Saudi-led coalition air strike kills 36 Yemeni civilians: residents
Source: Reuters
An air strike by warplanes from a Saudi-led coalition killed 36 civilians working at a bottling plant in the northern Yemeni province of Hajjah on Sunday, residents said.
In another air raid on the capital Sanaa, residents said four civilians were killed when a bomb hit their house near a military base in the south of the city.
The attacks were the latest in an air campaign launched in March an alliance made up mainly of Gulf Arab states in support of the exiled government in its fight against Houthi forces allied to Iran.
"The process of recovering the bodies is finished now. The corpses of 36 workers, many of them burnt or in pieces, were pulled out after an air strike hit the plant this morning," resident Issa Ahmed told Reuters by phone from the site in Hajjah.
Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/08/30/us-yemen-security-idUSKCN0QZ09P20150830
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
think
(11,641 posts)How many civilians will be killed in an effort to reinstate the Yemen "president" by Saudi Arabia?...
http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2012/0223/Yemen-loses-a-dictator-but-not-his-shadow
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)oberliner
(58,724 posts)Seems to me there is a lot of evil to go around.
Psephos
(8,032 posts)You know, from strikes against targets on the "Kill List" the Nobel Peace Laureate personally approves?
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in-war-on-al-qaeda.html?_r=0
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/nov/24/-sp-us-drone-strikes-kill-1147
thebighobgoblin
(179 posts)Oh and they once allowed us to use their territory to launch sorties.
Other than that, the House of Saud has been a pain in our ass, spreading the most extreme interpretations of Islam all over the Sunni world. Saud is basically just a more materialistic version of ISIL.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)The economy of the entire world would not be able to function without it.
thebighobgoblin
(179 posts)Screw KSA.
MADem
(135,425 posts)
freshwest
(53,661 posts)Last edited Mon Aug 31, 2015, 11:05 AM - Edit history (1)
between the Iranian ayatollahs and the House of Saud. We trained their pilots and other Saudis for decades, sold them all this weaponry.We are no more responsible for how they use them than the dozens of other countries making this stuff, looking at it that way. And still terrible, what humans are doing to each other and everything else in the biosphere, everywhere.
An honest and logical discussion of this philsophically is way past the ability of DU these days. It's just denial, excuse making or in some cases some will tell about the big picture and catch hell. And it's a not a pretty picture. As a veteran, I know you know that.
We are responsible because of agreements and treaties to keep the Gulf open for international business. That is, the oil being used world wide to maintain the nations who need it while they are transitioning away from it. That day can't come fast enough.
Iran is funding the groups who are taking out the older Yemeni government. Some of the intent is religious and the other just common sense. ISIS is fooling around in Yemen and the region, including Saudi Arabia, who does not want to be attacked from their southern border.
It's claimed that ISIS is there in Yemen and aiding the rebels. It makes sense. Saudi Arabia is high on their hit list, but then that's a very long list. That is to say, everyone who is not willing to be their slave, is on the list, who want to stop ISIS.
But I suspect that some of the wealthy within Saudi Arabia want to destabilize the monarchy to make their move and have funded ISIS in hopes of toppling the House of Saud and taking in more for themselves, or settling some religious scores.
The problem, as SoS John Kerry explained, is their monetary system which makes it hard, if not impossible, to trace who is sending money to ISIS from Saudi Arabia. Some of the wealthy Kuwaiti are also said to sending money to ISIS.
As far as these being American weaponry - we may not be the only ones. They've taken bids from many countries. The MIC makes American jobs. Sanders' position on the F-35 program and drone manufacturing issue is that someone is going to make and sell them, so why not make some bucks for Vermont?
It's the dilemma of every state. The MIC is the R&D for the most advanced technology there is, and self-replicating. It sure is a great business for the employees, CEOs and what not, but not the civilians they're used on, or the guys who are sent to war.
pampango
(24,692 posts)A whole lot of bad on all sides. Of course, folks on the ground kill lots of civilians, too. War is indeed hell.
jamzrockz
(1,333 posts)One country is fighting foreign invaders who kill civilians, destroy historical artifacts and kill minority groups. The other country is carrying out a foreign invasion to reinstall a leader who was swiftly kicked out of the country by a very popular, internal revolution.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)From the way you characterize the situation in Syria.
jamzrockz
(1,333 posts)Also, I support the Syrian Arab army fighting ISIS and the so called moderate rebels whose only goal is to turn Syria into a Libya 2.0. So yea, I am on the side of the secular, sensible, Syrian people. The Saudi, Jordan, western etc etc supported foreign Sunni jihadists fighters can go to hell for all I care
oberliner
(58,724 posts)On the 70th anniversary of the United Nations, the Security Council heard testimony Friday about the devastating effects of barrel bombs and other indiscriminate weapons being used against civilians in Syria, according to François Delattre, the French ambassador to the United Nations.
Closed to the public, the hearings took place two days after U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon called on the Security Council to take “urgent action” on Syria. Ban said the country is experiencing “continuing atrocities and human rights abuses” on a daily basis, Reuters reports. The meeting did not result in any action being taken by the council.
Nongovernmental organizations researching and working in Syria, including Human Rights Watch and the Syrian Civil Defense, testified during the meeting. Staffan de Mistura, the United Nations special envoy on Syria, said in a video message that the Syrian government is responsible for the use of barrel bombs and that at the rate the weapons are being used, there won’t be any civilians left in Syria. The Security Council should stop the use of barrel bombs, de Mistura added.
More than 1,331 civilians have been killed in bombing and weapons attacks since May, which was the deadliest month in Syria since the war began in 2011, according to the Violations Documentation Center in Syria, an organization that monitors human rights violations in the country. More than 70 percent of the attacks were from the Syrian government, according to the center. The use of barrel bombs in Syria, including those against health care facilities and ambulances, is “becoming one of the prime causes of death in Syria,” according to a concept note released ahead of the Security Council meeting and emailed to Newsweek.
http://www.newsweek.com/united-nations-assads-barrel-bombs-continue-kill-syrian-civilians-347782
jamzrockz
(1,333 posts)I read this quote from your post and I completely disregard everything you have to say from there.
indiscriminate weapons being used against civilians in Syria
Why in the world would the Syria army waste their precious weapons just targeting harmless civilians when they has ISIS and US back rebels closing in on them? Wouldn't it be more likely that the army are targeting the fighters who are hiding among civilian targets? but the your sources would characterize it as the SAA going after "civilians". This is on the same level as the babies in incubator story. I doubted it then and I don't believe the same smear tactic used against another US/West enemy.
Syria would be a much better place if the US and the Sunni countries had stayed out of the conflict from the beginning. And all I have is this for you bringing up the UN as some kind of an impartial arbiter.
[
|oberliner
(58,724 posts)I just pasted on article from Newsweek.
jamzrockz
(1,333 posts)I actually thought you believed what was said in the article and that was why you posted it.
pampango
(24,692 posts)Most liberals do not accept the premise that sometimes you have to bomb civilians, markets and hospitals in order to "save" them.
jamzrockz
(1,333 posts)If they were like anything like the so called civilians that took that Qaddafi and were trying to destroy Syria, then he has the right to meet them with the most extreme force imaginable.
Also, I think you 2 confuse me as a pacifist because I am anti war. Look, I believe every state has the right to defend itself from invasion. I support any method used by the Syria govt to squash the foreign backed invasion. Be it chemical, biological, nuclear or even crude conventional weapons such as barrel bombs. We used agent orange in Vietnam, Atomic bombs in Japan and depleted uranium round and white phosphorus in Iraq and those wasn't even the US defending its home from.
If barrel bombs is what they have, let them use it, I don't believe for a second that Dr Assad is going about killing civilians just for the heck of it. There are real hardcore jihadist terrorists hiding in those civilian areas. This is a defensive war and some civilians will have to die for the greater good of the Syrian people.
pampango
(24,692 posts)Not a question one usually hears from a liberal. Dictators rely on their military and security forces to retain power. Assad had a large military that he had never used against invasions.
He inherited absolute power from his father. Not a single Syrian soldier had died in combat with Israel or anywhere else since 1973. His large military came in handy when thousands of Syrians began protesting his rule in 2011.
When ISIS invaded Syria Assad forces did not attack them. They had an agreement not to attack each other but for both to concentrate on other Syrian opposition forces. Assad sees the other opposition as a greater threat since they might attract Western support. ISIS does not like the other Syrian opposition forces for obvious reasons. So no Assad has never used his military primarily for invasion.
It's nice to know there are liberals who still believe that dictators have rights too. Sometime they have to bomb civilians in order to save them.
jamzrockz
(1,333 posts)See, I am not just a liberal, I am also a first generation African who have seen how destructive these democracy pushing policies brought on by armed thugs is. The stunt they pulled in Libya did more damage to African society than Gaddafi can ever dream of doing. Libya was actually a place where many poor Africans go to work. That is all gone now and probably would never return because of misguided western leaders who have no idea what they are doing supporting radical Sunni jihadist fighters.
Also you have to understand that dictatorships like the Assad has in Syria provided more protection for ethnic and religious minorities than it did dmg to the citizens of the country. And even though I believe democracies are more preferable to dictatorship, I will never support an invasion of Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Kuwait, Oman, UAE etc etc by hardcore jihadists just to bring about democracy to those places.
pampango
(24,692 posts)Perhaps the day will come when Libyans and Syrians can have democracies too? Perhaps that day is not here yet.
Will the dictators forget about their military and security forces when that day comes? Or will they go down fighting to the last conscripted soldier in the armies? And will you be on their side?
jamzrockz
(1,333 posts)But that is not going to happen, some places are going to be in situations like they have in some middle east countries. it was take some time to transit but it has to come from the inside not from western countries whose only concern is on how to extra the country of every last oil drop.
Its has to be organic and have popular support inside the country. If you have those 2 characteristics, the soldiers would likely refuse to fight and even turn against the leader when he sends them out to fight their own people.
I have to say this, there are things worse than a dictator ruled country and the Libyan people know a whole lot about it now.
jamzrockz
(1,333 posts)This would help you understand why I am so against these western orchestrated revolutions and why I do support the people's fight against such tactics even when then person leading the fight is a dictator.
pampango
(24,692 posts)Top Ten Myths about the Arab Spring of 2011
The Arab Spring is a Western plot. This allegation was made by the Qaddafis in Libya and is currently asserted by many in Syria’s Baath Party. Nothing could be farther from the truth. It is quite clear that the upheavals in the Arab world came as a surprise to the G8 nations, and were mostly at least initially unwelcome. France’s minister of defense offered help with police training to Zine El Abidine Ben Ali’s Tunisia once the demonstrations got going last year this time. The US initially signalled support for Hosni Mubarak during the rallies against him of late January. Hillary Clinton said she was sure that the Mubarak regime was “stable.” Vice President Joe Biden was constrained to deny that Mubarak was “a dictator.” Obama only saw the writing on the wall with regard to Egypt at the last minute, and was starting to be a target of protest posters in Tahrir Square. The US was reluctant to lose an ally against al-Qaeda in Yemen such as Ali Abdullah Saleh, and still has never sanctioned him for killing hundreds of innocent protesters. Washington was likewise unhappy with the uprising in Bahrain, and at most urged the king to find a compromise (the US Fifth Fleet is headquartered in the capital, Manama, and so the US did not feel itself in a position to support the protesters strongly). Obama was famously reluctant to get involved in Libya. There is substantial ambivalence over the upheaval in Syria, and so far the main form of intervention is targeted financial sanctions. If there is anything that is already clear as we catch history on the run here, it is that the uprisings were spontaneous, indigenous, centered on dissatisfied youth, and that and presented the status quo Powers with unwelcome challenges.
http://www.juancole.com/2011/12/top-ten-myths-about-the-arab-spring-of-2011.html
I understand that the powers-that-be in a country always think that mass protests are caused by 'outsiders' and are not indigenous. Massive indigenous protests against a dictator would signal that perhaps he and his secret police were not as loved as the public image would have had us believe.
