What's new

The Human Carnage of Saudi Arabia’s War in Yemen

raptor22

SENIOR MEMBER
Joined
Dec 8, 2011
Messages
7,064
Reaction score
9
Country
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
Location
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
The Human Carnage of Saudi Arabia’s War in Yemen

27 August 2015, 17:57 UTC

url.jpg

Five-year-old Rahma lies unconscious in the intensive care unit of the 22 May Hospital in Yemen’s southern city of Aden. Her face is covered in burns; bandages swathe multiple head wounds; and her eyes are closed shut under swollen eyelids. When she regains consciousness — or if she does, as doctors could not be sure she will make it — she will discover that she’ll never see her mother again.

Her mother, Naama, was among 10 members of a family, including five women and four children, who were killed in a July 9 airstrike that destroyed the Musaab bin Omar school in the village of Tahrur, north of Aden. The school had been housing families displaced by the conflict between a Saudi-led military coalition and Houthi armed groups and their allies, which took control of the capital Sanaa and large swaths of the country late last year. Ten other relatives, mostly children, were injured in the attack.

Rahma’s aunt Salama, who lost three daughters in the bombardment — one of them a baby of 20 months — kept asking, “Why did they bomb us?” I had no answer for her. In the weeks I spent in Yemen, from north to south, between mid-June and mid-July, I met families every day whose relatives, often children, were killed and injured in such strikes.

The Houthis and their allies are the declared targets of the coalition’s 5-month-old air campaign. In reality, however, it is civilians like little Rahma and her family who all too often pay the price of this war. Hundreds have been killed in such strikes while asleep in their homes, when going about their daily activities, or in the very places where they had sought refuge from the conflict. The United States, meanwhile, has provided the weapons that have made many of these killings possible.

The conflict has worsened an already dire humanitarian situation in the Middle East’s poorest country. Prior to the conflict, more than half of Yemen’s population was in need of some humanitarian assistance. That number has now increased to more than 80 percent, while a coalition-imposed blockade on commercial imports remains in place in much of the country and the ability of international aid agencies to deliver desperately needed supplies continues to be hindered by the conflict. The damage inflicted by a coalition airstrike last week on the port of the northwestern city of Hudaydah, the only point of entry for humanitarian aid to the north of the country, is only the latest example. The situation is poised to deteriorate further: The U.N. World Food Program warned last week of the possibility of famine in Yemen for millions, mostly women and children.

Bombs dropped by the Saudi-led air campaign have all too often landed on civilians, contributing to this humanitarian disaster. In the ruins of the Musaab bin Omar school, the meager possessions of the families who were sheltering there included a few children’s clothes, blankets, and cooking pots. I found no sign of any military activity that could have made the site a military target. But I did see the remains of the weapon used in the attack — a fin from a U.S.-designed MK80 general-purpose bomb, similar to those found at many other locations of coalition strikes.

This was far from the only instance where U.S. weapons killed Yemeni civilians. In the nearby village of Waht, another coalition airstrike killed 11 worshipers in a mosque two days earlier. There, too, bewildered survivors and families of the victims asked why they had been targeted.One of the two bombs dropped on the mosque failed to explode and was still mostly intact when I visited the site. It was a U.S.-manufactured MK82 general-purpose bomb, fitted with a fusing system also of U.S. manufacture. The 500-pound bomb was stamped “explosive bomb” and “tritonal” — the latter a designation indicating the type of explosive it contains.

Mistakes in the identification of targets and in the execution of attacks can and do happen in wars. In such cases, it is incumbent on the responsible parties to promptly take the necessary corrective action to avoid the recurrence of the same mistakes. But there is no sign that this is occurring in Yemen: Five months since the onset of the coalition airstrike campaign, innocent civilians continue to be killed and maimed every day, raising serious concerns about an apparent disregard for civilian life and for fundamental principles of international humanitarian law. Strikes that are carried out in the knowledge that they will cause civilian casualties are disproportionate or indiscriminate and constitute war crimes.

While the United States is not formally part of the Saudi-led coalition, it is assisting the coalition air campaign by providing intelligence and aerial refueling facilities to coalition bomber jets. The sum total of its assistance to the coalition makes the United States partly responsible for civilian casualties resulting from unlawful attacks. Washington has also long been a key supplier of military equipment to Saudi Arabia and other members of the coalition, providing them with the weapons that they are now unleashing in Yemen. Regardless of when the weapons used by coalition forces in Yemen were acquired — whether before or since the start of the air campaign — the countries that supplied the weapons have a responsibility to ensure that they are not used to commit violations of international law.

The poisonous legacy of these U.S.-made weapons will plague Yemen for years to come. In Inshur, a village near the northern city of Saada, I found a field full of U.S.-made BLU-97 cluster submunitions — small bombs the size of a soda can that are contained in cluster bombs. Many lie in the field, still unexploded and posing a high risk for unsuspecting local residents, farmers, and animal herders who may step on them or pick them up, unaware of the danger. In one of the city’s hospitals, I met a 13-year-old boy who stepped on one of the unexploded cluster bombs in Inshur, causing it to explode. It smashed several bones in his foot.

Cluster bombs were banned by an international convention in 2008. But in the 1990s, the United States sold the type of cluster bombs now littering the fields of Inshur to Saudi Arabia. Each of these cluster bombs contains up to 200 small bombs, which are dispersed by the bomb’s explosion over a large area. However, many of these smaller bombs often do not explode on impact, leaving a lethal legacy for years to come.

Coalition airstrikes have been particularly intense in the north of the country, notably in and around Saada, a Houthi stronghold that is home to some 50,000 people. When I visited the city in July, I was shocked by the extent of the destruction: Saada now lies in ruin, with most of the population displaced and private homes, shops, markets, and public buildings reduced to rubble in relentless and often indiscriminate air bombardments. A coalition spokesman said in May that the entire city of Saada was considered a military target, in breach of international humanitarian law, which demands that belligerents distinguish between civilians and military targets at all times.
International law is clearly being violated in Saada and the surrounding villages. A series of coalition strikes on a village in Sabr, near Saada, killed at least 50 civilians, most of them children, and injured nine others in the afternoon of June 3. Half of the village was completely destroyed.

Surviving villagers showed me the piles of rubble which used to be their homes. Ghalib Dhaifallah, a father of four, who lost his 11-year-old son Moaz and 27 other relatives in the attack, told me the boy had been playing with his cousins in the center of the village, at the precise point of impact of one of the airstrikes. “We dug for days looking for the bodies; we recognized some body parts from the clothing only,” he told me.

While the relentless coalition airstrikes are the biggest killer of civilians so far, civilians also find themselves increasingly trapped in the crossfire between Houthi and anti-Houthi armed groups, with each side supported by some units of the now-divided armed forces. The fighting has intensified since troops from the United Arab Emirates joined the ground operation alongside anti-Houthi fighters, recapturing the southern city of Aden, Yemen’s second-largest city and its main port. As Houthi armed groups have been forced to retreat from Aden and other areas they controlled until recently, they have laid mines that have already claimed dozens of civilian lives.

Many civilians previously displaced by the conflict in the Aden area are now unable to return home, for fear of this lethal legacy from the war.

A negotiated solution to this destructive war remains elusive, as all the parties involved in the conflict have persistently disregarded their obligations under international law. Such impunity has undoubtedly fueled even more crimes. This must change. A United Nations commission of inquiry to investigate alleged war crimes and other violations of the laws of war by all parties in Yemen could be an important deterrent. Whatever the means, the international community must send a strong message to the belligerents that further abuses will not be tolerated and that they will be held accountable — so as to ensure that other children will not suffer the same fate as Rahma.

Amnesty International
 
At the end of the day KSA and the rest of the GCC are the biggest aid providers to Yemen before and AFTER your Iranian backed terrorist Houthis took power, Yemen will be fine once your Mullahs stop supporting terrorist groups over there. So spare us your crocodile tears.
 
One thing I don't understand , which I ask our Saudi colleagues to respond why is it important for them to destabalize Yamen , would that not mean creating enemies South of border , and also you have Isis North of border ?

I am not familiar with geography is Yamen part of Saudia that they need to interfere with Yamen's politics

Was there a human casualty created that demended Saudi Intervention

Again in western media as you know they do not cover Yamen/Saudia or other areas where Muslims are killing each other

They do cover a old temple if its destroyed

I thank you for your kind consideration
 
The Human Carnage of Saudi Arabia’s War in Yemen

"Strikes that are carried out in the knowledge that they will cause civilian casualties are disproportionate or indiscriminate and constitute war crimes."

"The countries that supplied the weapons have a responsibility to ensure that they are not used to commit violations of international law."

"Cluster bombs were banned by an international convention in 2008. But in the 1990s, the United States sold the type of cluster bombs now littering the fields of Inshur to Saudi Arabia. Each of these cluster bombs contains up to 200 small bombs, which are dispersed by the bomb’s explosion over a large area. However, many of these smaller bombs often do not explode on impact, leaving a lethal legacy for years to come."
Amnesty International

International law (the Geneva Conventions) explicitly says that presence of civilians will
not protect military targets from attack. Thus it can be perfectly legal to kill civilians.
What is banned is attacks on purely civilian targets.

Once sold, the seller has no responsibility for the use of weapons.
Many countries do impose bans on buyers, which they cannot trust to use them
in an acceptable way, but that is voluntary.

It is embarrassing that the author do not know the difference between laws,
which an individual has to follow, and International Conventions,
which a country may or may not sign, and bound by only if signed.
Neither KSA, nor Yemen has signed this convention, so they are not bound by it.
Maybe they should sign it, but that is irrelevant.
 
Houthi Children Chant ‘Death to America’ | Military.com


isn't the houthi whole slogan they want to be martyrs?


seems they want death and destruction even if it's their own.

They are in their own country and are being killed on daily basis their infrastructures have been razed to ground by your Arab allies and American made weapons and bombs , a war that has been supported by your country politically and logistically and you expect them to say "Long live to the USA?!

International law (the Geneva Conventions) explicitly says that presence of civilians will
not protect military targets from attack. Thus it can be perfectly legal to kill civilians.
What is banned is attacks on purely civilian targets.

Once sold, the seller has no responsibility for the use of weapons.
Many countries do impose bans on buyers, which they cannot trust to use them
in an acceptable way, but that is voluntary.

It is embarrassing that the author do not know the difference between laws,
which an individual has to follow, and International Conventions,
which a country may or may not sign, and bound by only if signed.
Neither KSA, nor Yemen has signed this convention, so they are not bound by it.
Maybe they should sign it, but that is irrelevant.


It can be perfectly legal to kill civilians? are you aware that we are talking about human lives over here? am I right? on the other hand the seller has supported this madness politically and logistically.
 
They are in their own country and are being killed on daily basis their infrastructures have been razed to ground by your Arab allies and American made weapons and bombs , a war that has been supported by your country politically and logistically and you expect them to say "Long live to the USA?!




It can be perfectly legal to kill civilians? are you aware that we are talking about human lives over here? am I right? on the other hand the seller has supported this madness politically and logistically.


I don't see the big deal they blow themselves up along with innocents.. we blow them up and sometimes cause collateral damage, now I can't speak for the Sauds they might just be bombing them without a concern for the innocent.

like I said they seem to be molded by death and destruction kinda hard to feel sorry for them.

but I do find it funny that both sides have Allah on their side. so who is more just?
 
i don't understand why some countries authorities have got into the trap of USA and Zionist regime. the KSA king is killing our Muslim brothers instead of fighting against the world biggest terrorist Zionist regime. Yeman people just have decided to change their president. i think all of us knowledge that this is the most basic human right . well, what is the role of the KSA in the fate of Yemenis? who are happy today? KSA or Iran? i believe no of them. all of the Muslim countries including KSA and Iran are upset. these are USA and Zionist Regime whose are happy and are smiling to us. my brothers Let's get to know our true enemy. come to be united against USA and Zionist regime rather than to be fighting against each other.
 
It can be perfectly legal to kill civilians? are you aware that we are talking about human lives over here? am I right? on the other hand the seller has supported this madness politically and logistically.

Yes, if you attack a military target, and civilians are killed as a result, it is perfectly legal.
There must be some kind of proportionality.
If you have a guy firing a gun from a building in a village, you cannot nuke the village.
If you have a guy with a nuclear missile in the village, you can most certainly level the village (with inhabitants).

It is all stated in the Geneva Conventions.
The notion that killing civilians is illegal is a myth spread by incompetent journalists,
and apparently also by Amnesty members.
 
Yes, if you attack a military target, and civilians are killed as a result, it is perfectly legal.
There must be some kind of proportionality.
If you have a guy firing a gun from a building in a village, you cannot nuke the village.
If you have a guy with a nuclear missile in the village, you can most certainly level the village (with inhabitants).

It is all stated in the Geneva Conventions.
The notion that killing civilians is illegal is a myth spread by incompetent journalists,
and apparently also by Amnesty members.

So, do you also accept that killing civilians in Syria is also legal?

PS: You do agree that killing western soldiers in Middle East is perfectly justified, right? Then why does U.S call those groups who fought them 'terrorists'?
 
i don't understand why some countries authorities have got into the trap of USA and Zionist regime. the KSA king is killing our Muslim brothers instead of fighting against the world biggest terrorist Zionist regime. Yeman people just have decided to change their president. i think all of us knowledge that this is the most basic human right . well, what is the role of the KSA in the fate of Yemenis? who are happy today? KSA or Iran? i believe no of them. all of the Muslim countries including KSA and Iran are upset. these are USA and Zionist Regime whose are happy and are smiling to us. my brothers Let's get to know our true enemy. come to be united against USA and Zionist regime rather than to be fighting against each other.

I thought that Israel was the worlds SMALLEST Zionist regime :D
Reminds me of the time, when I went up the WORLDS LARGEST TOKYO TOWER:chilli:.

So, do you also accept that killing civilians in Syria is also legal?

PS: You do agree that killing western soldiers in Middle East is perfectly justified, right? Then why does U.S call those groups who fought them 'terrorists'?

Stupid question.
You can only tell if you know if there are military targets present or not.

If there are no military targets, then it is illegal, if there are, then it is legal.

Asking, without giving those details is meaningless.

Warfare is governed by laws, and killing western soldiers while abiding to those laws is perfectly legal.

Dressing like civilians or as soldiers allied to western soldiers is clearly illegal and can be considered terrorism.

Blowing up civilians with suicide bombers is definitely terrorism.

Blowing up military with suicide bombers dressed as civilians is a war crime.
Blowing up military with an IED is not.

Again, you have to provide much more details

Incidently, anyone fighting in a war who gets significantly better compensation than
an average soldier is classified as a Mercenary and has NO protection by
International Law.
Being motivated by Martyrdom thus has its risks.
 
Stupid question.
You can only tell if you know if there are military targets present or not.

If there are no military targets, then it is illegal, if there are, then it is legal.

Asking, without giving those details is meaningless.

Warfare is governed by laws, and killing western soldiers while abiding to those laws is perfectly legal.

Dressing like civilians or as soldiers allied to western soldiers is clearly illegal and can be considered terrorism.

Blowing up civilians with suicide bombers is definitely terrorism.

Blowing up military with suicide bombers dressed as civilians is a war crime.
Blowing up military with an IED is not.

Again, you have to provide much more details

Incidentally, anyone fighting in a war who gets significantly better compensation than
an average soldier is classified as a Mercenary and has NO protection by
International Law.
Being motivated by Martyrdom thus has its risks.

That's a lame logic. So if you wear uniforms and fight those who invaded your country, it's not terrorism.

If you don't wear uniform and fight those invading your country, it's terrorism.

You said targeting civilians where there are military targets is perfectly legal (even if it kills millions of civilians), but you can't accept that those who fight troops who invaded their country in civilian clothes are not terrorists. This is just hypocrisy.

The fact is, all wars are based on hypocrisy. Almost everyone kills civilians when it suits them and gets away with it.

Let me remind you again, those who kill foreign troops in their country, even if they are in civilian clothes, are NOT terrorists (be it American soldiers or Martian soldiers) as long as they don't kill any civilians intentionally and their sole purpose is fighting the invaders.

I asked a simple question: In Syria, rebels have been hiding in cities for 4 years, killing civilians and security forces, but the west considers them freedom fighters and condemns Assad, while based on your definition, Syrian army is fighting terrorism. Don't you think your definition has serious flaws? Or at least, your fellow western countries do not follow your definition?
 
That's a lame logic. So if you wear uniforms and fight those who invaded your country, it's not terrorism.

If you don't wear uniform and fight those invading your country, it's terrorism.

You said targeting civilians where there are military targets is perfectly legal (even if it kills millions of civilians), but you can't accept that those who fight troops who invaded their country in civilian clothes are not terrorists. This is just hypocrisy.

The fact is, all wars are based on hypocrisy. Almost everyone kills civilians when it suits them and gets away with it.

Let me remind you again, those who kill foreign troops in their country, even if they are in civilian clothes, are NOT terrorists (be it American soldiers or Martian soldiers) as long as they don't kill any civilians intentionally and their sole purpose is fighting the invaders.

I asked a simple question: In Syria, rebels have been hiding in cities for 4 years, killing civilians and security forces, but the west considers them freedom fighters and condemns Assad, while based on your definition, Syrian army is fighting terrorism. Don't you think your definition has serious flaws? Or at least, your fellow western countries do not follow your definition?

No, targetting civilians is not legal, killing civilians can be.
Killing millions is perfectly legal, as long as each killing is legal.
You cant kill 50,000 civilians in one attack, just to kill a single infantry soldier.
If you kill 50,000 Infantry soldiers, in 50,000 incidents and each incident
results in the killing of a civilian, then it is legal.

Participating in war, requires you to distinguish yourself from civilians
not participating. Wearing a coloured ribbon around the arm is enough.
If you are indistinguishable from a civilian, you are a war criminal.
If you use the civilian clothes to get an advantage in killing your enemy,
you are a terrorist.
I.E: a fighter dressed in civilian clothes shooting from a trench in WW1 style warfare,
would be a war criminal, but not a terrorist.
A fighter dressed in civilian clothes approaching an enemy soldier
in the middle of a city, and shoots him in the back is most certainly a war criminal and a terrorist.

If the Syrian Army is attacking rebel positions, then a reasonable number of civilian kills are legal.
Random bombings of a city containing rebels is not.
If the rebels dress like civilians without ribbons, etc., they are war criminals.
 
Nobody here is able to mention a single modern war which has centered around air bombardments of a guerrilla /terrorist group that has not (unfortunately) killed innocent souls (civilians).

This occurred at a much, much larger scale during the Vietnam War, the US-led War in Afghanistan which started in 2001 or the Iraq War of 2003. Those wars were even conducted by the most powerful army in the world (by far) yet they could not limit all civilian casualties. Far from it.

Now in the case of KSA then this war against the Houthi terrorist cult has been going for over 5 months and the number of civilian casualties killed by KSA and the Arab coalition in air bombardments aimed at the Houthi terrorist cult is not any greater than the number of civilians that the Houthi's have killed before doing their violent coup d'état or since the war began 5 months ago.

Not only that they are deliberately hiding in civilian areas and taken them as hostage. Yemen has plenty of sparsely populated mountainous areas, lowlands, desert areas etc. where no civilians are found.

Comparing KSA's 5 month long conduct in Yemen (not even 4000 people have died in total well over 50% of them are Houthi terrorist cult members) with the systematic carpet bombing (completely indiscriminate) that the Al-Assad regime has been doing for years is simply ridiculous.

The farsi users here should cry about that instead of supporting the biggest mass-murderer in the 21st century in Al-Assad. Not only that they have also been supporting the terrorist Houthi cult financially, militarily, politically and morally.

Also considering the fact that the same "Arab" Mullah ruled Iran has used it's air force (whatever is left of it) to target PJAK which has killed over 30.000 Iranians since 1979, also killing hundreds of innocent Kurds in the process.

Without the Houthi terrorist cult and their illegal aggression in Yemen and threats aimed at KSA nobody would be bombing Yemen aside from USA and KSA (drone attacks) on AQAP.

I guess the next comparison will be that of US, Arab (GCC + Jordan) bombardments + now Iraqi regime of Daesh strongholds in Syria and Iraq, which whether we like it or not, have killed hundreds of civilians too if not 1000 or 2000 by now, is illegal.

If KSA wanted to flatten most of the Houthi strongholds and kill most civilians (which is just next door unlike many other areas of Yemen) this would have been done the first 2 weeks. So the whole premise is nonsense.

Amnesty International are against any killings. They are even crying when KSA are executing child-murderers or the US serial killers because they are against the death penalty.


At the end of the day KSA and the rest of the GCC are the biggest aid providers to Yemen before and AFTER your Iranian backed terrorist Houthis took power, Yemen will be fine once your Mullahs stop supporting terrorist groups over there. So spare us your crocodile tears.

Exactly. KSA has virtually kept Yemen afloat financially for decades and hosted an extremely large Yemeni diaspora (vital for the Yemeni economy) for decades and to this day. KSA and the GCC, being fellow Arab countries on the blessed Arabian Peninsula, will continue to help Yemen as an unstable Yemen is in nobodies interest. At least not the immediate neighborhood. Meanwhile KSA + GCC relief is once again leading on all fronts as usual.

Meanwhile Iran has never been interested in Yemen and only recently used it to create trouble for KSA and the GCC by trying to destabilize it just like they are doing this dirty work in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Bahrain. Most Iranians too until 1 year ago could not even locate Yemen on a world map and now they act as the greatest defenders of Yemenis. It's a joke.:lol: While the only thing they have given Yemen are weapons (so people there can kill each other). Nothing else. But that won't happen again. I am also 100% sure that they won't send any relief to Yemen either once the conflict has ended.

Also this is war. In wars people die. Most often then not civilians as the age of battlefields on some depopulated grasslands are long over.

So they can screw themselves in short and mind their own bloody business. I suggest their only "brotherly" nation, tiny, impoverished, insignificant and landlocked Tajikistan.

I am personally against wars as I always prefer the diplomatic way first but this has not been possible in this case like with 1000's of other before in history.

What is even more ludicrous is that the farsi users here (before KSA entered the conflict) were bragging about how passive KSA was (even taunting) and making nonsense claims of Houthi's capturing Riyadh and KSA. Having zero disregard to all the civilians that the Houthi's murdered before they captured most of Yemen. Now they are suddenly crying when the tide has turned. Pathetic. Truly pathetic.

@BLACKEAGLE has all of their comments.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom