have slogans and charters containing genocidal statements (Death to Israel, Death to the USA, a curse on Jews, river to sea, etc) as reasonable and deserving of respect, but me as out of line. Lord help us. Those who cannot see the irony in their own actions are truly dangerous.

          • Stefan says:

            Here you go with your insane comments. Nowhere did I say that the Houthis deserve respect. As they say in Arabic you are pulling things “min teezuk”. Pulling things from your rear end and attributing it to others.

            The work I do in DC is based on my experience in the region and education on the subjects. I am not paid to do so, nor am I employed on any level on these issues. I do it because I feel I have something to offer. Based on the response I have gotten from various elected officials, appointed officials, people at the SFRC, Ambassador to the UN, the State Department et all it would seem do.

            If Houthi supporters here were talking about “k*kes” and wanting to nuke Israel I’d say the same thing about them. The really odd thing is you are the mirror image of these extremists but are so sure that your extremism is the correct extremism you fail to see it.

            Are you so thick that you cannot communicate your viewpoint without resort to your typical Archie Bunker type tirades? Because that is how you act. The page Archie Bunker who can be expected, without fail, to make a racist fool out of yourself every time.

  26. Jim says:

    I read a Daily Mail very long published article today with release of SecretDocunent from the German Defense Ministry .. The story is Germany is Preparing for an Attack
    On NATO by the Russians in 2025…perhaps someone can put the link up ..

    • jim.. says:

      The German Leak…According to This Daily Mail…Was Published in the
      German BILD..And it Says..they “ Detail the Path to the Third
      World War wuth Putin using BELARUS as a launching pad for an Invasion”

      This comes after a Recent announcement by Swedens Civil Defense Minister
      warned His Country will Soon Face the Prospect of War..

      In Addition to this News..It Was Reported that The USAF is Reclaiming Its
      Former B-29 Base On The Island of Tinan…in the Mariana Islands..

      This Former WW2 Base has Four 8000 Foot Runways..on North Field..and
      the United States Government has Released $78 Million Dollars for the New ACE Strategy…Agile Combat Employment..

      • TTG says:


        It’s a German MOD think piece. Our DoD has plenty of similar scenarios and contingency plans for potential wars around the world. Most large scale exercises use similar scenarios, but we usually thinly veil the potential adversary by calling them red forces or some fictitious name.

        In addition to Tinian, you missed the renewed multiple base agreement with the Philippines. That’s all part of the pivot to Asia that our leaders have been talking about for years.

    • fredw says:

      “Preparing for an Attack On NATO by the Russians in 2025”
      An attack with what? I have to think that this attitude arises far more from German realization of their own military weakness than from any actual threat from the Russians. Putin’s Russia has used up most of the resources that made them intimidating. They can barely keep up with the demands of conflict against a 4th rate regional power equipped with inadequate quantities of obsolete Western gear. Their economy is marginally functional in normal times. Their intentions may be (are) hostile, but how would they mass the forces for an attack on such a scale?

    • Barbara Ann says:


      It is important to understand how this process works:

      – A classified document with appropriately scary content is “leaked” to a specific MSM propaganda news outlet – in this case the German neocon tabloid Bild
      – Other MSM outlets in Europe and the US (which are also mostly under the control of the transatlantic Deep State) pick up on the “exclusive” and repeat and amplify the scary message
      – The purpose of this intel. laundering is to manage public perception – in this case stoke Russophobia in Europe and the US

      The document referred to in this case is not intel. per se, but supposedly a German Defense Ministry war game of some sort. The ‘news’ is that Russia will conduct cyber attacks on the Balts by the summer and then engineer a Gleiwitz incident of some kind at the end of the year as a prelude to a ground invasion of NATO in 2025. It is of course utterly ludicrous, but we can nevertheless learn a few things from this kind of thing:

      The Anglo-American neocon warmongers who orchestrated the conflict are determined to keep the Ukraine war going and to do that they need to maintain some level of consent among the NATO populations. I don’t doubt they are mad enough to try and drag continental European countries into the fighting. The mention of a staged border conflict and cyber attacks is worrying, as these are things any bad actor can attempt to use to broaden the conflict. The timing of the events is also interesting given inauguration day is in January 2025.

      Much of this stuff is predictive programming – i.e. planting seeds in the public perception so that when something happens the credulous masses say to themselves “oh, I read about that somewhere” and don’t insist on proof that the evil Rooshians really dunnit. Cyber attacks in particular can be faked to appear to have come from anyone. The DNC “hack” and the mysterious Guccifer 2.0 with his laughable Felix Dzerzhinsky ‘Russian fingerprints’ is a prime example of this.

      You may also have noticed that large-scale cyber attacks are being planted in our consciousness more and more often. A few data points:
      – The WEF conducted a simulation called Event 201 just before the COVID thing hit – my, what a coincidence
      – The other similar exercise the WEF have run was called “Cyber Polygon” – a simulation of, you’ve guessed it, a global cyber ‘pandemic’
      – The Obamas (as producers) just recently gave us the Netflix movie ‘Leave the World Behind’ (read its wiki, the movie itself is terrible) – a story of some poor folk in the US coping with a cyber attack which takes down the US power grid and causes the breakdown of society
      – Several very smart people have suggested a catastrophic cyber attack causing widespread chaos (blamed on Russia of course) will be the trigger for the Great Reset. Obviously the WEF’s published plans do not say as much, but ask yourself how they plan to replace the capitalism we are familiar with with their “stakeholder capitalism” (a kind of techno-Feudalism where you “will own nothing” – i.e. they will own everything). Is everyone just going to be OK with that? One man has an extremely well reasoned argument of how it will actually be done, 70 minutes of your time very well spent IMO:

      or on Rumble:

      Of course I could be wrong about all this, Russia may well be planning a ground invasion of NATO and the WEF may be planning to ask people to voluntarily give up everything they own. Those who retain critical thinking skills need to make up their own mind.

      • TTG says:

        Barbara Ann,

        Russia or the Russian MOD has contingency plans just like we do. They probably have something similar to what this German MOD scenario lays out. There is already precedent for a massive cyber attack against the Baltics. They did just that against Estonia many years ago.

        These plans are normal. Back in 1987, I had an in depth discussion with a former high ranking Polish official who was deeply involved in such plans. What he laid out for potential maneuvers and lines of attack to what we already knew of those plans. This was in an academic setting, but he did know I was a Polish speaking Special Forces officer. I’m sure he had a good idea of what I was prepared to do in Poland at one time. He did add that these were plans and no one on his side seriously thought they would come to fruition. They made the plans to keep the politicians in Warsaw and Moscow happy.

        • Barbara Ann says:


          Sure, I don’t doubt the war game document is probably genuine – as you say contingency plans are made for even the most unlikely eventualities. My point was re the purpose of such a ‘leak’ at this time.

      • TTG says:


        I loved that movie.

        • jim.. says:

          Good Morning Viet Nam…This is Your AFRS Reaching Out To Start Your Day. Keep Ypur Eyes on the Horizon..
          And your Parachute Handy…

          The Russians Are Coming..The Russians Are Coming.
          Movie is Playing Tomorrow…We will have a Review by AAF…

          Well;;;All These recent Comments have Been Interesting..Thanks for the Feedback..and Thinking..

          Yes…Sometimes Secrets just get out..Through Mouse Holes…In Socks,,Down Pants,,On Chips..With Dips..Loose Lips..And Disquised as a Virus..or
          Political..Industrial…Military..Power Glitch..

          I Think TTG..Your Scenarions are Close to True..

          All I when a Doped-Up Ego Maniac Runs a Country..and Ignores His Commanders and ICC…
          There Will Be Thousands of New Tanks..Cannons..Missles..EW..Cyber Zapping..And
          Troops..With Air Support…Coming After Berlin.
          Places The Nazis didnt knoew Then..Support The Nazis Didnt Know Russia Had Then..

          And The Remake of THAT Movie..Will Include ..With Creative Imagination..
          Owning the EU..and NATO..

          • jim.. says:

            What is Still Out There..Well..Putin Is Still Alive..Railcars all over Russia..Packed WITH?

            There are Options. To Explore….
            Like The Hunt For
            Red. Octobers…Advanced Weapons Systems..
            The 16 Russian Bases in the Artice… Many More
            than NATO.. Undersea Cable Cutting..Land..Sea..Air…Hypersonic..Super
            Secret Systems…

            So..To Be Realistic..I webt to the Site for ther
            “Center For Strategic & International Studies..”

            Topic..”Russian Artic Threat Consequences
            of The Ukraine War..”..


            Wolfs and Hounds…Tally Ho..

  27. mcohen says:

    3 general strike will be alright.about time

  28. Peter Williams says:

    Here is the truth that many you want to ignore about Israel and Hamas –

    • TTG says:

      Peter Williams,

      Explains why the Israelis care so little about the Gazan civilians. They don’t even give a rat’s ass about their own citizens.

    • Eric Newhill says:

      Peter Williams,
      The article you posted is extremely slanted is being used as propaganda by dishonest people, like Larry Johnson, to make the leap that most all civilians killed on Oct 7 were killed by Hamas.

      The article – and people like LJ – question some of the damage seen in photos and make the statement “how could Hamas armed only with AK 47s cause that damage?” – well Hamas was also armed with RPGs, grenades of various types and Molotov cocktails, etc. Those weapons and their use by Hamas is even in Hamas videos.

      It does seem that there was an incident in which there was an intense exchange of fire between Hamas and an IDF tank that resulted in civilian casualties. Hamas fired an RPG at the tank and the tank commander (Hiram) returned fired at Hamas despite possibly being alerted that Hamas was holding hostages. Whether Hiram knowingly fired into a combination of Hamas and hostages or if it was a “fog of war” type situation is unknown at this time and will be the subject of an investigation.

      The wiki, IMO, presents a pretty well balanced perspective:,Dozens%20of%20homes%20were%20also%20burned%20down.%20

      Plenty of other articles on the topic are obvious Hamas propaganda and anti-Israel conspiracy theories along the lines of those pertaining to 9/11 (e.g. the US govt did it, not Islamic terrorists)

      • walrus says:

        The article in question is peppered with links to first hand witnesses for everything it claims.

        It seems that according to Newhill, truth is anti semitic.

        • Eric Newhill says:

          yeah one tank may have done friendly fire on a few people. yeah, there are witnesses. So what? That is a far cry from the despicable assertion by LJ, Hamas and its symps and, it seems, by you that Israel killed all of the civilians on Oct 7. You’re insulting the intelligence of the committee by trying to pretend what LJ does. Everyone except the most biased can see right through your lame efforts. What the hell is wrong with you?

          • Yeah, Right says:

            Eric: “That is a far cry from the despicable assertion by LJ, Hamas and its symps and, it seems, by you that Israel killed all of the civilians on Oct 7. ”

            With that, ladies and gentlemen, we see what is – by far – the largest straw man that Eric has erected in this thread.

            And, no kidding, he’s erected some whoppers.

            Eric: “You’re insulting the intelligence of the committee by trying to pretend what LJ does”

            No, Mr Newhill, it is you that is insulting everyone’s intelligence by flat-out lying about what Larry Johnson has said.

            He is a very public man. He does not hesitate to put his words on paper or on video.

            Show me a single post by Larry Johnson where he claims that ALL of the civilians who died on October 7th died at the hand of the IDF.

            Just one single post. Take your time. I’ll wait.

          • Eric Newhill says:

            I don’t have the time or inclination to track down every example of LJ implying – or openly stating – what he has – because I’m sure one “article” or statement isn’t enough given your propensity for explaining what someone else really means as opposed to what they say. Just read his sonar21 on that topic. It’s right there in front of you (and you know it).

            You’re in love with the guy. Why don’t you ask him straight up who killed the majority of Israeli civilians, Hamas or the IDF? It will be fun to capture what the drooling haters who are his minions have to say as well.

            But you disagree about the IDF killing the majority of civilians? Good, now we’re getting somewhere. You must then recognize that the leader of Hamas is a liar because he says Hamas killed no civilians. Which also means that you can’t trust the casualty figures coming out of Gaza because those are coming from proven liars (Hamas).

          • Eric Newhill says:

            fine – here is but one example of LJ throwing red meat to his antisemitic fans in the form of “Israel killed the majority of the civilians lost on Oct 7”.


            The answer he gives to his own question is “yes”. Of course he is a bit of weasel and kind of sort of passes the buck of total affirmation to ‘The Grey Zone’ and Max Blumenthal, but he is clearly fully on board with their blaming Israel/IDF for most of the civilian deaths on Oct 7. LJ has several more “articles” in the same vein – as well as numerous statements in interviews, podcasts, etc.

          • Fred says:

            Yeah Right,

            Someone on the internet is wrong! And they post comments here! How dare they use the word “all”. Everything they post must be just as wrong! My goodness. I won’t bother to ask when Larry appointed you his repetitional guardian, nor point to the threads on his new site where he’s stated the IDF helicopters shot up the cars leaving rave, or the IDF general calling in fire on his own position because it was overrun and civilians got killed, nor his assertion that Hamas only targeted the “elite” Golani brigade, nor the lose wording he used multiple times. I had that discussion with him face to face last time I saw him. Other than asking about his online guardian. Perhaps it would be more productive if you and Eric can stopped the flame war and spared us some scrolling.

          • Yeah, Right says:

            Fred, just so I don’t misunderstand the argument: you are claiming that even though it was Eric who verballed someone who is not here to defend himself, it is me who is in the wrong for calling Eric out on this.

            That is your position, correct?

          • Fred says:

            Yeah Right,

            Larry doesn’t give a damn about Eric’s opinion nor did he appoint you guardian. Hope that’s clear enough.

  29. Barbara Ann says:

    Agree with Fred and Stephan here. There must be rules for discussion – not re what opinions one may hold, but re how (and it what quantity) they may be expressed. Likewise, a clash of entrenched positions must not be allowed to run on and on. Contributors should have the good grace to resist the temptation of a ‘come back’ unless it is to correct glaring factual inaccuracies. Not the least aim of this would be to spare TTG wading through so much verbiage (226 comments and counting here). The Colonel was quick to ban the ignorant and those who persistently added nothing to the discussion. Those with in depth knowledge on a subject should be permitted larger contributions (e.g. Stefan here).

    Perhaps it would be useful for the Committee to draft, agree on and publish its own guidelines? I’d suggest no ‘shouting’ – i.e. gratuitous use of all caps – be one.

  30. mcohen says:

    The israelis,they kills everyone but not mia khalifa.

    • TTG says:


      I dumped your first try to post this because it made zero sense to me. Since you thought it important enough to try again, I looked up who Mia Kalifa is. Still don’t know what you’re trying to get across, but here it is.

Comments are closed.