UK and US airstrikes will not stop Red Sea attacks, Houthis warn

I guess intentions matter. If for example Putin would put a division on a boat and put it on the shore of Palestine to help out against Israel, and they are honest in their intentions to leave after, then Israel and the US would still be the imperialistic aggressor in that particular case, and Russia would be the underdog to root for.

It also would be okay for the US to support Israel if they did it while credibly threatening to cut it off as soon as Israel starts genociding people.

BTW Biden is not on my list just because in there that's bigger than him, he would definitely make the list, along with Trump, as well as eg. Elon "we coup whoever we want" Musk, and a few hundred people who make up the US oligarchy.

Well, the Houthis did try to overthrow their dictatorial government, similar to Libya. It was just not supported by the west.

Are people on Lemmy actually supporting the Houthis? You know they aren’t just attacking Israeli shipping, right? If I shoot some random person but say it’s to help the orphans that doesn’t make it right.

Their demands so insanely reasonable that the Houthis are collecting massive street cred.

The Houthis standing up for Humanitarian rights

I suggest you do a basic reading of their Wikipedia article. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houthi_movement

It's difficult to pin down their beliefs because of how often they change.

• They ally with the US, then they make a slogan calling for death to the US.
• They say Jewish people will live prosperously with them and their only issue is with Israel. Their slogan explicitly calls out Jews distinctly from Israel, and Al-Houthi said "Arab countries and all Islamic countries will not be safe from Jews except through their eradication and the elimination of their entity."
• They say Baha'i people are welcome. There are reports of discrimination against them.
• They say women have equality and freedom and can hold office. Al Jazeera reports that women are harassed and restricted in speech.

There's two possible conclusions we can draw. The more charitable is that it's a very loose coalition with no centralizing authority. The less charitable is that they believe themselves to be ubermensch (as you'd put it) and adopt whatever position aids them at the time.

Either way? You really need to stop taking these things at face value. Awful people make good points. That doesn't change that they're awful. Among the Soviets and Nazis and Americans you'll find that they correctly identified moral failings in each other's societies, but not their own.

To put this another way -- if someone goes on a mass shooting in a US school, and they say Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians, don't make your first reaction to defend the mass shooter.

Edit: If I wanted to be downvoted and have what I think are good points go unaddressed, I'd go to Reddit. I at least expected Lemmy to tell me why my "good points" were actually mentally deficient.

I'm disappointed. If Lemmy no longer offers discussion with disagreement, I'm not sure that it's all that meaningfully different from Reddit.

You're mistaken. We don't have a hard on for the US and Israel.