- Location
- Migrating back North
Hello, I would like to appeal this 25-point infraction I incurred here.
I'm not exactly sure if this exact post was the cause or the moderator has decided it was multiple posts together pushing them towards giving out this infraction.
But I believe it was in error as some of the sentences in the posts may have been lacking the full context when viewed.
I made a reply to the previous post with the following.
I do not believe I was casually dismissing the massive costs of the Yemen civil war and subsequent Saudi intervention which I called a genocide due to the suffering inflicted upon the civilian population, so to me the most problematic sentence would be the last one, as by itself, it could be seen as casually dismissing antisemetic rhetoric from the Houthis, which in itself could be considered a dismissal of potential warcrimes and atrocities as under 1.b.
However, this comment was made as a direct reply to the previous post, which was dismissing that the Houthis could be considered as 'freedom fighters' because of what was written on the flag. The sentence was written with that context in mind.
So if I would rewrite the last sentence with full context and clearly convey the meaning, it would be
"On whether the Houthis can be considered freedom fighters or not, what they write on their flag has no relevance as we are accessing the status of freedom fighter based on what they have endured from the Saudis."
As well, I may have been confused by the context of the post as nobody until the poster explicitly referred to the Houthis as 'freedom fighters' because of their actions during the Gaza conflict. My immediate understanding and framing of the issue is that I considered the Houthis as freedom fighters (from their experience in Yemen) with sympathies towards Palestinians, and explains in part of the motivations for their actions. Not that the Houthis are freedom fighters because they are attacking Red Sea shipping and launching missiles at Israel, which may be the argument the poster was shooting down and why the post was considered as falling foul of 1.b. So it could be an issue of talking over each other and in turn, not understanding the context of the other post.
The other post here might have also been considered by the moderator.
I believe the tone made in this post is a bit too uncivil but in here I fully agree with the poster I replied to on their points that the term freedom fighter has certain positive connotations which may not be universally accepted if applied to the Houthis, and it doesn't actually mean the freedom fighter is a force of pure good. The last sentence here is a reference to how consideration of the Houthi's motivations in this entire conflict starts and ends at what they've written on their flag and their Iranian connections and that is suggestive of the motivations for their actions. I was expressing the opposite, that it is entirely too reductive, and there is more complex history here that we should also consider.
I'm not exactly sure if this exact post was the cause or the moderator has decided it was multiple posts together pushing them towards giving out this infraction.
But I believe it was in error as some of the sentences in the posts may have been lacking the full context when viewed.
I made a reply to the previous post with the following.
Unironically, yes.
The Houthis have beaten back the Saudis and pushed them to the negotiation table despite the attempted genocide on Yemen so they fit the classic mold of freedom fighters.
As a successful insurgency, They are going to be much more sympathetic to the plight of Palestinians than Arab governments benefiting from the status quo.
Honestly it has no relevance to what they write on their flag.
I do not believe I was casually dismissing the massive costs of the Yemen civil war and subsequent Saudi intervention which I called a genocide due to the suffering inflicted upon the civilian population, so to me the most problematic sentence would be the last one, as by itself, it could be seen as casually dismissing antisemetic rhetoric from the Houthis, which in itself could be considered a dismissal of potential warcrimes and atrocities as under 1.b.
However, this comment was made as a direct reply to the previous post, which was dismissing that the Houthis could be considered as 'freedom fighters' because of what was written on the flag. The sentence was written with that context in mind.
Are you people trying to sell Houtis as freedom fighters? As people who genuinely care about Palestinians?
Can you tell me what is written on their slogan flag? You know, this one?
Spoiler: What it says
Sorry, but this idea that this blockade on Red Sea is in anyway meant to help Palestinians is a lie. Palestinians are just convenient martyrs, much like Gazans are for Hamas.
So if I would rewrite the last sentence with full context and clearly convey the meaning, it would be
"On whether the Houthis can be considered freedom fighters or not, what they write on their flag has no relevance as we are accessing the status of freedom fighter based on what they have endured from the Saudis."
As well, I may have been confused by the context of the post as nobody until the poster explicitly referred to the Houthis as 'freedom fighters' because of their actions during the Gaza conflict. My immediate understanding and framing of the issue is that I considered the Houthis as freedom fighters (from their experience in Yemen) with sympathies towards Palestinians, and explains in part of the motivations for their actions. Not that the Houthis are freedom fighters because they are attacking Red Sea shipping and launching missiles at Israel, which may be the argument the poster was shooting down and why the post was considered as falling foul of 1.b. So it could be an issue of talking over each other and in turn, not understanding the context of the other post.
The other post here might have also been considered by the moderator.
I think it's just strange people can't believe a political movement turned insurgency, turned winner of a decade civil war that beat back a genocidal foreign intervention aren't sincere when they appear to support similar causes abroad.
Same thing happened after the Chinese Civil War.
The immediate go-to of saying they just want to kill Jews is of course expected, but there's more complex history here.
I believe the tone made in this post is a bit too uncivil but in here I fully agree with the poster I replied to on their points that the term freedom fighter has certain positive connotations which may not be universally accepted if applied to the Houthis, and it doesn't actually mean the freedom fighter is a force of pure good. The last sentence here is a reference to how consideration of the Houthi's motivations in this entire conflict starts and ends at what they've written on their flag and their Iranian connections and that is suggestive of the motivations for their actions. I was expressing the opposite, that it is entirely too reductive, and there is more complex history here that we should also consider.