I will once again say that the Houthis are not “the good guys” just because they are threatening Israel or attacking random ships in the name of helping Palestine.
Keep waiting. You won’t find anybody saying human rights watch is a zionist organization unlike israel calling anybody we report their crimes as antisimite and as part of hamas defence league
Considering I have had people tell me that it’s okay that the Houthis are using child soldiers because they are trying to stop genocide, I would not even be remotely surprised if someone called HRW a Zionist organization.
I have a feeling you’re talking about me and that’s not at all what I was saying. My other comment elsewhere in this thread hopefully explains what I was trying to say better.
There aren’t really any good guys in most international conflicts nowadays. I think that’s the point of the “critical support” line that you see used by socialists or anti-imperialists. You support them in a specific struggle, but don’t think they’re perfect. But that doesn’t mean someone is more bad than someone else in each conflict.
In this case, it’s the settler-colonial genocidal, apartheid ethnostate being supported by another former, genocidal, settler-colonial imperialist superpower and it’s imperialist allies that I would say is the worst part of this conflict. Especially considering all the child murder they do, too. So you’re correct, but that won’t stop me from cheering for when the Houthis make Israel’s warmongering harder.
Yemen also has an interesting history of struggle against imperialist forces from the Saudi Arabia and the US that helps add context to a lot of their current problems.
That is an answer to your question as to whether there is a context where child soldiers are appropriate. I gave you one where, in my opinion, it is. In that context, anyone who can fight, does.
The critical support part of the post just explained that cheering for the Houthi’s stopping Israel or US boats to Israel doesn’t mean cheering for their child soldiers. When you cheer for the US giving aid to some poor country, let say it’s WW2 and they’re fighting the Nazis, I’m not going to say “ya, but they are super racist and sexist and LGBTQ people have no rights and there is a large pro-Nazi movement in the US right now just that filled up Madison Square Garden and they interned the Japanese…” because while all that stuff is true, I would still say critical support to the US in their fight against the Nazis, because Nazis are bad, even worse now I’d say. It doesn’t mean I support all of the US as an imperial project or all those horrible things that are official US policy, but in this fight or with another specific policy, etc, they’re doing the right thing and we support them in their effort to do that thing.
As for my last paragraph, I wasn’t saying that using child soldiers is good or “acceptable”, but I’m saying the possible context of how that could’ve happened. Just like you don’t say it’s good if a gang member kills a random civilian, but adding context to how gang membership increases in bad neighborhoods through a combination of poverty, systemic racism, white flight, underdevelopment from neoliberal policies, poor education funding, easy to get guns, etc and that can cause these kinds of problems. It doesn’t excuse the individual doing the crime, but it helps show the real problems at the root of the issue, and explains the outside forces that we may have control over that can actually solve the problem from the root, and separates it from the symptoms which we may not have control over.
I also just thought it was an interesting history that I was hoping I could encourage people to look into more, but maybe I did it kind of awkwardly.
I will once again say that the Houthis are not “the good guys” just because they are threatening Israel or attacking random ships in the name of helping Palestine.
https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/02/13/yemen-houthis-recruit-more-child-soldiers-october-7
(Looking forward to someone saying Human Rights Watch is a Zionist organization or something.)
Keep waiting. You won’t find anybody saying human rights watch is a zionist organization unlike israel calling anybody we report their crimes as antisimite and as part of hamas defence league
clearly, you’ve never been on lemmy.ml
Considering I have had people tell me that it’s okay that the Houthis are using child soldiers because they are trying to stop genocide, I would not even be remotely surprised if someone called HRW a Zionist organization.
I have a feeling you’re talking about me and that’s not at all what I was saying. My other comment elsewhere in this thread hopefully explains what I was trying to say better.
There aren’t really any good guys in most international conflicts nowadays. I think that’s the point of the “critical support” line that you see used by socialists or anti-imperialists. You support them in a specific struggle, but don’t think they’re perfect. But that doesn’t mean someone is more bad than someone else in each conflict.
In this case, it’s the settler-colonial genocidal, apartheid ethnostate being supported by another former, genocidal, settler-colonial imperialist superpower and it’s imperialist allies that I would say is the worst part of this conflict. Especially considering all the child murder they do, too. So you’re correct, but that won’t stop me from cheering for when the Houthis make Israel’s warmongering harder.
Yemen also has an interesting history of struggle against imperialist forces from the Saudi Arabia and the US that helps add context to a lot of their current problems.
Sorry… did you just ‘whatabout’ with a report on the Houthis recruiting child soldiers who then die on the battlefield?
Also, are you suggesting there is a context in which recruiting child soldiers is acceptable?
If some assholes are coming, and they’re going to murder you and then your kid in cold blood, well… here’s your rifle, kid, it’s this or just die.
That is absolutely not what is happening. Read the article.
That is an answer to your question as to whether there is a context where child soldiers are appropriate. I gave you one where, in my opinion, it is. In that context, anyone who can fight, does.
The defense of Stalingrad?
Nah, I was adding context.
The critical support part of the post just explained that cheering for the Houthi’s stopping Israel or US boats to Israel doesn’t mean cheering for their child soldiers. When you cheer for the US giving aid to some poor country, let say it’s WW2 and they’re fighting the Nazis, I’m not going to say “ya, but they are super racist and sexist and LGBTQ people have no rights and there is a large pro-Nazi movement in the US right now just that filled up Madison Square Garden and they interned the Japanese…” because while all that stuff is true, I would still say critical support to the US in their fight against the Nazis, because Nazis are bad, even worse now I’d say. It doesn’t mean I support all of the US as an imperial project or all those horrible things that are official US policy, but in this fight or with another specific policy, etc, they’re doing the right thing and we support them in their effort to do that thing.
As for my last paragraph, I wasn’t saying that using child soldiers is good or “acceptable”, but I’m saying the possible context of how that could’ve happened. Just like you don’t say it’s good if a gang member kills a random civilian, but adding context to how gang membership increases in bad neighborhoods through a combination of poverty, systemic racism, white flight, underdevelopment from neoliberal policies, poor education funding, easy to get guns, etc and that can cause these kinds of problems. It doesn’t excuse the individual doing the crime, but it helps show the real problems at the root of the issue, and explains the outside forces that we may have control over that can actually solve the problem from the root, and separates it from the symptoms which we may not have control over.
I also just thought it was an interesting history that I was hoping I could encourage people to look into more, but maybe I did it kind of awkwardly.