After repeated claims that Britain's reloading of the Saudi Arabian Royal Air Force's bomb bays does not mean Britain is at war with Yemen – where its ordnance are dropped – the government finally conceded that it is.
In a tense exchange with parliamentarians in a debate on the British sale of arms to Saudi Arabia, Alan Duncan, the government's Special Envoy to Yemen, said: "We are in conflict for a reason".
Duncan's admission officially confirms of what every sensible person has known since March 2015, when Saudi Arabia intervened in Yemen's civil war with an air campaign made possible by British planes and British bombs, and for which UK arms companies made £2.8bn in revenues in the first year alone.
To use the words of the UN envoy to Yemen, the "humanitarian catastrophe" precipitated by the Arab world's richest country bombing its poorest has been almost total.
[...] while NGOs and MPs in several parliamentary committees have been sharp in their criticism of the government for continuing to fuel this war, the government does nothing, meekly claiming over and over again there is no evidence of Saudi war crimes in Yemen and that Britain regularly "seeks assurances" from Saudi Arabia that it is not committing those crimes.
In March, the UK director of Human Rights Watch told the arms export control committee that he has personally handed evidence to the Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond, complete with GPS coordinates, of Saudi air strikes on civilian targets. This month Amnesty International sent photographs of British-made BL-755 cluster bombs partially exploded in recent months discovered in farmland near the village of al-Khadhra in northern Yemen.
[...] The government is wriggling because, under Britain's own arms export laws, it is illegal for it to sell arms to a state that is at a "clear risk" of committing international humanitarian crimes. Acknowledging the chorus of evidence of Saudi war crimes in Yemen would be tantamount to admitting Britain's complicity in them.
The truth is that the arms trade of a handful of private arms companies with Saudi Arabia is simply off limits to our country's democratic apparatus as well as its civil society.
Source: The Independent
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 09 2016, @11:40PM
The Party Has Finally Admitted We Have Always Been at War in Yemen
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Subsentient on Friday June 10 2016, @12:20AM
This is all new to me as an American. I really hate this world, and most importantly, the cruelty of its inhabitants.
"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." -Jiddu Krishnamurti
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 10 2016, @12:42AM
as an American. I really hate this world, and most importantly, its inhabitants.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Mr Big in the Pants on Friday June 10 2016, @12:47AM
It shouldn't be. Your government has supported the Saudis for some time. And let's not get started on helicopters and missiles to Israel shall we....
I doubt anything will happen. The UK government has been accelerating rapidly towards a police state for some time. I imagine the Saudi way of doing things appeals greatly to the current Tory party in power. I would feel sorry for the UK but they sort of voted for them and you get what you vote for (undemocratic first past the post system helped though).
But I agree. The shaved ape experiment that is humankind seems hell bent on making itself extinct as per usual.
I bet Earth will barely notice....
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 10 2016, @10:52AM
The shaved ape experiment that is humankind seems hell bent on making itself extinct as per usual.
No. Only the elite aristocracy is hell bent on keeping the subservient via controlling currency and causing war. [youtube.com] This is a weaponized philosophy that grew out of China's Han Dynasty, BTW: "When the people are weak, the rulers are strong."
(Score: 5, Informative) by butthurt on Friday June 10 2016, @01:01AM
a couple of titbits I found on the Web:
—https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/feb/22/saudi-arabia-surge-arms-imports-middle-east [theguardian.com]
—https://web.archive.org/web/20110814154242/http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DRIT=1&DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=111&FID=376&PID=0&IID=5177&TTL=Arms_for_the_King_and_His_Family:_The_U.S._Arms_Sale_to_Saudi_Arabia [archive.org]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by purple_cobra on Friday June 10 2016, @11:03AM
Unfortunately because we're dependent on oil, we can't just cut off all ties with Saudi Arabia; we're also dependent on cheap trinkets so we can't cut off all ties with China, either. I think it's far, far too late to be looking for solutions to this now. We should have been throwing money at developing alternatives to oil since the 70s but oil has served us well and while we know it'll run out, that won't be for aaaaaaaaaaaaaaages yet. I wouldn't mind betting that no big, nation-state kind of money will be put into developing alternatives to oil until 10 minutes before we're due to slurp the last gallon out of the earth.
We also have pretty strong indications that Daesh are funded, at least in part, by Saudi Arabia, in an effort to spread Wahabist Islam throughout the region and the world by force. Cut off funding to SA, which in turn would cut funding to Daesh, may leave them at each others' throats instead of butchering their way across the middle-east, though it would undoubtedly result in yet more civilian casualties. There's been far too much death already.
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Friday June 10 2016, @07:25PM
Well, the North Sea hasn't entirely [scotsman.com] run dry yet. Also, if it's all right to purchase from Iran [wikipedia.org], Iraq [wikipedia.org] and Libya [nytimes.com] again [reuters.com], perhaps we can. Or perhaps Saudi Arabia will decide [wikipedia.org] to close the spigot and see what happens. [theislamicworkplace.com]
You may be right; no one's doing "hurry production" on ITER.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 10 2016, @07:11PM
Which is why:
https://theintercept.com/2015/10/26/bbc-protects-uks-close-ally-saudi-arabia-with-incredibly-dishonest-and-biased-editing/ [theintercept.com]
And back to Yemen:
http://www.thecanary.co/2016/06/10/west-fake-entire-attack-al-qaeda-oil-pipeline/ [thecanary.co]
Independent on-the-ground sources have denied there was any such attack.
Veteran BBC journalist Iona Craig, who has reported extensively from Yemen, said that the coalition statement was “ridiculous”, as AQAP had already deserted the city before the alleged military ‘rout’:
There weren’t even 800 fighters left there. There was no fighting inside the city because al-Qaeda had already left.
She described the 800 figure as “a lie that’s not even plausible.”
Craig had been in Mukalla a month before the military operation. She said that Saudi-led forces had been secretly negotiating with AQAP for the previous two weeks “to let fighters leave”. Far from being ‘routed’, al-Qaeda “had been given free passage out of the city” by their Saudi benefactors.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by edIII on Friday June 10 2016, @12:22AM
Advanced societies do not involve themselves with the trade, for profit, of military ordnance and equipment.
It is impossible , with the presence of money and profit, to make any claims of impartiality and unaccountability. It's one thing for an arms manufacturer to sell a handgun, or even semi-automatic rifle, to a citizen, and quite another to be selling military equipment on a large scale with foreign nations. The former can easily be explained as not being primarily for the purposes of violence, but security, while the latter can only be explained as mass violence against others for corporate profits. Even equipping our allies is problematic, as we tend to choose exceedingly poor allies (at least lately). Either that, or every major government is involved in this trend of "humanitarian catastrophes".
On on another note, nations should not be trading military equipment and ordnance under any circumstances, as that relates to national security. I for one, think all the arms manufacturers are traitorous duplicitous lying pieces of shit that only care about profit, and certainly not our own national security. I'm also a strange bird, in that I think profit in the military industrial complex can only be seen as traitorous to their nation. I'm not interested in fighting wars, or defending my country, just to make some rich fuck richer. That rich bastard wants so much from the rest of us while we are at war? How is that suffering with their brothers and sisters, and not profiting from the suffering of their brothers and sisters? I say we send all the largest shareholders of our war machine to the actual battlefields to demonstrate their equipment. Asking them to fight for their nation, for free, just like the rest of us do, isn't anti-Capitalism, but actual patriotism.
The £2.8bn being received by UK arms companies is blood money, and they're absolutely complicit in the actions of their foreign customer. I cannot blame any Middle Eastern citizen for wanting to blow people up in the UK at this point. After all, the UK is selling the bombs that are killing them in their fields around civilian targets. Shit, if I lived in those fields I would probably wish death upon those sitting sipping tea and making money off my misery too.
Britain can claim they are not at war with Yemen, but that reminds me of a saying I'll paraphrase:
Ask any Yemen citizen that has been bombed if they feel that they are at war with the UK. Gee, I wonder what they'll say.....
Ohhhhh, and I just love how EU pharmaceutical corps refuse to sell the US drugs used in carrying out death sentences, but are perfectly okay with killing thousands by selling weapons of war instead. Talk about an astronomical level of hypocrisy.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Friday June 10 2016, @12:55AM
> all the arms manufacturers are traitorous duplicitous lying pieces of shit that only care about profit
Gotta quote Tom Lehrer:
Once the rockets go up,
Who cares where they come down?
It's not my department,
Says Wernher Von Braun
(Score: 1) by Wodan on Friday June 10 2016, @10:21AM
EU pharmaceutical corps sell weapons now? That's news to me!
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by jmorris on Friday June 10 2016, @12:33AM
The people in Yemen being killed need killing. Saudi Arabia is willing to do the killing so we should allow them to get on with it. They want to buy weapons to kill bad people with and are willing to pay good money for them. Still not seeing a problem here.
Saudi Arabia isn't a pussyfied western country that has stupid notions about playing fair in a war. Good for them if they believe their enemies should die and they shouldn't and if the locals want remain near combatants some will die, and that too is better than their own people dying. Still don't see a problem. This is how war has been waged since the first human picked up a thighbone and whacked somebody from a neighboring tribe. Some pussies say we should 'evolve' beyond that but we have seen what that sort of conflict looks like, screw that noise. Kill people, break their things, then once they are dead or have submitted you go home. Repeat as needed.
(Score: 2) by n1 on Friday June 10 2016, @12:46AM
and the cosmic ballet goes on...
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 10 2016, @12:50AM
Hello there, human. I am Zzzlort, an alien researcher visiting your world. As a social experiment, I will now teleport you to Yemen to determine whether your change of location will cause you to "need killing." My overseer requires me to inform you beforehand for ethical reasons. Ok here you go....! If you die, I wish you a nice death.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 10 2016, @01:20AM
Don't forget that you are dropping him off in the middle of a desert with no food or water, which means if he wants to just "leave the area with combatants" (you know, where food, water, and shelter is) he will die of exposure. LOGIC IS FUN! \o/
(Score: 0, Troll) by khallow on Friday June 10 2016, @01:34AM
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Tork on Friday June 10 2016, @04:52AM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 0, Offtopic) by khallow on Friday June 10 2016, @05:14AM
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Tork on Friday June 10 2016, @05:23AM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 0, Redundant) by khallow on Friday June 10 2016, @05:40AM
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Tork on Friday June 10 2016, @05:50AM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 0, Troll) by khallow on Friday June 10 2016, @06:03AM
(Score: 2) by Tork on Friday June 10 2016, @07:20AM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 0, Troll) by khallow on Friday June 10 2016, @10:38AM
(Score: 2) by Tork on Friday June 10 2016, @03:39PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday June 10 2016, @06:01PM
I pointed you right at it and you said it's not there when clearly several other people see it. We're basically at a point right now where you either need to own up to the mistake you're making or come up with a plausible conspiracy theory about how a bunch of SN posters got together to play a surreal prank on you.
Because now the only possible explanation for your continued zero information posts is some strange paranoia on my part? I think I have an alternate explanation here. Namely, that there are idiots on the internets and you are one of the idiots at the moment. Let's hope it's just a temporary thing and not something that can only be cured by having aliens dump you in Yemen.
I'm still trying to work in the lizaroids and the Bank of England. I need more tacks to hold the yarn on the wall.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Friday June 10 2016, @06:23PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday June 10 2016, @06:57PM
The original post was in my opinion a heavy-handed, infantile, and very unfunny bit of fantasy (sure, sarcasm was involved in its unholy birth) which had nothing to do with jmorris's post. There is this bizarre implication that if somehow this were to happen, then jmorris would become a military target of Saudi or UK bombing and no doubt learn the error of his ways in the final few seconds of his life. It's a stupid fantasy and completely ignorant of the situation in Yemen. Sorry, that's all there is to it.
Meanwhile we're up to six posts by you where you assert things (which after the first couple, just consist of asserting what you've already asserted). You have yet to even bother to defend it. Sorry, that's stupid as well.
Apparently, it's too much to ask you to come up with an argument that doesn't suck.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Friday June 10 2016, @07:22PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday June 10 2016, @08:02PM
(Score: 2) by Tork on Saturday June 11 2016, @01:20AM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday June 11 2016, @03:30PM
(Score: 2) by Tork on Sunday June 12 2016, @05:05AM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday June 12 2016, @05:17AM
(Score: 5, Informative) by KiloByte on Friday June 10 2016, @01:25AM
Except that in this case it's Saudis who are the bad guys. The Houthis are moderates. Yeah, it's weird when a group whose flag says "Death to America, death to Israel, curse on the Jews" are the less evil side, far less oppressive than those whom the US supports.
So how do you like shipping arms to an ally of ISIS?
Ceterum censeo systemd esse delendam.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Friday June 10 2016, @03:10AM
This is why we Americans need to stop voting for those warmongering Republicans and instead vote for Democrats like Hillary... oh [motherjones.com] wait. [huffingtonpost.com]
(Score: 3, Informative) by TheRaven on Friday June 10 2016, @11:25AM
sudo mod me up
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Sunday June 12 2016, @03:05AM
Excellent link, thanks.
(Score: 1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 10 2016, @05:19AM
Why are you so angry and hateful?
Your cries for attention are so extreme that we all pitty you at the same time as we are disgusted by you. You should seek help rather than pollute adult conversation with your vitriole.
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Friday June 10 2016, @03:12AM
According to a VICE News article [vice.com], there have also been British personnel assisting in the war in Yemen, including two
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 10 2016, @05:49AM
Because someone has to Trump thinks the US spends too much. Not that he believes they shouldn't get involved. Just that they are getting poor value for money.
I guess they might need to spend less if they stopped arming the people shooting at them? All the stupid "don't sell to Cuba" laws, just introduce middle men anyway.