Why UN is silent about US genocide in Yemen?

First Previous

Page

Next Last

Frequent Posters

441597

Suspended

Posted: 10 years ago

#31

Oh,I misread your sentence then.

"unlike Russia , America was a stake player in the region, it was loved and had a good-will before it went through two drastic changes in it's foreign policy. It had forces in the region till 2011, I think?"

I thought you were talking about it having goodwill in the region till 2011. My bad. Anyway, the main conflict is between the minority Zaidi Shia sect and the Sunni majority, definitely. However, due to the nature of the developments which took place under Saleh, it follows the dynamics of a "Majority-led persecution of minority" which led to the Believe Youth movement attaining a radical form. They were arrested for chanting anti-American and anti-Israel slogans and their HAH was assassinated. Later, they were ready for dialogue in 2011, but their representative in the National Dialogue Council Meet was killed. All this forces me to conclude that the present Civil War was largely owing to this victimisation and persecution of the Houthis, and the US is on the aggressor's side.

Edited by krystal_watz - 10 years ago

Quote

441597

Suspended

Posted: 10 years ago

#32

ISIS is a host of contradictions, It champions Sunni Salafist interests, but makes the Wahabi Saudi kingdom uneasy. 😆

The present coalition of US-Turkey-Saudi should break up and ONLY Saudi should be vested with the responsibility to crush the ISIS. And Turkey should be pressurised to host 1/3rd of all Syrian refugees. Serve them both right. Saudi and Turkey, that is. Saudi for not reigning in internal support to the ISIS in its formative stage in Iraq and quietly encouraging its rise, and Turkey for railing against and sabotaging the Kurds at a time they were fighting the IS.

Quote

Looks like you are new here. Register for free, learn and contribute.

@K.Universe.

Voyager

Posted: 10 years ago

#33

Originally posted by: krystal_watz

On Russia, it's always been very hands-off as far as the Middle East is concerned. Apart from exceptions like Assad of Syria, rarely does it ever step up in favour of a Head of State in the region.

From what I gathered browsing tons of articles, in August, Russia agreed to Sell S-300 Missiles to Iran. In February, a deal was struck with the Egyptian government to help Cairo build and operate its first nuclear reactor. In March, Jordan signed a $10 billion deal with Russia to build the kingdom's first nuclear power plant, with two 1,000-megawatt reactors in the country's north. In June, Saudi Arabia and Russia agreed to a deal wherein the kingdom planned to build 16 nuclear reactors that Russia would play a significant role in operating.

Doesn't look like a hands-off approach to me.

I don't know about "always" but Russia and Iran have been more-or-less strategic allies ever since the fall of the Soviet Union.

Quote

@K.Universe.

Voyager

Posted: 10 years ago

#34

Originally posted by: krystal_watz
Do you have any concrete evidence that Russia is involved? If you do, feel free to present it. US involvement is out in the open, so unless the complicity of the other side is proven, it's not going to be counted as a credible argument. Innocent until proven guilty.
On the Houthis, do look up their demands from the government. That'll answer the "progressive" question.

If Russia is supplying arms to Iran and if Iran is supplying arms to Houthis, then by transitive nature, Russia is involved too.

Regulars like us can't obtain "concrete evidence"; none of us are spies.

As for Houthis, they have been accused of violations of international humanitarian law such as using child soldiers, shelling civilian areas, forced evacuations, executions, and human shielding.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houthis

Quote

441597

Suspended

Posted: 10 years ago

#35

Originally posted by: K.Universe.

From what I gathered browsing tons of articles, in August, Russia agreed to Sell S-300 Missiles to Iran. In February, a deal was struck with the Egyptian government to help Cairo build and operate its first nuclear reactor. In March, Jordan signed a $10 billion deal with Russia to build the kingdom's first nuclear power plant, with two 1,000-megawatt reactors in the country's north. In June, Saudi Arabia and Russia agreed to a deal wherein the kingdom planned to build 16 nuclear reactors that Russia would play a significant role in operating.

Doesn't look like a hands-off approach to me.

I don't know about "always" but Russia and Iran have been more-or-less strategic allies ever since the fall of the Soviet Union.

I was talking about intervention in conflicts. The way it persuaded Syria to go for dialogues to prevent US strikes.

Quote

441597

Suspended

Posted: 10 years ago

#36

Originally posted by: K.Universe.

If Russia is supplying arms to Iran and if Iran is supplying arms to Houthis, then by transitive nature, Russia is involved too.

Regulars like us can't obtain "concrete evidence"; none of us are spies.

As for Houthis, they have been accused of violations of international humanitarian law such as using child soldiers, shelling civilian areas, forced evacuations, executions, and human shielding.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houthis

Where's the evidence that Iran is supplying arms to Houthis? Sure, none of us are spies, but we do know about the US selling arms to Saudi. But we cannot confirm Iran selling to Houthis in the same manner. And to be fair,I don't think Russia supplying arms to Iran can be counted as assisting Houthis. If I gift you something and you gift that object to somebody else, then you cannot say that I indirectly gave a gift to the second person. That's a straw-man argument.

Edited by krystal_watz - 10 years ago

Quote

@K.Universe.

Voyager

Posted: 10 years ago

#37

What I said was transitive. Where the hell did straw man come from? You are misusing the fallacy. I wasn't misrepresenting your position and attacking that misrepresented position.

Here's one article on Iran-Houthi relationship:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2015/04/20/iran-support-for-yemen-houthis-goes-back-years/26095101/

Quote

@K.Universe.

Voyager

Posted: 10 years ago

#38

Originally posted by: krystal_watz

If I gift you something and you gift that object to somebody else, then you cannot say that I indirectly gave a gift to the second person.

If you gift me one item, and I gift another person ("Genie":) another item, then yes, it doesn't mean you are indirectly gifting "Genie".

If you gift me x number of items and I am gifting "Genie" y number of items, and if some of the items from your x batch of gifts to me are ending up in the y batch that I am gifting to "Genie", and if you know that, then you are indirectly gifting "Genie".

What I am unable to establish is whether you are in the know that I am gifting "Genie" some of what you are gifting me.

Quote

441597

Suspended

Posted: 10 years ago

#39

Originally posted by: K.Universe.

If you gift me one item, and I gift another person ("Genie":) another item, then yes, it doesn't mean you are indirectly gifting "Genie".

If you gift me x number of items and I am gifting "Genie" y number of items, and if some of the items from your x batch of gifts to me are ending up in the y batch that I am gifting to "Genie", and if you know that, then you are indirectly gifting "Genie".

What I am unable to establish is whether you are in the know that I am gifting "Genie" some of what you are gifting me.

Bold: No. Once I gift something, I lose all authority over it. Consequently, I cannot dictate to you what to do with the gifts I gave you. If I gift you a carved-handle knife and you sell it to somebody else with the intention of helping the third person kill someone, I the original gift-giver cannot be held responsible for that. This is what I referred to as the straw man argument.

Quote

@K.Universe.

Voyager

Posted: 10 years ago

#40

Originally posted by: krystal_watz

Bold: No. Once I gift something, I lose all authority over it. Consequently, I cannot dictate to you what to do with the gifts I gave you. If I gift you a carved-handle knife and you sell it to somebody else with the intention of helping the third person kill someone, I the original gift-giver cannot be held responsible for that. This is what I referred to as the straw man argument.

1. that still doesn't qualify for straw man
2. it isn't about losing authority; it is about being complicit
3. if you know that all your knives are being used for killings, you should stop gifting me else you are indirectly involved in the killings too. that's the very definition of arms suppliers. same goes for drug peddlers. it's the end result that will tie them all together as responsible parties.

Quote

1 2 3 4 5

Why UN is silent about US genocide in Yemen? - Page 4

Related Topics

Explore Topics