Yemen Cholera epidemic

[سيف الله]

Salaam

Another update on the situation in Yemen

Yemen Cholera epidemic is US and Saudi made!

Yemen is a country that has been ravaged by war and is on the brink of famine. Two years of horrific conflict has killed more than 10,000 people, wounded 45,000 others, and displaced more than 11 percent of the country’s 26 million people.

Yemen is now facing the worst cholera outbreak in the world, according to international health authorities.

The outbreak has surpassed 200,000 cases, and that number is growing by 5,000 a day.

“In just two months, cholera has spread to almost every (part) of this war-torn country”, said World Health Organization (WHO) Director-General Margaret Chan and UNICEF Executive Director Anthony Lake in a joint statement.

More than 1,300 people have already died — one quarter of them children and the death toll is expected to rise.

Cholera is caused by ingesting food or water contaminated with the bacterium Vibrio cholerae. If left untreated, it can cause severe dehydration and eventual death.

Cholera is preventable and easily treatable with the proper resources, said Kurt Tjossem, the International Rescue Committee’s regional director for East Africa and the Horn. In Yemen, however, the collapsing infrastructure has cut off an estimated 14.5 million people — about half the country’s population from regular access to clean water, increasing the likelihood for the disease to spread.

The crisis is “man-made,” said Stephen O’Brien, the U.N. under-secretary-general for humanitarian affairs and emergency relief coordinator, in a statement last week. For the past two years, Yemen has been embroiled in a civil war between Houthi rebels from the north of the country and a coalition of Arab states, led by Saudi Arabia and supported by the United States.

“The cholera epidemic is in part due to the bombing of the water supply in Sana’a”, Senator Chris Murphy, D-Conn said. “There is a U.S. imprint on every civilian death inside Yemen.”

The problem in Yemen is even worse considering the ever-widening issue of food insecurity and malnutrition, where 2.2 million children suffer from acute malnutrition.

When malnutrition rises, the immunity of children falls, which makes them more susceptible to diseases like cholera.

Yemen’s economy is crumbling and health care workers continue to work without any pay. According to UNICEF and WHO, an estimated 30,000 local health workers have not been paid their salaries for nearly 10 months.

Almost half the country’s medical facilities have been destroyed. A Yemeni child dies every 10 minutes from the combined effects of hunger and lack of medical facilities.

Yemen has been torn to pieces. The war which is Saudi led and driven by the US ambitions, has left millions of people at the mercy of deadly diseases like Cholera. Poverty has cursed the population where mothers hold their dying children helpless, not knowing where their next portion of food and water will come from.

Saudi led forces have targeted farms, food facilities, water infrastructure, marketplaces, and even the port of Hudaidah, where most of the humanitarian aid was entering the country. Further crimes include of the Saud is the bombing of a funeral procession in October 2016 that resulted in 150 causalities.

However Trump clinched an enormous $110bn deal during his trip to the kingdom in May, which will be used to bomb and murder more people in Yemen. The Saud family promised Trump that their military would undergo rigorous US training to reduce civilian casualties, signing a $750m training program.

The treacherous royal family went further still and agreed that US advisers would sit in their air operations control centre.

It is a damning indictment on the Saudi Kingdom that it has inflicted terrible pain on the Muslims of Yemen and then boasts to the Muslim world that they are the ‘Custodians of the Two Holy Mosques’. The Saud regime are only Custodians to America. Treachery is in their bloodstream and programmed in their DNA, from the days when Ibn Saud was handed Makkah and Medinah by British colonial forces. Just like the Saud family obeyed Britain in the past, they now obey in servitude the USA.

There is only one solution to Yemen and that is to challenge the colonial agenda of the West in that land via the reestablishment of the Khilafah Rashidah.

Since the destruction of the Khilafah, the entire Arab world has been plagued with rulers that are the most evil and deceitful in Islamic history. These rulers support the bombing of Muslim countries like Yemen and pay no heed to the spread of diseases like Cholera, that cause terrible suffering to the people. Only when the rulers of the Arab world are removed and the Ummah has a just leader that applies the Ruling of Allah, will all people gain protection from the malicious design of brutal vultures.

http://www.hizb.org.uk/news-comment/yemen-cholera-epidemic-us-saudi-made/

[سيف الله]

Salaam

Another update

Saudi Bombing Is Destroying My Country and the UK Is Helping Them Do It

Safa Al-Shamy gives her perspective on the motivations for the Saudi attack on her country, Yemen, the humanitarian crisis it has caused

I was visiting Cairo when the Saudi airstrikes on Yemen began on 26 March 2015. One of their first targets was the airport at Sana’a, the Yemeni capital, which was hit by an airstrike. I couldn’t get a flight back home and was stuck in Cairo for three months. Afterwards, I was able to return to Yemen, but the ongoing attack meant I was unable to work. Although both of my parents are Yemeni, I was born in the UK and have a British passport, so I decided to come to the UK in December 2015.

The situation in Yemen now is very difficult. People are exposed to daily airstrikes by Saudi Arabia and its alliance. Yemen has been under blockade and siege since March 2015. As a result, thousands of Yemeni men, women and children have been killed. Thousands more have been injured, many of whom are in need of urgent treatment. However, there’s a lack of basic healthcare and medicines due to the blockade imposed on the country by the Saudi-led coalition, particularly at Sana’a airport and Hodeidah port.

Many people in Yemen have lost their jobs because of the aggression. The airstrikes have caused massive destruction to the infrastructure of the country. The attacks have damaged schools, factories, mosques, farms, and historical sites. This destruction has caused serious economic problems.

A recent decree that the central bank will be moved to Aden was supported by the Saudi government to put more pressure on the Yemeni people to surrender. Controversially, almost all Yemeni employees who are working governmental jobs haven’t received their salaries for the last eight months.

Hundreds of thousands of internally-displaced people are scattered all over Yemen because of the heavy airstrikes which have damaged residential buildings across the country. Starvation has spread; the poorest are now dying. Recent media reports are starting to emerge which highlight the seriousness of the situation, and how children in Yemen need urgent assistance.

Sana’a Airport has been attacked many times and remains closed by the Saudi-led coalition. As a result, thousands of Yemenis are stuck abroad and can’t return to their homes. Many are suffering from disease; a cholera outbreak is already ravaging the country.

The motivation for this aggression against my country is that the Yemeni people don’t want to follow the Saudi path in everything. The Saudis want Yemen to be a follower and not an independent country, with its own sovereignty.

This is not just about Saudi Arabia, however. The aggression on Yemen involves an alliance of countries. One of these is the United Arab Emirates (UAE), which is trying to control Aden port to its advantage. This is, in essence, a form of theft. I’ve also heard that the Emiratis are starting to invest in projects in Yemen’s Socotra island, as if the island was their property.

Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia is continuing its siege on Hodeidah port, the country’s economic artery, thus preventing the arrival of food and medical assistance to Yemeni’s civilian population.

I no longer believe this aggression is motivated by sectarianism, I believe this is about colonising and stealing my country’s wealth and controlling its sea ports.

The Saudis and Emiratis, along with their allies, are imposing a general siege on Yemen, and the economic blockade is a key part of that. They won’t allow imports into Yemen bar a few items, and when they do, they place their own products on Yemeni supermarkets and shops.

In the meantime, Yemen’s oil and gas wealth is being smuggled abroad through mercenaries. Because of this, Yemenis are suffering from oil and gas shortages, with the limited supplies being sold at exorbitant prices.

The Yemeni people have no intention to harm Saudi Arabia. We want to live in peace as good neighbours. However, since March 2015, the Saudi government has been killing Yemeni people and destroying all of the country’s capabilities without any sensible or concrete reason.

They have achieved nothing in Yemen except destruction. They have created a human catastrophe, which will take many years to fix.

My whole family, and all my friends, are in Yemen, and I really miss them. I haven’t been able to see them for a long time due to the airport closure imposed by the blockade. This is one of the ways through which the Saudi government and its allies are imposing their siege on Yemenis.

Britain has played a significant role in supporting the Saudi attack on Yemen by conducting huge arms deals with the Saudi government. With few exceptions, the British media has not been showing the reality of the miserable situation in Yemen. These reasons are enough to say the UK is an essential partner in Saudi Arabia’s ongoing killing and maiming and starving of Yemeni civilians.

The worlds’s largest arms fair, DSEI, is coming to London this September. As with previous fairs, an official Saudi political and military delegation will be there, shopping for more weapons. I don’t think that the Saudi government, or any government for that matter, should be allowed to attend. In fact, I don’t think that the fair should take place at all.

The British people now have more awareness of what’s going on inside their country as well as outside with relation to their government’s foreign policy. People in the UK should tell their government that improving the UK economy should not be achieved by killing more and more people abroad. Instead of selling weapons, Britain could be building strong, moral and sincere mutual relationships with other countries.

Ordinary people globally should realise what’s going on in Yemen, and put more pressure on their governments to provide urgent assistance to the Yemeni nation.

http://www.stopwar.org.uk/index.php/news-comment/2721-saudi-bombing-is-destroying-my-country-and-the-uk-is-helping-them-do-it

[Abz2000]

Dunno if "uae" in military terms is actually uae, it's usually blackwater (usually columbian ex-farc mercenaries), when you see an action abroad using the pen name "uae", the sandhurst trained amir - God knows what his actual motivations are....

Reports are emerging of ex-Blackwater CEO's increasing involvement in the UAE's military affairs, with few, if any, UAE citizens actually involved in its army exercises. Tags: UAE, Blackwater, Devos, Trump, Erik Prince, Frontier Services Group, Reflex Responses Company
The UAE army has been working for years to strengthen its military capability, yet only a small percentage of its operational staff actually hold UAE passports, it has emerged.

https://www.alaraby.co.uk/english/ne...o-run-its-army



Notice here that "uae" apparently had little to do with decision making, whilst eric prince continued for trump exactly what he was doing for bush and obama in iraq, afghanistan, and elsewhere.


The approval of the Yakla raid did not follow the rigorous procedure used during the administrations of George W. Bush and Barack Obama, which involved a Situation Room meeting that detailed the operational plan, operational goals, a risk assessment (to both U.S. personnel and civilians), and a legal assessment of the operation. Instead, the raid was approved over dinner conversations between Trump, his son-in-law and adviser Jared Kushner, his special adviser Stephen Bannon, and Defense Secretary Jim Mattis.[32] Mattis, along with General Joseph Dunford, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, presented the plan; then-National Security Advisor Michael Flynn was also at the dinner.[33]

The decision did not go through the normal National Security Council (NSC) channels, through which heads or deputy heads of all agencies with a stake in the operation would be consulted.[33] U.S. military officials stated that the assault went forth "without sufficient intelligence, ground support, or adequate backup preparations."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakla_raid


.......The force is intended to conduct special operations missions inside and outside the country, defend oil pipelines and skyscrapers from terrorist attacks and put down internal revolts, the documents show........


.........Knowing that his ventures are magnets for controversy, Mr. Prince has masked his involvement with the mercenary battalion. His name is not included on contracts and most other corporate documents, and company insiders have at times tried to hide his identity by referring to him by the code name “Kingfish.” But three former employees, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of confidentiality agreements, and two people involved in security contracting described Mr. Prince’s central role.

The former employees said that in recruiting the Colombians and others from halfway around the world, Mr. Prince’s subordinates were following his strict rule: hire no Muslims.

Muslim soldiers, Mr. Prince warned, could not be counted on to kill fellow Muslims.

A Lucrative Deal

Last spring, as waiters in the lobby of the Park Arjaan by Rotana Hotel passed by carrying cups of Turkish coffee, a small team of Blackwater and American military veterans huddled over plans for the foreign battalion. Armed with a black suitcase stuffed with several hundred thousand dollars’ worth of dirhams, the local currency, they began paying the first bills.

The company, often called R2, was licensed last March with 51 percent local ownership, a typical arrangement in the Emirates. It received about $21 million in start-up capital from the U.A.E., the former employees said.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2011/05/1.../15prince.html

[PRND]

"There is only one solution to Yemen and that is to challenge the colonial agenda of the West in that land via the reestablishment of the Khilafah Rashidah."

That's a rather ballsy move. As a Sunni force invades a Houthi/Zaydi/Shia group of people, whose affairs they have been meddling in for decades by the way, we are being told that a specifically Sunni model of political Islam and of religious supremacism is the only solution that can save these people that have never had any direct historical or religious connection to the caliphate model of leadership.

For that reason alone, this has no chance of being an actual solution even in the most oddly favorable of theoretical forms. And more realistically, the caliphate model is and always has been a basically terrible system of leadership that has not produced good results. If all the current attempts at caliphate building are smashed to pieces and no one ever attempts to resurrect this terrible idea, the world will be a better place. The number of ideas that are better than this one is near infinite in scope.

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[Abz2000]

"There is only one solution to Yemen and that is to challenge the colonial agenda of the West in that land via the reestablishment of the Khilafah Rashidah."

That's a rather ballsy move. As a Sunni force invades a Houthi/Zaydi/Shia group of people, whose affairs they have been meddling in for decades by the way, we are being told that a specifically Sunni model of political Islam and of religious supremacism is the only solution that can save these people that have never had any direct historical or religious connection to the caliphate model of leadership.

For that reason alone, this has no chance of being an actual solution even in the most oddly favorable of theoretical forms. And more realistically, the caliphate model is and always has been a basically terrible system of leadership that has not produced good results. If all the current attempts at caliphate building are smashed to pieces and no one ever attempts to resurrect this terrible idea, the world will be a better place. The number of ideas that are better than this one is near infinite in scope.

What are your just and workable, and better alternatives?
I have up until now only seen criminality, injustice, and widespread corruption and falsehood, from all other systems which attempt to push alternatives to Islam.
Also the unjustifiable and deceitful attempts to coerce people to reject Islam and to go astray - far astray - from a dignified and pure life show the weakness of such systems.

What is better in your opinion?

[PRND]

What are your just and workable, and better alternatives?
I have up until now only seen criminality, injustice, and widespread corruption and falsehood, from all other systems which attempt to push alternatives to Islam.
Also the unjustifiable and deceitful attempts to coerce people to reject Islam and to go astray - far astray - from a dignified and pure life show the weakness of such systems.

What is better in your opinion?

Secular liberalism, which is essentially the opposite of supremacism. Opposition to religious compulsion and religious supremacism is not (and never will be) the same as opposition to religion proper, and you (specifically you) honestly need to disentangle these concepts.

[Abz2000]

Secular liberalism is based on rejection of truth - and rejection of the authority of truth, there is no basis for morality or valid argument against cannibalism and robbery in secularism, nor is there any cohesive and workable community model present in it. Secularism is simply a tool to make masses of people oblivious of a basic foundation for anything and is an easy way to make masses of people submit to other people more powerful and slightly more intelligent than themselves.
More mass killings have been perpetrated by secular regimes of the past century against their own populations and others than any previous tyrants in any other period of history - and the brutality and vindictiveness of wars are getting more gruesome. America - the largest example of secular liberalism - the first country of it's size to declare itself "free" of bondage to God in it's legilslature, is a predictable outcome of a disastrous experiment, proof of this is that a murderous and corrupt pimp is the people's representative and judge over them, their finances, and their way of life.....and also the fact that north central america is the biggest exporter of death on the planet and that it's economy depends on war at a constantly accelerating pace in order to churn.

More proof of inconsistency is the potent and vehement intolerance and hatred of pure monotheism that grows then surfaces after a while in secular dominated nations, to the extent that human rights are even sujective with relation to monotheists.

So please try to put things in full context.

[PRND]

I have a handful of objections to your plan, but I mostly want to focus on a specific question that I want to get a coherent response to. First, those objections.

It seems to me that in theory- in theory, I say, on paper and in theory- your idea is identical in form and intent to that of any of the caliphate building terrorists out there. You even want to wave a black flag and most likely set up your caliphate in the same sort of region where ongoing attempts are being made. I'll remind you that it always gets messy- you remember the First Fitnah, and the bloody fate of the first few caliphs?- and if you ever tried to put it into practice, you'd be one of those people who walks, acts, and quacks just like a terrorist. It's the same plan as all these other bad plans.

Now on to that question. As I'm sure you're aware, the last caliphate was the Ottoman Empire. It actually was an empire, that's not an unfair term, it literally was an empire. Previous caliphates were also imperial and expansionist in nature. Soy question to you is this.

Are you an imperialist? In other words, do you wish for a large number of Muslims to stop living in Westphalia style nation states and begin living under the rule of an empire? An empire that would probably be aggressively expansionist, awful to religious minorities, and a menace to the region, but that's beside the point.

Are you an imperialist, in the sense that you really like the idea of an Islamic empire, an actual empire, and you literally want to see another Islamic empire- an actual empire- exist and be powerful and all of that.

Are you an imperialist. You, specifically you, are you an imperialist? Answer the question please, don't get distracted, don't change the subject, don't you dare say WhatAbout in the process of dodging the question. I'm not asking about anyone else. I'm not asking you to identify some other type of person that's an imperialist. I'm specifically asking you to avoid getting distracted.

You. Point to yourself. Do it. Are you an imperialist? I'm asking about you, so please answer the question and don't get lost.

Thank you in advance, I do hope you can answer the question.

[Serinity]

I have a handful of objections to your plan, but I mostly want to focus on a specific question that I want to get a coherent response to. First, those objections.

It seems to me that in theory- in theory, I say, on paper and in theory- your idea is identical in form and intent to that of any of the caliphate building terrorists out there. You even want to wave a black flag and most likely set up your caliphate in the same sort of region where ongoing attempts are being made. I'll remind you that it always gets messy- you remember the First Fitnah, and the bloody fate of the first few caliphs?- and if you ever tried to put it into practice, you'd be one of those people who walks, acts, and quacks just like a terrorist. It's the same plan as all these other bad plans.

Now on to that question. As I'm sure you're aware, the last caliphate was the Ottoman Empire. It actually was an empire, that's not an unfair term, it literally was an empire. Previous caliphates were also imperial and expansionist in nature. Soy question to you is this.

Are you an imperialist? In other words, do you wish for a large number of Muslims to stop living in Westphalia style nation states and begin living under the rule of an empire? An empire that would probably be aggressively expansionist, awful to religious minorities, and a menace to the region, but that's beside the point.

Are you an imperialist, in the sense that you really like the idea of an Islamic empire, an actual empire, and you literally want to see another Islamic empire- an actual empire- exist and be powerful and all of that.

Are you an imperialist. You, specifically you, are you an imperialist? Answer the question please, don't get distracted, don't change the subject, don't you dare say WhatAbout in the process of dodging the question. I'm not asking about anyone else. I'm not asking you to identify some other type of person that's an imperialist. I'm specifically asking you to avoid getting distracted.

You. Point to yourself. Do it. Are you an imperialist? I'm asking about you, so please answer the question and don't get lost.

Thank you in advance, I do hope you can answer the question.

Sorry if I am asking a question, while you ask him a question, but I ask you one.

On the topic of establishing an Islamic State, are you comparing any attempt of wanting an Islamic State as someone like ISIS?

Don't you find it problematic when The flag of Tawheed (the black flag ISIS is holding) is associated with terrorism, any attempt of showing any want for Shariah rule would automatically make people, falsely, associate us with ISIS? Especially with the flag.

I understand why ordinary people would be afraid of the sight of a Muslim holding such a flag or even speaking of an Islamic State because of the media control.

I find this ISIS as an excuse to undermine any attempt of establishing an Islamic State.

[PRND]

I forgot one thing initially- natural law. It's a well developed system that underpins app modern secular law in the West and if you'd like any links on that let me know so I can send them your way.

[PRND]

Am I comparing any attempt of wanting an Islamic state as someone like ISIS?

Basically yes. That's a qualified yes, it's not like ISIS in every way of course. The core issue is Islamic supremacism, religious coercion through use of force, and religious compulsion. Religion must be optional, and all religions must be treated equally regardless of the demographics of a population. So if a mostly Muslim country votes to make Islamic law mandatory for everyone to follow and a proper police force will punish non Muslims who try to exercise individual religious liberties, that has the same issues, at its core, as the ragtag terror group that blows stuff up in order to attain basically the same outcome. Deny individual religious liberties to non Muslims, impose compulsory Islamic law through force, then make excuses for it and call it by names that make you feel better about it.

Think about it this way. You're familiar with white supremacists, right? Well, suppose you have super violent and scary white supremacists in one situation. Through intimidation and force, they make it clear that non white people are not welcome in a certain place because it "belongs" to white people in exactly the same way that Mecca "belongs" to Muslims. They ensure that non white people have less rights and ultimately go away, due to violence or by leaving due to threat of violence....in much the same way that Pakistan wound up becoming so exclusively Islamic.

Now suppose there's a different group of white supremacists. They wear nice suits and attend political functions. They don't get violent and intimidate. They do innocuous things with Pepe memes, and they also talk about how they'd like to mainstream ideas pertaining to the white ownership of a particular continent and they just want to make sure white people, in slightly more vague terms, have more rights and privileges than non white people. They'll be a bit less blunt and they'll come up with terminology that sounds more innocuous....they might also project more realistic and manageable goals for themselves....but they're basically trying to do the same thing.

When the core idea is evil, when the core idea on All relevant examples here is basic supremacism, I'm going to tell you that and I won't give you bonus points for being a pragmatic and relatively non-violent supremacist. Supremacism is evil, and it's absolutely not okay.

Do I find it problematic that the flag of tawheed is associated with terrorism? No. I find it problematic that people die and embassies get burned over cartoons and caricatures.
End of moral assessment.

On the flag association thing, it's bad for you, it's bad for business, it's bad for Islam. And Islam deserves this. You have bad PR? No, really, do go on. Muslims did this to Islam, Islam did this to itself.

You think that ISIS is an excuse to undermine any Islamic state. I understand where you're coming from, and I believe we can reach an agreement on how that by itself is bad reasoning and it may not have been the best move for me to lead with that. Or did I lead with that?

On the other hand....thinking back and looking back, I didn't specifically mention ISIS. I generally mentioned various terror groups set on establishing caliphates (there are three of them, I didn't name them and barely mentioned them in general) and what little I said about them was meant to imply that practical difficulties would necessitate some procedural similarities- crucially, without the intent of being like ISIS. The main point there was to say this is not easy or even particularly feasible in any way that's going to be humane and just, not to say that so and so is literally ISIS. It's an untenable situation in which the preferred outcome, as stated, leads to a lot of blood and disappointment and not the outcome you're looking for. That was supposed to be the implied point in a larger sense. The only specific mentions that I made were of the First Fitnah (quite bloody and a bit of a false start to the whole thing) and of the Ottoman Empire. Which, in fairness, you have to admit was an empire. An actual literal empire. I think it's fair to ask if the goal of this specific person is to establish an empire, and again, in fairness, Empire and ISIS are not associated very closely or at all. My main question linked up with an actual, proper caliphate, specifically the most recent one, and I think it's a good question deserving of a proper answer.

Back to the main point, though. I do think it's lazy and a bit unfair to make a full and formal equivalence between any such attempt and Daesh. At the same time, I also think that any attempt to impose mandatory, compulsory religion is evil and there are better arguments against it than pointing to Daesh. This is specifically because the worst aspects of Daesh don't really get to the core issue of religion and the state and the public sphere. You can get there, but there's a lot of distractions. I prefer to make comparisons between different types of white supremacists and then challenge you to start seeing the supremacism in Islam, which is found in A Lot more places than just the terror groups with giant military budgets. It's just like how white supremacists aren't all skinheads or hood wearing scary people. There's a core ideology that can be readily defined without bringing up names of specific groups in order to get at the real problem, which is supremacism, meaning that a certain place or region specifically belongs to white people (or to Muslims) and no one else, the other people that somehow happen to be there can suck it, and just have to live with the decisions of the dominant group, that non white people (or non Muslims) get to have less rights and liberties and less of a life, and that's somehow okay under the right circumstances. I mean we're not blowing people up so it's all good right?

No, it's not all good. Supremacism is evil, it must go away and stay gone. That's the point that I'll keep coming back to.

[Serinity]

Read this, this might cast some of your wrong assumptions about Islamic state>

http://islamqa.org/hanafi/askimam/28...s-of-the-state

Majority don't rule, and only A Muslim can become a Khalifah, not by majority rule.

you may think that Islam treats kafirs as "second class" citizens or that they will be forced to convert (which is haram to do / force). They may practice their religion, but not preach it to us Muslims, cuz we believe their's is false.

You are making a big mistake on comparing ISIS to the great Khilafahs of the 3 best generations.

Compulsion in deen / religion is haram. I dont get this whole "supremacism". Islam is perfect, muslims are not.

Kafirs are not treated as second class, they are treated the same, in respect to having the same rights, freedoms and protection as Muslims have in an Islamic state.

What exactly, with bullet points, do you find an "issue" with Islam?

Idk about the whole Mecca for Muslims only, but I find it unfair for you to compare it to white supremacy, because:

KAFIRS can enter Mecca, afaik, but they can not perform Umrah or Pilgrimage / Hajj.. I guess you got your priorities mixed up.

Link: http://islamqa.org/hanafi/askimam/17...cca-and-madina

The fact that you must not preach the religion to Muslims does not mean there can not be debates.

THe kafirs can handle their own religious affairs, as was the case with Jews judging by their Torah (afaik)

Any Muslim can correct me if I wrote anything wrong.

[PRND]

"They may practice their religion, but not preach it to us"

Unacceptable. This cannot stand. I have as much a right to this as you do. Don't you dare try to take that away from me. I will not tolerate this under any circumstances. I'm well aware of how attached you are to this, and I say NO.

Tell you what. You say I can't do this, in a public space, in what is supposed to be an otherwise free society....

Or what.

Or what?

I won't follow that law. It's unjust. It denies me individual religious liberties that I have a right to, and I defy you to try and take that away. I defy you and your little rule, and if you come after anyone that Does leave Islam, I'll come after you.

So. Or what?

Just a little bit of a heads up- when you have laws, Any laws that pertain to religion and especially those that take away my religious liberties, Enforcing those laws Is Compulsion. Enforcing them, and forcing people to fall in line, is what makes it compulsory. Religious law is the most basic form of compulsion. It makes absolutely no sense to say "I'm clean of religious compulsion, now let's just enforce some religious laws." That. Is. Compulsion. That's it right there. And it's religious compulsion, because these are specifically religious laws we're talking about.

Religion should not be compulsory. At all. It needs to be strictly optional. If you can't see your way to that conclusion, perhaps you're a moderate supremacist.

"Kafirs can enter Mecca, afaik"

No they sure can't.

https://www.quora.com/Can-a-non-Muslim-visit-Mecca
https://www.quora.com/How-is-a-perso...entering-Mecca

How did you not know this? Are you also unaware of the places with strict bans on Jews and of the places where public expression of Zionist ideas is a capital offense? Are you unaware of the fact that an Israeli stamp on a passport in Saudi Arabia is grounds for immediate deportation?

But wait, just wait for it, now that you know the city of Mecca is strictly off limits to non Muslims- it's fine. You're going to find a way for that to be fine.

It's not fine! It's not okay! This is wrong! Please begin to understand this. Start making some concessions, at least to yourself.

[PRND]

Kafirs are not treated as second class, they are treated the same, in respect to having the same rights, freedoms and protection as Muslims have in an Islamic state.

What exactly, with bullet points, do you find an "issue" with Islam?

I don't have an issue with Islam per se, I have a major issue with supremacism. So I can really break it down to just one bullet point.

Religious supremacism is, and always has been, way too common in Islam and that absolutely has to change. The issue must be acknowledged, the need for change needs to be addressed, and I needs to happen.

As for your assertion that Islamic stated have treated everyone the same, I'll prove that's absurd by issuing you a challenge. As you well know, the West has been historically mostly Christian, and it wasn't always this way, but over the past century or so atheists have enjoyed the same rights and freedoms, and the same access to public speech and fame, as anyone else has. That's why we can easily name and cite the work of people like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens (may he rest in peace, and Dan Dennett. They are publicly atheist, they have made plenty of money by publishing specifically atheist material, and they have really made a point of attacking religious ideas from a variety of different angles.

So here's the challenge. Name two atheists who lived within any Islamic caliphate, make sure they've accomplished enough that they deserve a Wikipedia page, and point me in the direction of anything that They Actually Wrote which has survived in some form to the present day without being destroyed.

Two atheists. Any Islamic caliphate. And anything that those people actually wrote. If all their work has been destroyed and all we have on hand is what their opponents wrote about them (while making excuses and justifications on their own behalf), that's not what I'm looking for. Can you find two people who match this description from a thousand plus years of non Muslims supposedly being treated, how did you put it, treated the same, having the same rights freedoms and protections. Okay then, show me two atheists that were openly disbelieving within an Islamic caliphate and show me the work that They did.

Why two? Why not. I just gave you four examples from the West, and that was easy. I also acknowledged that the West was not nearly so accommodating to atheists until fairly recently- we really were not, notice what I did there, I made a concession and acknowledged faults of the past- and That's how you do it. At some point, that's what you need to do.

[OmAbdullah]

Read this, this might cast some of your wrong assumptions about Islamic state>

http://islamqa.org/hanafi/askimam/28...s-of-the-state

Majority don't rule, and only A Muslim can become a Khalifah, not by majority rule.

you may think that Islam treats kafirs as "second class" citizens or that they will be forced to convert (which is haram to do / force). They may practice their religion, but not preach it to us Muslims, cuz we believe their's is false.

You are making a big mistake on comparing ISIS to the great Khilafahs of the 3 best generations.

Compulsion in deen / religion is haram. I dont get this whole "supremacism". Islam is perfect, muslims are not.

Kafirs are not treated as second class, they are treated the same, in respect to having the same rights, freedoms and protection as Muslims have in an Islamic state.

What exactly, with bullet points, do you find an "issue" with Islam?

Idk about the whole Mecca for Muslims only, but I find it unfair for you to compare it to white supremacy, because:

KAFIRS can enter Mecca, afaik, but they can not perform Umrah or Pilgrimage / Hajj.. I guess you got your priorities mixed up.

Link: http://islamqa.org/hanafi/askimam/17...cca-and-madina

The fact that you must not preach the religion to Muslims does not mean there can not be debates.

THe kafirs can handle their own religious affairs, as was the case with Jews judging by their Torah (afaik)

Any Muslim can correct me if I wrote anything wrong.

Kaafirs cannot enter Makkah because it is the Command of Allah All-Mighty in surah Al-Tawbah (At-Tawbah) verse 28 (its translation is):


O you who have believed, indeed the polytheists are unclean, so let them not approach al-Masjid al-Haram after this, their [final] year. And if you fear privation, Allah will enrich you from His bounty if He wills. Indeed, Allah is Knowing and Wise.

Allah All-Mighty has given this Command because Allah is the Sovereign of all including all kaafirs and Muslims. And because Allah knows and we know not. Allah knows that kaafirs are the sharrun-barriyah ( The worst of the creatures). (See verse 6 of the surah al-Bayyinah).


Today i.e. in the present era, who has the upper hand in power??? Surely all power belongs to Allah but in this world of test, Allah rotates the power in the hands of the kaafirs and Muslims for the purpose of testing all and providing proof in favor of or against every kind of people. So I ask question from the kaafir attacker therefore I am turning to his posts.

[OmAbdullah]

Unacceptable. This cannot stand. I have as much a right to this as you do. Don't you dare try to take that away from me. I will not tolerate this under any circumstances. I'm well aware of how attached you are to this, and I say NO.

Tell you what. You say I can't do this, in a public space, in what is supposed to be an otherwise free society....

Or what.

Or what?

I won't follow that law. It's unjust. It denies me individual religious liberties that I have a right to, and I defy you to try and take that away. I defy you and your little rule, and if you come after anyone that Does leave Islam, I'll come after you.

So. Or what?

Just a little bit of a heads up- when you have laws, Any laws that pertain to religion and especially those that take away my religious liberties, Enforcing those laws Is Compulsion. Enforcing them, and forcing people to fall in line, is what makes it compulsory. Religious law is the most basic form of compulsion. It makes absolutely no sense to say "I'm clean of religious compulsion, now let's just enforce some religious laws." That. Is. Compulsion. That's it right there. And it's religious compulsion, because these are specifically religious laws we're talking about.

Religion should not be compulsory. At all. It needs to be strictly optional. If you can't see your way to that conclusion, perhaps you're a moderate supremacist.



No they sure can't.

https://www.quora.com/Can-a-non-Muslim-visit-Mecca
https://www.quora.com/How-is-a-perso...entering-Mecca

How did you not know this? Are you also unaware of the places with strict bans on Jews and of the places where public expression of Zionist ideas is a capital offense? Are you unaware of the fact that an Israeli stamp on a passport in Saudi Arabia is grounds for immediate deportation?

But wait, just wait for it, now that you know the city of Mecca is strictly off limits to non Muslims- it's fine. You're going to find a way for that to be fine.

It's not fine! It's not okay! This is wrong! Please begin to understand this. Start making some concessions, at least to yourself.

Kaafirs cannot enter Makkah because it is the Command of Allah All-Mighty in surah Al-Tawbah (At-Tawbah) verse 28 (its translation is):


O you who have believed, indeed the polytheists are unclean, so let them not approach al-Masjid al-Haram after this, their [final] year. And if you fear privation, Allah will enrich you from His bounty if He wills. Indeed, Allah is Knowing and Wise.

Allah All-Mighty has given this Command because Allah is the Sovereign of all including all kaafirs and Muslims. And because Allah knows and we know not. Allah knows that kaafirs are the sharrun-barriyah ( The worst of the creatures). (See verse 6 of the surah al-Bayyinah).


Today i.e. in the present era, who has the upper hand in power??? Surely all power belongs to Allah but in this world of test, Allah rotates the power in the hands of the kaafirs and Muslims for the purpose of testing all and providing proof in favor of or against every kind of people. So I ask question from you, the kaafir attacker,

Who has the upper hand in power at the present time???? Is it a Muslim Khilaafah who is the super power or is it the kaafirs who are enjoying power???


Your answer shall be: "The kaafirs of course" if you hear the voice of your conscience.


Then who has filled up the whole earth from blood shed and killing of the innocent children, women and men???

The answer is "the powerful kaafirs of course"!

But you have no shame to see the truth and then to blame the Muslims and Islam. Don't go far away to the poise caliphs of the past. Just go to the wars of crusaders. Those killers Christians had filled up the land of Al-Quds with the blood of the innocent Muslims. Then, when Allah gave power to Salahud-Deen Ayoobi, he conquered Al-Quds and his behavior with the Christians was so nice that many Christian soldiers became impressed by Islam and they embraced it with their will. Next time the same convert Muslims were standing to fight the crusaders, and the crusaders were struck with wonder to see that wonderful change. Salahud-Deen was a practicing Muslim ruler and he and his Muslim nation had dealt with the Christians in Al-Quds in wonderful merciful way. This is because Islam is a true Religion of Allah and Allah doesn't like killing and blood-shed. So now it is the powerful kaafirs who have filled up the land with killing and blood-shed.



The original Caliphs were even more just and safe. I can write the story of a court-case of a Christian Dhimmi living under the rule of caliph Ali radiya-Allaho anhu when the case was between the caliph (the Ruler Ali) and the Christian civilian. in the end, by the peaceful and pure justice of Islam, the Christian became so much impressed that he, right there, read the kalimah Shahaadah and became Muslim.



But your attacks are due to blind jealousy. Now think: If a kaafir like you is allowed to enter Makkah, what will be your attitude? Can you be trusted in the Holy places of Makkah? No! Never! Alhamdulillah, that the All-Knowing, All-Powerful Allah prohibited your entry to Makkah!

[Yahya.]

@PRND
You are judging Islamic rules by your own personal/cultural values which are not innate, i.e. of the 'Fitrah' Allah created us into. Disbelievers can't enter the Holy Lands. This is Allah's rule and His messenger's command. You don't have any basis to question this. As for atheists (and other religious groups) living in an Islamic state, it's evident from our point of view why propagating their religion is forbidden for them. That would be equal to propagating falsehood. Especially when it comes to atheists - how can we allow someone to publicly call people to the denial of God, who created him-? We are fending off doubts and securing people from possible deceptions. Islamic law grants a broad range of freedom in discussing secondary topics, but spreading doubts in the minds of common people on core matters, where there is nothing to discuss about, is of course not acceptable.

Secular regimes are not bothered by religion, because religion does not have a high value in their eyes. But in Islam, the safety of religion is more important than the safety of life, wealth or anything else. Just as secular regimes prohibit murder and set penalties to its perpetrators, we prohibit "killing" one's (true) belief - one's entrance ID to paradise and eternal happiness.

[anatolian]

@PRND Yes Islam is not a democratic religion in the sense of modern democrasy and yes Islam is an imperialist religion too in the same sense but Muslims,at least Islam, do not accept the modern democrasy as an unquestionable universal truth at first. So your saying what Islam teaches is unaceptale has no value in the Islamic sense. But you also have mistakes such as the Islamic state being awful to religious minorities. True Islamic state knows the rights of non Muslims and they are judged according to their laws

[M.I.A.]

"So here's the challenge. Name two atheists who lived within any Islamic caliphate, make sure they've accomplished enough that they deserve a Wikipedia page, and point me in the direction of anything that They Actually Wrote which has survived in some form to the present day without being destroyed."

Im just making a comment here its not from any sort of background but the idea of false prophets during the time of prophet muhammed pbuh.. probably has some literature attached.

Although you can google it yourself.

..although im not sure of the role of athiesm during the time..

The main opposition was probably paganism and idolatry.

Make of that what you will.

The fact that the taliban had to blow up giant buddah statues in Afghanistan recently shows the changing acceptance of minorities through the ages.

...they probably didnt have to.. but i guess they dont like tourists or something.

"As for your assertion that Islamic stated have treated everyone the same, I'll prove that's absurd by issuing you a challenge. As you well know, the West has been historically mostly Christian, and it wasn't always this way, but over the past century or so atheists have enjoyed the same rights and freedoms, and the same access to public speech and fame, as anyone else has. That's why we can easily name and cite the work of people like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens (may he rest in peace, and Dan Dennett. They are publicly atheist, they have made plenty of money by publishing specifically atheist material, and they have really made a point of attacking religious ideas from a variety of different angles."

..thats probably funny

...was that meant to be funny?

Because they are athiests..

They dont believe in an afterlife.. they probably dont believe in the concept of a soul.

"/

..i don't know what to think about that.

Two of the 3 have a scientific background..

Dawkins and harris..

Science has become synonymous with athiesm.. Although i do not feel it has to be.

Ironically, dawkins could not reconsile religion and science..

Which is genuinely strange.. but he believes in what he believes.

Harris is altogether less convincing and his knowledge of islam is not nearly as thorough as one would like..

His views on israel are the real kicker for any self proclaimed athiest..If you can understand what he is saying.

The analogy is one of micheal jordan..

You can point to him and say, look he represents the black man in the west..

But we all know it aint true.

..you could also point at anjum chaudrey and say look he represents the muslims in the west..

But we would already have changed the channel by then.

I find your views on the "free west" absurd.. especially as todays minorities "allegedly" face greater discrimination.. muslims included.

Implementing an islamic state is a pipedream we do not have the infastructure for..

The thread is about political civil war and its consequences.

Religion is by far harder to represent than athiesm..

Simply because the people are more open to being extremely opinionated..

And less open to being accommodating of any change.. in views/belief.

The will of god be done either way.

( Should have been a pharmacist :[ )

..they should all buy water filters.

https://www.fic.nih.gov/News/GlobalH...er-filter.aspx

Bit of science and that could be very cheap.

EDIT:

Im still kind of upset how OP thinks athiests have enjoyed western freedoms over the last 100 years.. in christian majority countries no less..

Here have a literacy test.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_vault...louisiana.html

..if you have a problem with supremicism, you probably have a lot of work to do..

Until your beliefs make you bias.

[PRND]

thats probably funny

...was that meant to be funny?

Only slightly. Mostly, it was meant to be nice. He's missed by his people, and it's a nod to those who are sad he's gone.

The analogy is one of micheal jordan..

You can point to him and say, look he represents the black man in the west..

But we all know it aint true.

I do believe that's not at all relevant. The question is, can you name two. Two atheists, meeting certain criteria, from among your peaceful and tolerant people. So far the answer is no, zero, nothing. This may be a fail for you.

Im still kind of upset how OP thinks athiests have

No need to be upset. It's very simple. Answer the challenge or stop communicating with me. I'm giving you options here.

Here have a literacy test.

Here, have a detailed comparison to Soviet-era demagoguery and whataboutery.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_...nching_Negroes

Before I continue. No more red herring. No more distractions. Answer the challenge. Name two, or stop communicating with me. Don't get lost. Name two atheists that meet the criteria. Just two, you have over a thousand years of history to draw on.

Do I have to tell you again, or is this sufficiently clear?

On to the detailed rebuttal. What I referenced is a common Soviet diversion tactic that was commonly employed whenever the human rights abuses of the Soviet Union were being pointed out. And we all remember what happened to the Soviet Union, Don't We Now.

This has been referred to as a common example of the tu quoque fallacy, as a red herring, a prime example of whataboutism, and a bitter Soviet era punch line. If you need further detail on what those first items are, I invite You to look them up.

It's old, it's tired, it's obvious and it's played out. Now answer the challenge or give up and walk away. If you need me to restate the terms, I can do that, but it is written right up there in perfect detail if you just scroll up to it.

What's the deal? Can you answer the challenge, or did you fail, get frustrated, and continue to fail? Name two atheists that meet the aforementioned criteria. Do it. Give it a try.

Come back with two names or don't come back at all.

[PRND]

Then, when Allah gave power to Salahud-Deen Ayoobi, he conquered Al-Quds and his behavior with the Christians was so nice that many Christian soldiers became impressed by Islam and they embraced it with their will. Next time the same convert Muslims were standing to fight the crusaders, and the crusaders were struck with wonder to see that wonderful change.

This is hilarious, it really is. It's hilarious, it's ignorant, it's pathetic, and you don't even know why. But I will tell you exactly why that is.

Lots of people groups have at least a bit of conquering, imperialism, and subjugation in their history. That's normal. But when you're talking about anyone Except for Muslims, you know you'll be talking to someone who's come to terms with most of the facts of their history and they can readily acknowledge the atrocities that exist in their past. For example, you'll never see a French person bragging about when France occupied Algeria, and didn't they do such a good job there. They know what that was, they don't deny it, and they don't lie about it or try to cover it up. You may see English people talk about how their colonialism was relatively light and non-meddlesome, but they do at least know when It's Over and they have no plans to reclaim India or the US or....pretty much anything, really.

Now, you're probably bracing yourself for some bull-headed opinions and baseless criticism, but on the topic of Saladin, I've got some real evidence and a really solid source for you. This will give you an opportunity to look at some disconfirming evidence and utilize that in order to replace some of your beliefs and opinions with Facts. First, this is the source that will be of interest to you.

The source is entitled Arab Historians of the Crusades, edited and translated by Francesco Gabriel, an Italian. And yes, these Arab Historians are all Muslims. Despite the double translation that took place, it is the best English translated resource for Arab Muslim Historians on this particular topic. At least 90% of what you can read in this is from the historians themselves. Each section begins with a bit of biographical detail about the historians, and perhaps a paragraph or two that sets up and leads in, but other than that the historians' work is simply compiled end to end. You should probably know that on more of a macro level, Zangi is actually the one that's depicted as using courtesy and diplomacy instead of violence, while Saladin is described by historian In Asakir as "most assiduous and zealous in the Holy War" and is said to have understood jihad in this manner- to “remove the heavy hand of unbelief with the right hands of the Faith, to purify Jerusalem of the pollution of those races, of the filth of the dregs of humanity” (147). He's also criticized for a choice he made pertaining to French Christians in Jerusalem where he had a chance to accept a less bloody surrender but chose to kill Way more people than he had to, for the stated reason of revenge for something in the 11th century. He actually said that. It's in there. And this was significant because it normalized excessive violence between monotheists, even though there were other leaders on the Muslim side that were doing more of the right things.

None of that is really the wake up call that you need though. Prepare for a lengthy quote that will rock your Saladin Was So Nice little world. This is the part that specifically deals with him taking Jerusalem.

"Neither amnesty nor Mercy for you! Our only desire is to inflict perpetual subjugation on you. Tomorrow we will be your masters by main force....we shall kill and capture you wholesale, spill men's blood and reduce the poor and women to slavery" (page 156).

Fun fact- in order to avoid slavery, the cost per man was 10 dinar, 5 for women, and 2 for each child. The total number of people who couldn't meet the demands of this frame-by-frame Daesh-style shakedown is listed at exactly 16,000. So this was the fate of Jerusalem's civilians. Oh but wait, there's more.

"Women and children together came to 8,000 and we're quickly divided up among us, bringing a smile to Muslim faces at their lamentations. How many well guarded women were profaned, how many queens were ruled, and nubile girls married, and misery women forced to yield themselves, and women who had been kept hidden stripped of their modesty, and serious women made ridiculous, and women kept in private now set in public, and free woken occupied, and precious ones used for hard work, and pretty things set to the test, and virgins Dishonored and proud women deflowered, and lovely women's red lips kissed- and dark women prostrated, and untamed ones tamed, and happy ones made to weep! How many noblemen took them as concubines, how many ardent men blazed for them, and celibates we're satisfied by them, and thirsty men were sated by them, and turbulent men able to give vent to their passion. How many lovely women's were the exclusive property of one man, how many great ladies were sold at low prices, and close ones set at a distance, and lofty ones abased, and Savage ones captured, and those accustomed to thrones cast down!" (Arab Historians of the Crusades, p. 163).

Bear in mind. The man who wrote all this is a Muslim, an Arab, an actual historian, and he lived close to this time and carried out the task of writing some of the actual history of these events. It's a bit wordy and runs on for a bit, but you'll find that's part for the course with these guys. You'll also find that they confidently assert that this victory cake directly from Allah, but that clearly doesn't change the basic facts of what was done with and to the citizens that couldn't afford the extortionary shakedown that was probably called an impromptu sort of jizya.

Do you notice how he's a little bit celebratory about all this? It's kind of surreal. You get to say Hello to the Muslim historical account when victory is fresh and it's time to celebrate. None of this face-saving business, none of this whitewashing and pretend that everyone was merciful and great. Some were a lot better than this, to be sure- but this is specifically Saladin, this is specifically Jerusalem, and this is the kind of disconfirming evidence that you cannot possibly ignore.

At any rate. That's some rather shocking evidence for you to deal with. You have fun with that, and please feel free to track down the primary source and read in more detail. It's not all horrible and awful- it is after all Arab Muslim Historians that are both chronicling and celebrating where they're able to- but there is a Whole lot more in the way of dirty, and mixed results, and murky morality, and just Normal Empire Warmongering that you'd readily expect for anyone else in a comparable situation but somehow you think that conquering Muslims were clean of this, and these types of accounts in your mind are presumed to be made up.

Guess what. It's not made up. Do your research. Look into the source. You have plenty to answer for in your religious history, and maybe it's finally time for you to start doing that in roughly the same way that literally everyone else has been doing for quite some time now.

[M.I.A.]

Lol excellent, i see your stand on it now..

Although your lack of belief in a creator is.. misplaced.

Again, as you yourself probably know, most opposition from the famed..

Came from people already belonging to a belief system.

The opposition you want me to seek.. probably did not exist.

And the treatment of such people.. as you would want it..

Does not exist, mankind and society have always excused themeselves of atrocities as they happen.

Planning for tomorrow is only for those with aptitude..competency or strength.

There is none worthy of worship..

Your stance and that of the original athiest.


Your self important challenge.. is THE red herring as far as i am concerned.

Although i feel that way only because im not knowledgeable on history.

I actually had to google, "the first athiest".. to see what came up and what became of him.

Im sorry but i dont think anyone can challenge your understanding of how the world and its people work..

Unless they make things clearer to you.. monothiesm is what you make of it.. and what it makes of you.

You should challenge the status quo sometime, and learn.

Lol i should have been a pharmacist.. in fact i would probably advocate learning a profession to all.

Although i would stress that knowledge is not power, application of knowledge is power..

Its persuit should not be solely the pastime of athiests..

Although today its only an open door for those able to pay the way.

Others see the world in differing intricacies.

EDIT:

Another thread, another perspective.

https://www.islamicboard.com/general...ml#post2974724

[Futuwwa]

I have a handful of objections to your plan, but I mostly want to focus on a specific question that I want to get a coherent response to. First, those objections.

It seems to me that in theory- in theory, I say, on paper and in theory- your idea is identical in form and intent to that of any of the caliphate building terrorists out there. You even want to wave a black flag and most likely set up your caliphate in the same sort of region where ongoing attempts are being made. I'll remind you that it always gets messy- you remember the First Fitnah, and the bloody fate of the first few caliphs?- and if you ever tried to put it into practice, you'd be one of those people who walks, acts, and quacks just like a terrorist. It's the same plan as all these other bad plans.

Now on to that question. As I'm sure you're aware, the last caliphate was the Ottoman Empire. It actually was an empire, that's not an unfair term, it literally was an empire. Previous caliphates were also imperial and expansionist in nature. Soy question to you is this.

Are you an imperialist? In other words, do you wish for a large number of Muslims to stop living in Westphalia style nation states and begin living under the rule of an empire? An empire that would probably be aggressively expansionist, awful to religious minorities, and a menace to the region, but that's beside the point.

Are you an imperialist, in the sense that you really like the idea of an Islamic empire, an actual empire, and you literally want to see another Islamic empire- an actual empire- exist and be powerful and all of that.

Are you an imperialist. You, specifically you, are you an imperialist? Answer the question please, don't get distracted, don't change the subject, don't you dare say WhatAbout in the process of dodging the question. I'm not asking about anyone else. I'm not asking you to identify some other type of person that's an imperialist. I'm specifically asking you to avoid getting distracted.

You. Point to yourself. Do it. Are you an imperialist? I'm asking about you, so please answer the question and don't get lost.

Thank you in advance, I do hope you can answer the question.

ProTip: If you actually want to have a serious, honest discussion, don't ask a question loaded to the brim with presuppositions and dictate that it must be answered as stated.

[OmAbdullah]

This is hilarious, it really is. It's hilarious, it's ignorant, it's pathetic, and you don't even know why. But I will tell you exactly why that is.

Lots of people groups have at least a bit of conquering, imperialism, and subjugation in their history. That's normal. But when you're talking about anyone Except for Muslims, you know you'll be talking to someone who's come to terms with most of the facts of their history and they can readily acknowledge the atrocities that exist in their past. For example, you'll never see a French person bragging about when France occupied Algeria, and didn't they do such a good job there. They know what that was, they don't deny it, and they don't lie about it or try to cover it up. You may see English people talk about how their colonialism was relatively light and non-meddlesome, but they do at least know when It's Over and they have no plans to reclaim India or the US or....pretty much anything, really.

Now, you're probably bracing yourself for some bull-headed opinions and baseless criticism, but on the topic of Saladin, I've got some real evidence and a really solid source for you. This will give you an opportunity to look at some disconfirming evidence and utilize that in order to replace some of your beliefs and opinions with Facts. First, this is the source that will be of interest to you.

The source is entitled Arab Historians of the Crusades, edited and translated by Francesco Gabriel, an Italian. And yes, these Arab Historians are all Muslims. Despite the double translation that took place, it is the best English translated resource for Arab Muslim Historians on this particular topic. At least 90% of what you can read in this is from the historians themselves. Each section begins with a bit of biographical detail about the historians, and perhaps a paragraph or two that sets up and leads in, but other than that the historians' work is simply compiled end to end. You should probably know that on more of a macro level, Zangi is actually the one that's depicted as using courtesy and diplomacy instead of violence, while Saladin is described by historian In Asakir as "most assiduous and zealous in the Holy War" and is said to have understood jihad in this manner- to “remove the heavy hand of unbelief with the right hands of the Faith, to purify Jerusalem of the pollution of those races, of the filth of the dregs of humanity” (147). He's also criticized for a choice he made pertaining to French Christians in Jerusalem where he had a chance to accept a less bloody surrender but chose to kill Way more people than he had to, for the stated reason of revenge for something in the 11th century. He actually said that. It's in there. And this was significant because it normalized excessive violence between monotheists, even though there were other leaders on the Muslim side that were doing more of the right things.

None of that is really the wake up call that you need though. Prepare for a lengthy quote that will rock your Saladin Was So Nice little world. This is the part that specifically deals with him taking Jerusalem.

"Neither amnesty nor Mercy for you! Our only desire is to inflict perpetual subjugation on you. Tomorrow we will be your masters by main force....we shall kill and capture you wholesale, spill men's blood and reduce the poor and women to slavery" (page 156).

Fun fact- in order to avoid slavery, the cost per man was 10 dinar, 5 for women, and 2 for each child. The total number of people who couldn't meet the demands of this frame-by-frame Daesh-style shakedown is listed at exactly 16,000. So this was the fate of Jerusalem's civilians. Oh but wait, there's more.

"Women and children together came to 8,000 and we're quickly divided up among us, bringing a smile to Muslim faces at their lamentations. How many well guarded women were profaned, how many queens were ruled, and nubile girls married, and misery women forced to yield themselves, and women who had been kept hidden stripped of their modesty, and serious women made ridiculous, and women kept in private now set in public, and free woken occupied, and precious ones used for hard work, and pretty things set to the test, and virgins Dishonored and proud women deflowered, and lovely women's red lips kissed- and dark women prostrated, and untamed ones tamed, and happy ones made to weep! How many noblemen took them as concubines, how many ardent men blazed for them, and celibates we're satisfied by them, and thirsty men were sated by them, and turbulent men able to give vent to their passion. How many lovely women's were the exclusive property of one man, how many great ladies were sold at low prices, and close ones set at a distance, and lofty ones abased, and Savage ones captured, and those accustomed to thrones cast down!" (Arab Historians of the Crusades, p. 163).

Bear in mind. The man who wrote all this is a Muslim, an Arab, an actual historian, and he lived close to this time and carried out the task of writing some of the actual history of these events. It's a bit wordy and runs on for a bit, but you'll find that's part for the course with these guys. You'll also find that they confidently assert that this victory cake directly from Allah, but that clearly doesn't change the basic facts of what was done with and to the citizens that couldn't afford the extortionary shakedown that was probably called an impromptu sort of jizya.

Do you notice how he's a little bit celebratory about all this? It's kind of surreal. You get to say Hello to the Muslim historical account when victory is fresh and it's time to celebrate. None of this face-saving business, none of this whitewashing and pretend that everyone was merciful and great. Some were a lot better than this, to be sure- but this is specifically Saladin, this is specifically Jerusalem, and this is the kind of disconfirming evidence that you cannot possibly ignore.

At any rate. That's some rather shocking evidence for you to deal with. You have fun with that, and please feel free to track down the primary source and read in more detail. It's not all horrible and awful- it is after all Arab Muslim Historians that are both chronicling and celebrating where they're able to- but there is a Whole lot more in the way of dirty, and mixed results, and murky morality, and just Normal Empire Warmongering that you'd readily expect for anyone else in a comparable situation but somehow you think that conquering Muslims were clean of this, and these types of accounts in your mind are presumed to be made up.

Guess what. It's not made up. Do your research. Look into the source. You have plenty to answer for in your religious history, and maybe it's finally time for you to start doing that in roughly the same way that literally everyone else has been doing for quite some time now.

I discard your shameless false statement but only take the following sentence for proof:

"The source is entitled Arab Historians of the Crusades, edited and translated by Francesco Gabriel, an Italian."

So from here came all that false statement. A Christian translated it and edited it. So where is the truth?

In fact you and I were not there at that time of the Crusaders wars with Salaahud-Deen. We just came to know from history. I read a story written by a convert Muslim who was a soldier in the crusaders' army. He wrote that:

They were in a fort like city when the Muslim army reached. Salaahud-Deen informed the city people to leave the city peacefully but those soldiers thought that they were safe so they didn't obey. then the Muslim army started attack with arrows or cannons which were so strong that the walls of the fort broke down. and so the army entered the city. The soldiers were arrested while all of the civilians were advised to leave. they were in fear that they would be killed like the Christians had killed the Muslim civilians but to their surprise that they were allowed to go and when they were leaving, the Muslims gave them money and food. (Yes this is the quality of the merciful hearts of the Muslims, they will never harm the innocent civilians).


The soldiers thought that they would be given terrible punishment because they had killed the Muslims in the past war but they were dealt with such excellent behavior that they started hating the Chritian lairs who had accused the Muslims and Islam with black, false accusations. So they entered the fold of Islam and next time when the Crusaders attacked, the same soldiers (now Muslims) confronted them bravely.



This is a true sensible story. See now what are your people doing with the women and children? In France, a Muslim woman is not allowed to wear head scarf. Your people have mixed up men and women in the name of freedom and rights of women. But in reality they made the girls and women available to men without marriage and then they opened the door of abortion to girls and women. So family is lost, women and children are lost, human-race is lost. Men don't need marriage and don't have to take responsibility of wife and children. He just enjoys girls for free and when they become pregnant they are discarded and new girlfriends are made. The pregnant girls/women cry and die helplessly. I have heard their helpless cries in the Western countries. That is everyday happening. The UN is sitting to give the news of daily thousands of deaths of the children by abortion. Many mothers also die in the process. That is a normal and everyday happening in your system.

[Serinity]

In Islam, even in battle we are NOT to kill civilians nor destroy churches or kill those in churches / synagouges.

So what about at times of peace?

[سيف الله]

Salaam

Another update

Saudi Arabia may finally face accountability in Yemen as another air strike kills five civilians

Almost 60 rights groups call on UN to establish body to investigate human rights abuses and possible war crimes in war-torn country

Riyadh and its allies have extensively bombed Houthi rebels in charge of Yemen’s capital and north since March 2015 at the request of the exiled, internationally recognised president, Abdrabbuh Mansour Hadi.

The campaign has been repeatedly criticised for causing an excessive loss of civilian life.

Saudi blockades on Yemen’s ports and airspace have also been blamed for causing the current famine facing the country’s 22-million-strong population as well as the worst cholera outbreak in modern history, which has infected 500,000 people.

On Tuesday, Human Rights Watch (HRW) and 56 other international non-governmental organisations urged the United Nations to establish an international body to investigate abuses they say may amount to war crimes committed by all the warring parties in Yemen.

Such a panel should “begin chipping away at the impunity that has been a central facet of Yemen's war,” HRW’S Geneva director John Fisher said in an open letter to the UN’s human rights council.

A report authored by several international aid agencies released earlier this month said Yemen suffered more air strikes in the first half of this year than in the whole of 2016, increasing the number of civilian deaths and forcing more people to flee their homes.

Western governments have also faced criticism for their role in the war: arms sold to Saudi Arabia are destined for use in the Yemeni war, rights groups say.

Officials within former US President Barack Obama’s administration were worried the sales could amount to complicity in war crimes.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/saudi-arabia-yemen-civil-war-air-strike-kills-five-civilians-masajed-a7920476.html

[Karl]

Am I comparing any attempt of wanting an Islamic state as someone like ISIS?

Basically yes. That's a qualified yes, it's not like ISIS in every way of course. The core issue is Islamic supremacism, religious coercion through use of force, and religious compulsion. Religion must be optional, and all religions must be treated equally regardless of the demographics of a population. So if a mostly Muslim country votes to make Islamic law mandatory for everyone to follow and a proper police force will punish non Muslims who try to exercise individual religious liberties, that has the same issues, at its core, as the ragtag terror group that blows stuff up in order to attain basically the same outcome. Deny individual religious liberties to non Muslims, impose compulsory Islamic law through force, then make excuses for it and call it by names that make you feel better about it.

Think about it this way. You're familiar with white supremacists, right? Well, suppose you have super violent and scary white supremacists in one situation. Through intimidation and force, they make it clear that non white people are not welcome in a certain place because it "belongs" to white people in exactly the same way that Mecca "belongs" to Muslims. They ensure that non white people have less rights and ultimately go away, due to violence or by leaving due to threat of violence....in much the same way that Pakistan wound up becoming so exclusively Islamic.

Now suppose there's a different group of white supremacists. They wear nice suits and attend political functions. They don't get violent and intimidate. They do innocuous things with Pepe memes, and they also talk about how they'd like to mainstream ideas pertaining to the white ownership of a particular continent and they just want to make sure white people, in slightly more vague terms, have more rights and privileges than non white people. They'll be a bit less blunt and they'll come up with terminology that sounds more innocuous....they might also project more realistic and manageable goals for themselves....but they're basically trying to do the same thing.

When the core idea is evil, when the core idea on All relevant examples here is basic supremacism, I'm going to tell you that and I won't give you bonus points for being a pragmatic and relatively non-violent supremacist. Supremacism is evil, and it's absolutely not okay.

Do I find it problematic that the flag of tawheed is associated with terrorism? No. I find it problematic that people die and embassies get burned over cartoons and caricatures.
End of moral assessment.

On the flag association thing, it's bad for you, it's bad for business, it's bad for Islam. And Islam deserves this. You have bad PR? No, really, do go on. Muslims did this to Islam, Islam did this to itself.

You think that ISIS is an excuse to undermine any Islamic state. I understand where you're coming from, and I believe we can reach an agreement on how that by itself is bad reasoning and it may not have been the best move for me to lead with that. Or did I lead with that?

On the other hand....thinking back and looking back, I didn't specifically mention ISIS. I generally mentioned various terror groups set on establishing caliphates (there are three of them, I didn't name them and barely mentioned them in general) and what little I said about them was meant to imply that practical difficulties would necessitate some procedural similarities- crucially, without the intent of being like ISIS. The main point there was to say this is not easy or even particularly feasible in any way that's going to be humane and just, not to say that so and so is literally ISIS. It's an untenable situation in which the preferred outcome, as stated, leads to a lot of blood and disappointment and not the outcome you're looking for. That was supposed to be the implied point in a larger sense. The only specific mentions that I made were of the First Fitnah (quite bloody and a bit of a false start to the whole thing) and of the Ottoman Empire. Which, in fairness, you have to admit was an empire. An actual literal empire. I think it's fair to ask if the goal of this specific person is to establish an empire, and again, in fairness, Empire and ISIS are not associated very closely or at all. My main question linked up with an actual, proper caliphate, specifically the most recent one, and I think it's a good question deserving of a proper answer.

Back to the main point, though. I do think it's lazy and a bit unfair to make a full and formal equivalence between any such attempt and Daesh. At the same time, I also think that any attempt to impose mandatory, compulsory religion is evil and there are better arguments against it than pointing to Daesh. This is specifically because the worst aspects of Daesh don't really get to the core issue of religion and the state and the public sphere. You can get there, but there's a lot of distractions. I prefer to make comparisons between different types of white supremacists and then challenge you to start seeing the supremacism in Islam, which is found in A Lot more places than just the terror groups with giant military budgets. It's just like how white supremacists aren't all skinheads or hood wearing scary people. There's a core ideology that can be readily defined without bringing up names of specific groups in order to get at the real problem, which is supremacism, meaning that a certain place or region specifically belongs to white people (or to Muslims) and no one else, the other people that somehow happen to be there can suck it, and just have to live with the decisions of the dominant group, that non white people (or non Muslims) get to have less rights and liberties and less of a life, and that's somehow okay under the right circumstances. I mean we're not blowing people up so it's all good right?

No, it's not all good. Supremacism is evil, it must go away and stay gone. That's the point that I'll keep coming back to.

I don't think you know how humans tick. In reality they are ALL supremisist self centred bigots no matter the race or religion. It is the power they have that controls their ability of conquest. I am a lot more worried about Jewish supremism as they are the most intelligent and effective in our modern times.
What about white supremisist Islam? Wouldn't that be fun...they could join with the Christians and the ones that worship the Hammer gods, a perfect trinity to bring peace and prosperity to the world LOL .If there is any people to fear, fear the "virtuous" ones the most.
Cholera is a real problem. The Europeans always made wine or beer to get around that problem and I supose everyone else did too, even Jesus.

[Islamopeace]

I find it hilarious that some of you have deluded yourselves to the point that you think your ancestors were merciful during battle.
Every historian knows the crusades were brutal, on both sides. Women were raped, men and children killed, and since Islam permits children of 6-9 to be married to men, often after the war, after there parents were killed, they were sold as slaves and wives. It's commonplace for children to be married to men multiple times there own age even today, and people are stoned to death as cited as acceptable punishment in the islam.
How you defend this behavior and actually condone it in the name of Islam is disgusting

[Karl]

I find it hilarious that some of you have deluded yourselves to the point that you think your ancestors were merciful during battle.
Every historian knows the crusades were brutal, on both sides. Women were raped, men and children killed, and since Islam permits children of 6-9 to be married to men, often after the war, after there parents were killed, they were sold as slaves and wives. It's commonplace for children to be married to men multiple times there own age even today, and people are stoned to death as cited as acceptable punishment in the islam.
How you defend this behavior and actually condone it in the name of Islam is disgusting

Wow! This humanist socialist anti Islamic ramble has not even mentioned cholera. What is your hang up with young people getting married? No religion has. Find me one religion that does. Global socialism (which is the only ideology with an age regulation mentality) is not a religion, so that does not count even though it is the most zealous and obnoxious of beliefs.

[PRND]

Wow! This humanist socialist anti Islamic ramble has not even mentioned cholera. What is your hang up with young people getting married? No religion has. Find me one religion that does. Global socialism (which is the only ideology with an age regulation mentality) is not a religion, so that does not count even though it is the most zealous and obnoxious of beliefs.

My hangup with extremely young girls getting married has to do with two things. One pertains to their choice of a mate and/or sexual partner, in that there is no choice for them. The other concern is really quite practical, and it's referred to as a perforated uterus or as uterine perforation. Would you like to guess how many of those happen per year, the number of young girls that die from this, and the estimated number of these incidents that your religion is directly responsible for? Go ahead, take a guess, then please do look up the actual numbers.

Oh, but do be careful about that. This may involve search terms that include "very young girls," "prepubescent children," and sex acts with much older people or with each other. So don't get incredibly specific with the things you're putting into your search history. While you're being careful with that, though, do consider how absurd it is to insist, for religious reasons of all things, that there's absolutely nothing wrong with any of that subject matter.

[happymuslim]

My hangup with extremely young girls getting married has to do with two things. One pertains to their choice of a mate and/or sexual partner, in that there is no choice for them. The other concern is really quite practical, and it's referred to as a perforated uterus or as uterine perforation. Would you like to guess how many of those happen per year, the number of young girls that die from this, and the estimated number of these incidents that your religion is directly responsible for? Go ahead, take a guess, then please do look up the actual numbers.

Oh, but do be careful about that. This may involve search terms that include "very young girls," "prepubescent children," and sex acts with much older people or with each other. So don't get incredibly specific with the things you're putting into your search history. While you're being careful with that, though, do consider how absurd it is to insist, for religious reasons of all things, that there's absolutely nothing wrong with any of that subject matter.

Yemen’s state right now is much more important, the cholera outbreak is not something to take light of, Also This debate is so irrelevant to talk about, How is islam directly responsible for a certain condition bruh, the blame game at its finest [emoji1476][emoji849]

[happymuslim]

Yemen’s state right now is much more important, the cholera outbreak is not something to take light of, Also This debate is so irrelevant to talk about, How is islam directly responsible for a certain condition bruh, the blame game at its finest [emoji1476][emoji849]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/23526304/

[Karl]

My hangup with extremely young girls getting married has to do with two things. One pertains to their choice of a mate and/or sexual partner, in that there is no choice for them. The other concern is really quite practical, and it's referred to as a perforated uterus or as uterine perforation. Would you like to guess how many of those happen per year, the number of young girls that die from this, and the estimated number of these incidents that your religion is directly responsible for? Go ahead, take a guess, then please do look up the actual numbers.

Oh, but do be careful about that. This may involve search terms that include "very young girls," "prepubescent children," and sex acts with much older people or with each other. So don't get incredibly specific with the things you're putting into your search history. While you're being careful with that, though, do consider how absurd it is to insist, for religious reasons of all things, that there's absolutely nothing wrong with any of that subject matter.

To begin with, such a domestic matter is simply none of your business, PERIOD. How I raise MY daughters is simply none of your concern, so for you to say that you would have a "hangup" over it is not my concern. It does however become an act of war the moment you allow your self-righteous hangups to TRESPASS ON MY PROPERTY and attempt to dictate how I am to raise my own family. You do however (understandably so) have every justification to have hangups when it comes to matters to do with YOUR offspring. You as their parent should raise your offspring as you see fit, so there is every justification for you to have hangups whenever your offspring disobey you or if an outside party initiates force against them. When it comes to anything like that, I can fully understand all the way.

I as the biological father of my offspring shall raise them however I see fit rather than how my enemies (i.e: external forces such as any government, the UN, or any other social engineering collectivist scourge) see fit. This means that I and only I as their father shall determine at my discretion and prerogative who and when they are to marry. The practice of arranged marriage is ancient in my race and it is NOT something we will ever stop doing just because all the leftists-united and other enemies of my race have expressed how much they hate it.

You seem to completely overlook though that prepubescent marriage in and of itself does NOT automatically mean that coitus will be immediately involved anyway, nor should any wise husband indulge in it either, as it can result in damage, I agree. The vast majority of prepubescent marriage would involve being restricted to either non-coital erotic acts or simply no sexual activity at all. And on your topic of "uterine perforation" (which is really more to do with very narrow items such as wires, knitting needles etc being inserted)...what you are really more meaning, I think, is vaginal damage caused by penile insertion, that's really more a matter of sexual partners being too different in size rather than an issue of age. Sure, there are instances of prepubescent females who are far too small being damaged by male partners, but there are also increasing instances of women who are too small being damaged by sexual activity with incompatible men who are too big for them, often resulting in vaginal damage and caesarean sections due to the baby being too big. Also, girls mature at very different speeds, depending on race. For example, girls of my race are sexually matured by age 8 or 9, and are at their full adult breeding size by the time they are 12. I'm not sure what approximate age group you are referring to when you are talking about "extremely young girls" but for girls of my race that means YOUNG (like age 2 or 3, not 9 or 10 year old maidens).

The expression "prepubescent children" is a ridiculous one too. It is about as ridiculous as saying "dead corpses". ALL children are of course prepubescent, just as all corpses are dead, so there is simply no need to say "prepubescent children". Either prepubescents or children will perfectly suffice.

Anyway, just in case no one has realized, this thread is about cholera, so let's try and keep it on topic. if you want to discuss this off-topic stuff any further please send me private messages.

[سيف الله]

Salaam

More misery in Yemen.

Saudi Arabia still barring aid to Yemen despite pledge to lift siege

Saudi-led coalition has failed to lift blockade on Yemen’s ports, leaving tens of thousands without food and medicine

Aid agencies said Saudi Arabia has not fulfilled its promise to reopen humanitarian aid corridors into northern Yemen, leaving the main aid lifeline closed for tens of thousands of starving people.

Following intense pressure from western governments, Saudi Arabia agreed on Wednesday to lift a fortnight-long blockade of the port of Hodeida from noon (9am GMT) on Thursday, but in an update at lunchtime on Friday, aid agencies said no permissions for humanitarian shipments had been given.

A UN source in Yemen said: “We have submitted the request to bring in aid, as we have every day, but there has been nothing. At this stage, we do not know the reason for the delay.”

Jamie McGoldrick, the head of the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) in Yemen, said: “There is a system where we notify [the Saudi-led coalition] and ask for space or time slots to bring our planes in, and we negotiate in terms of getting space on the port as well. We’ve actually gone through the normal procedures and we’re just waiting to find out how that goes.”

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/nov/24/saudi-arabia-continues-to-block-humanitarian-aid-to-yemen

[JustTime]

This is such an exaggeration

[Noobzz]

This is such an exaggeration

oh yeah , counted and verified dead bodies by the UN is an exaggeration.

[سيف الله]

Salaam

Another update

[سيف الله]

Salaam

Another update

Yemeni Nobel laureate: Saudi Arabia, UAE occupy Yemen

Yemeni Nobel Peace laureate Tawakkol Karman has called for an end to what she says is a military occupation of her country by Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) in an exclusive interview with the Reuters news agency. An outspoken rights advocate and activist with Yemen's Islah party, Karman won the prize in 2011 after camping out in a tent for months in pro-democracy protests that eventually forced Yemen's longtime leader Ali Abdullah Saleh to step down.

As in other lands shaken by Arab Spring uprisings that year, like Syria and Libya, Yemen descended into a war which drew in foreign powers, seeming to dash the dreams of progress by the thousands who took to Sanaa's makeshift "Change Square".
A Saudi-led military coalition joined the Yemen conflict after Houthi rebels seized much of the country in late 2014 and eventually drove the government into exile in Saudi Arabia.

"The Saudi-Emirati occupation ... betrayed the Yemenis and sold them out, exploiting the coup of the Houthi militia backed by Iran on the legitimate government, to exercise an ugly occupation and greater influence", Karman told Reuters by phone in an interview from her base in Istanbul, Turkey.

She alleged that President Abd-Rabbu Mansour Hadi, along with other top officials, were being kept under "house arrest" by Riyadh and prevented from governing on the ground in order to preserve Saudi and UAE influence.

Officials from the Saudi-led coalition and the UAE did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

A Yemeni government official denied her charges.

"This lady, unfortunately, no longer means what she says. President Hadi isn't under house arrest and can travel wherever he wants ... the government and the coalition are in complete coordination," the official said.

The coalition says their campaign was launched at Hadi's request and aims at restoring his rule and Yemen's future as a unified state in line with UN resolutions. But Karman says Saudi Arabia and the UAE, monarchies where the state and ruling families are intertwined, seek to turn back the clock on political progress in Yemen and abroad.

"They regard the Arab Spring as their first enemy and this is a strategic error they have fallen into ... I call on the two countries to reconcile with the Arab Spring, not to clash with it, because the future is a future of change, and the wheel of history does not roll backward."

According to the United Nations, more than 10,000 people have been killed in fighting - nearly half of them civilians - since a Saudi-led coalition launched air attacks on Yemen in March 2015.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/02/yemeni-nobel-laureate-saudi-arabia-uae-occupy-yemen-180208062638767.html

[سيف الله]

Salaam

Another update

An Easy Riyadh

When the high court threw out a judicial review by campaigner seeking to suspend UK export licences for weapons heading to Saudi Arabia last year, given the evidence of their use in human rights abuses, one of its main reasons was the effectiveness of a programme to monitor such allegations.

Human Rights Watch, Amensty and er, Oxfam had argued that the joint incidents assessment team (JIAT), set up by coalition forces to examine alleged violations of humanitarian law, was inadequate. Given the hundreds of alleged abuses, around 10000 deaths and millions of displaced refugees, they were too superficial and too few. Even the head of the governments Export Control Organisation had written in an email that 'my gut tells me we should suspend' sales.

The judges, however decided the Saudis 'growing efforts to establish and operate procedures to investigate incidents of concern is of significance and a matter which the secretary of state (for International Trade, Liam Fox) was entitled to take into account as part of his overall assessment of the Saudi attitude and commitment to maintaining international huminatarian law standards.' Taken with the Riyadh regimes warm words and promises, this meant licensing arms exports to Saudi Arabia was eminently reasonable.

Just a couple of months later, the UNs office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) described the JIAT system as 'wholly insufficient'. Now, seven months after the courts judgment, the answer to a parliamentary question from Labour MP Stephen Doughty shows the Saudis 'growing efforts' at marking their own bombing homework are going.

Of around 320 attacks alleged to have violated humanitarian law, just 41 have been investigated and reported on. So far a small number of 'errors' have been admitted, but nothing that would call into question the sale of missiles to Riyadh. Naturally, there is no explanation for how the minority of cases 'investigated' are selected.

Although the evidence undermines the basis for rejecting the judicial review of the export licences, the JIAT system is still held out as an answer to awkward questions about the carnage in Yemen. It will no doubt be cited when Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, de facto ruler in Riyadh, steps on to the red carpet in London next month. Sales to the country have been booming recently and Theresa May is unlikely to want anything to spoil that.

Private Eye No 1464.

[سيف الله]

Salaam

Another update

We are going to end Yemen war, Pentagon chief tells Saudi crown prince
#YemenWar

After meeting with Saudi crown prince, US Secretary of Defense James Mattis stresses 'urgent' need to find political solution

There is an urgent need to find a political solution to Yemen's war, US Defense Secretary James Mattis told Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman on Thursday, as he voiced hope for a UN special envoy's peace efforts. Since March 2015, Riyadh has led a bombing campaign in Yemen to push Houthi rebels out of the capital and reinstall the government of Abd Rabbuh Mansour Hadi.

"We must also reinvigorate urgent efforts to seek a peaceful resolution to the civil war in Yemen and we support you in this regard," Mattis said.

Dubbed by UN officials as the world's "largest man-made humanitarian crisis", Yemen has witnessed a massive cholera outbreak, shortages in basic needs and more than 10,000 deaths. Asked by reporters at the start of his talks whether he would raise the issue of civilian casualties in Yemen, Mattis said: "We are going to end this war, that is the bottom line. And we are going to end it on positive terms for the people of Yemen, but also security for the nations in the peninsula."

Earlier this year, UN chief Antonio Guterres appointed former British diplomat Martin Griffiths as his new envoy charged with trying to broker peace in Yemen. Will Picard, executive director of Yemen Peace Project, a Washington-based advocacy group, called Mattis statement "empty rhetoric".

"We heard from the beginning of the war US officials saying they want to put an end to the war, yet they keep perpetuating it," Picard told MEE.

Mattis praised Saudi Arabia for the "significant amounts of humanitarian aid" it had provided to civilians in Yemen. The Saudi-led coalition said earlier this year it would commit $1.5bn in humanitarian aid for the country. Critics say Saudi aid in the shadow of the coalition’s blockade on Yemen exclusively puts the response to the humanitarian crisis in the hands of an active party in the conflict and does not reach Houthi-controlled territory.

The war in Yemen has displaced more than 2 million people and driven the country - already the poorest on the Arabian Peninsula - to the verge of widespread famine. On Tuesday, the US Senate killed a resolution seeking an end to Washington's support for Saudi Arabia's campaign in Yemen.

During the Senate debate before the vote, some backers called the three-year-long conflict in Yemen a “humanitarian catastrophe”, which they blamed on the Saudis. Mattis had lobbied Congress to reject the bill, warning that restrictions could increase civilian casualties, jeopardise counterterrorism cooperation, and "reduce our influence with the Saudis".

The United States provides refuelling and intelligence support to the Saudi-led coalition. Picard said the legislation would have been an important step towards peace.

"Ending American military involvement in this conflict is crucial to ending the war in whole," he said. "The United States cannot play a useful role in bringing peace to Yemen while it continues to be a belligerent in this conflict and to support the coalition's war efforts."

Pentagon spokeswoman Dana White said that during the meeting, the crown prince talked about increasing cooperation with the US military, including training. President Donald Trump gave a warm welcome to the crown prince during a meeting at the White House earlier this week and credited US defence sales to Saudis with boosting American jobs.

Picard noted that Thursday's comments were not made by the secretary of state "because the US doesn't have one".

Trump sacked Rex Tillerson last week, and his new appointee, Mike Pompeo, has not yet been confirmed by the Senate.

"That vacuum at the top of America's diplomatic apparatus tells you all that you need to know about Trump administration's commitment to the peace process in Yemen," Picard said.

The Pentagon said Mattis and the crown prince also discussed Afghanistan, and Riyadh was willing to help members of the Taliban and their families who were interested in reconciliation efforts.

White said the Saudi crown prince was "quite positive" that Gulf countries involved in a long-running dispute would be able to move past it. Washington is keen to end the standoff between Qatar on one side and several other Arab nations, including Saudi Arabia, on the other. The rift has divided the Gulf Cooperation Council group of countries and hurt US-led efforts to maintain a strong front against Iran. Meanwhile, the US formally approved defence contracts totaling more than $1bn with Saudi Arabia on Thursday.

The department confirmed it had green-lighted a $670m deal for anti-tank missiles, a $106m contract for helicopter maintenance and $300m for ground vehicle parts. An official said the deals had been in the pipeline since Trump has announced more than $100bn in possible new contracts on a visit to Riyadh last year.

"This proposed sale will contribute to US foreign policy and national security objectives by helping to improve the security of a friendly country which has been, and continues to be, an important force for political stability and economic growth in the Middle East," the Defense Security Cooperation Agency said.

http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/we-are-going-end-yemen-war-pentagon-chief-tells-saudi-crown-prince-1218609448

[سيف الله]

Salaam

Another update

[سيف الله]

Salaam

Another update

Yemen's Houthi rebels fire ballistic missile at Saudi capital

Saudi air defences intercept missile fired at Riyadh, videos published on social media purportedly show.

Yemen's Houthi rebels fired a ballistic missile at Saudi Arabia's capital, Riyadh, saying the projectile traveled more than 800km into the kingdom on Wednesday.

Al Masirah, a TV network run by the Houthis, claimed responsibility for the attack on Twitter, saying the rebels fired a Burkan 2-H, a Scud-type missile, towards the Saudi defence ministry.

Videos published on social media showed clouds of smoke in the sky above the capital.

Sharaf Lokman, a spokesman for the Houthis, said the attack came after Saleh al-Samad - president of the Supreme Political Council that runs Yemen's capital, Sanaa, and other rebel-held areas - declared the start of "a year of ballistic missiles".

Embedded Tweet

Al Masirah also reported the Houthis fired missiles at oil storage facilities belonging to Saudi oil giant Aramco in the provinces of Najran and Jizan.

Meanwhile, the Saudi coalition fighting the Houthis in Yemen said its air defences shot down two unmanned drones in the south of the country.

The Houthis said they targeted southern areas of Saudi Arabia with Qasif-1 drones.

The kingdom accuses Iran of supplying missile parts and expertise to the Houthis. Tehran and the Houthis have repeatedly denied the allegations.

According to Conflict Armament Research (CAR), the Qasif-1 drone is said to resemble Iran's Ababil-2 drone and is the latest in a line of weapons Tehran has allegedly sent the Houthis.

Despite its relatively simple technology, the Qasif-1 carries a 30kg warhead and has allowed the Houthis to target vessels in the strategic Bab Al Mandeb Strait.

The war in Yemen, the region's poorest country, started in 2014 after Houthi rebels seized control of the capital and began pushing south towards the country's third-biggest city Aden.

Concerned by the rise of the Houthi rebels, Saudi Arabia and a coalition of Arab states launched a military intervention in 2015 in the form of a massive air campaign aimed at reinstalling the government of President Abd-Rabbu Mansour Hadi.

Since then, more than 10,000 people have been killed and at least 40,000 wounded, mostly from Saudi-led air strikes.

In retaliation, the Houthis have launched dozens of missiles at the kingdom. Saudi authorities say over the past three years 90 ballistic missiles were fired by the rebels.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/04/yemen-houthi-rebels-fire-ballistic-missile-saudi-capital-180411153418562.html

[سيف الله]

Salaam

Another update

Yemen: At least 20 killed in Saudi-led Coalition Airstrikes on Wedding

At least 20 wedding attendees were killed in Saudi-led airstrikes on Hajjah, Northwest Yemen, on Sunday night. According to witnesses, the wedding party was targeted in separate strikes, several minutes apart,[1] resulting in dozens of deaths and injuries. Sources report that the majority of victims were woman and children, and that the bride was amongst those killed.[2]

The Health ministry spokesman said that there were delays in treating the wounded as ambulances could not reach the site out of fear of further strikes, as jets continued to fly overhead. The head of the local hospital, Al Jumhouri, told Reuters that his hospital eventually received over 40 bodies torn to pieces and that amongst the 46 injured seen so far, 30 were children.[3] Unverified footage showed a young boy desperately clinging on to his father’s dead body and refusing to let go as medics ran to assist.[4]

Saudi coalition spokesman, Colonel Turki al Makki, said they would be investigating the reports and not making further comments at this stage.[5]

A separate attack in Taiba killed a family of four on the same night,[6] while a bus was targeted by airstrikes on Saturday, killing 20 commuters.[7] According to the Yemen Data Project, one in three of the 16,847 coalition airstrikes since 2015 have hit non-military targets, including hospitals, schools and shops.[8] Indeed, it is not the first time that weddings have been bombed in air raids; 174 wedding attendees died within 2 months in 2015, although the coalition denied involvement at the time.[9]

The civilian deaths are the latest in the ongoing civil war in Yemen in which over 10,000 have been killed since it began 3 years ago. According to a recent UN report, the Saudi-led coalition is said to be responsible for 61% of all civilian deaths, whilst indiscriminate shelling by Houthi rebels accounts for the rest.[10] There have been recent attempts by Houthi rebels to target Saudi Arabia, although their missiles have all been successfully intercepted.[11]

In a separate set of incidents, Al Jazeera reported that several Muslim scholars have been assassinated in Southern Yemen recently, particularly within the last 6 months. The report suggests that many of the clerics were linked to the Islāh Party, the Yemeni branch of the Muslim Brotherhood. Elisabeth Kendall, a research fellow at Oxford University, said:

“It is not clear who is doing the targeting, although there are widely-held beliefs on the ground that think it is being done by the UAE-backed forces”.[12]

Over 22 million face starvation as a result of the ongoing conflict, prolonged and exacerbated by the involvement of regional powers seeking their own interests at the expense of the civilian population.[13]

https://www.islam21c.com/news-views/yemen-at-least-20-killed-in-saudi-led-coalition-airstrikes-on-wedding/

[azc]

Killing the civilians is cruelty

[anatolian]

Are these the “killings upon killings” as prophicied in the akhirul zaman hadith ?

[سيف الله]

Salaam

More bad news

What's behind increased killings of Muslim clerics in Yemen?

Killings of preachers and religious scholars in the south of the country, focus attention on a new layer of complexity developing in Yemen's civil war.

At least 25 Muslim clerics have been murdered in southern Yemen in the past two years.

Most of those killed are said to be supporters of the President Abd-Rabbu Mansour Hadi and his allies.

It points to growing rivalries between UAE-backed armed groups and Hadi's forces in the south.

Al Jazeera's Mereana Hond reports.

[سيف الله]

Salaam

Another update

Embedded Tweet

[سيف الله]

Salaam

Another update from wikileaks

Embedded Tweet

[سيف الله]

Salaam

Missed this

MbS slapped with lawsuit during trip to France

A lawyer representing a Yemeni human rights group has filed a lawsuit in a French court against crown prince and de facto Saudi leader Mohammed bin Salman.

Joseph Breham is suing bin Salman - who is currently in France as part of a three-day official trip - for his role in launching Saudi Arabia's now three-year-old campaign of airstrikes in Yemen against the Iran-backed Houthis.

The lawsuit claims that bin Salman, who also serves as defence minister, knowingly targeted civilians.

At least 10,000 people have died since Saudi Arabia began airstrikes in March 2015. There are also up to one million suspected cholera cases in the country, which the UN has dubbed the "world's worst humanitarian disaster".

Breham, representing the Legal Center for Rights and Development, told AP that France has the jurisdiction to investigate the case as it was filed while bin Salman is on French soil. But he acknowledged that diplomatic immunity bars the crown prince from arrest.

Speaking to reporters in Paris on Tuesday, Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir called the lawsuit "ridiculous".

Yesterday, Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri tweeted a photo with bin Salman and Morocco's King Mohamed VI in a suprise meeting in the country.

The Saudi crown prince will conclude his visit to France with further discussions with President Emmanuel Macron ahead of a gala dinner at the Elysee Palace.

Much of the prince's visit has focused on deepening cultural ties with France, with Saudi officials drawing on the country's expertise to set up a national opera and orchestra.

But activists have mobilised to keep attention focused on French weapons exports to Saudi Arabia and rights abuses in the kingdom.

Three out of four French people believe it is "unacceptable" for France, the world's third largest arms exporters, to continue selling weapons to Saudi Arabia, according to a YouGov poll.

https://www.alaraby.co.uk/english/news/2018/4/10/mbs-slapped-with-lawsuit-during-trip-to-france

[سيف الله]

Salaam

Another update

(US) Army Special Forces Secretly Help Saudis Combat Threat From Yemen Rebels

WASHINGTON — For years, the American military has sought to distance itself from a brutal civil war in Yemen, where Saudi-led forces are battling rebels who pose no direct threat to the United States.

But late last year, a team of about a dozen Green Berets arrived on Saudi Arabia’s border with Yemen, in a continuing escalation of America’s secret wars.

With virtually no public discussion or debate, the Army commandos are helping locate and destroy caches of ballistic missiles and launch sites that Houthi rebels in Yemen are using to attack Riyadh and other Saudi cities.

Details of the Green Beret operation, which has not been previously disclosed, were provided to The New York Times by United States officials and European diplomats.

They appear to contradict Pentagon statements that American military assistance to the Saudi-led campaign in Yemen is limited to aircraft refueling, logistics and general intelligence sharing.

There is no indication that the American commandos have crossed into Yemen as part of the secretive mission.

But sending American ground forces to the border is a marked escalation of Western assistance to target Houthi fighters who are deep in Yemen.

Beyond its years as a base for Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, Yemen has been convulsed by civil strife since 2014, when the Shiite Muslim rebels from the country’s north stormed the capital, Sana. The Houthis, who are aligned with Iran, ousted the government of President Abdu Rabbu Mansour Hadi, the Americans’ main counterterrorism partner in Yemen.

In 2015, a military coalition led by Saudi Arabia began bombing the Houthis, who have responded by firing missiles into the kingdom. Yet there is no evidence that the Houthis directly threaten the United States; they are an unsophisticated militant group with no operations outside Yemen and have not been classified by the American government as a terrorist group.

The Green Berets, the Army’s Special Forces, deployed to the border in December, weeks after a ballistic missile fired from Yemen sailed close to Riyadh, the Saudi capital. The Saudi military said it intercepted the missile over the city’s international airport — a claim that was cast in doubt by an analysis of photos and videos of the strike. But it was enough for Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman to renew a longstanding request that the United States send troops to help the kingdom combat the Houthi threat.

A half-dozen officials — from the United States military, the Trump administration, and European and Arab nations — said the American commandos are training Saudi ground troops to secure their border. They also are working closely with American intelligence analysts in Najran, a city in southern Saudi Arabia that has been repeatedly attacked with rockets, to help locate Houthi missile sites within Yemen.

Along the porous border, the Americans are working with surveillance planes that can gather electronic signals to track the Houthi weapons and their launch sites, according to the officials, all of whom spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the mission publicly.

During a meeting on Capitol Hill in March, senators pressed Pentagon officials about the military’s role in the Saudi-led conflict, demanding to know whether American troops were at risk of entering into hostilities against the Houthis.

Pentagon officials told the senators what had already been said publicly: that American forces stationed in Saudi Arabia only advised within the kingdom’s borders and were focused mostly on border defense.

“We are authorized to help the Saudis defend their border,” Gen. Joseph L. Votel, the head of United States Central Command, told the Senate Armed Services Committee on March 13. “We are doing that through intelligence sharing, through logistics support and through military advice that we provide to them.”

On April 17, Robert S. Karem, assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs, told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that the United States had about 50 military personnel in Saudi Arabia, “largely helping on the ballistic missile threat.”

The Green Berets have stepped in to deal with an increasingly difficult problem for the Saudi military. Their presence is the latest example of the expanding relationship between the United States and Saudi Arabia under President Trump and Prince Mohammed.

Mr. Trump’s first overseas trip after taking office was to Riyadh, nearly one year ago. By contrast, President Barack Obama regularly criticized Saudi Arabia for civilian casualties inflicted by its bombing campaign in Yemen, and blocked arms sales to the kingdom.

In March, as Prince Mohammed met with Mr. Trump and top national security officials in Washington, the State Department approved the sale of an estimated $670 million in anti-tank missiles in an arms package that also included spare parts for American-made tanks and helicopters that Saudi Arabia previously purchased.

“Saudi Arabia is a very wealthy nation, and they’re going to give the United States some of that wealth hopefully, in the form of jobs, in the form of the purchase of the finest military equipment anywhere in the world,” Mr. Trump said at the time.

rest here

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/03/us/politics/green-berets-saudi-yemen-border-houthi.html

[سيف الله]

Salaam

Another update

Embedded Tweet

[سيف الله]

Salaam

This is related, gives background on US drone policy.

Blurb

This story is hard to believe, but it is true. US presidents are ordering the assassination of American citizens, including children, without due process.

This story is hard to believe

Its not I'm afraid, given the history :hmm:

Glad I discovered this guy, well worth listening to.

[سيف الله]

Salaam

Turf wars between the Saudis and the Emiratis in Yemen.

Blurb

The UAE is Winning the War In Yemen. Their "ally" Saudi Arabia is not. This vid explains what's really going on in Yemen.




Blurb

More than a dozen soldiers from Saudi Arabia have been killed in Yemen during operations along the border. This brings the total number of Saudi casualties since 2015 to over 1,000, according to state media. Meanwhile, the humanitarian crisis in Yemen is worsening as the war prevents much-needed aid from reaching many Yemenis. The UN estimates that 22 million Yemenis are in need of food aid and more than eight million are threatened by severe hunger.



US wants to get more 'involved'

Embedded Tweet

[سيف الله]

Salaam

Another update

The battle for Hudaida: Saudis plan to pull the plug on Yemen's life support

The British government should stop cosying up to the Saudis and deter a possible attack on key port

If the initial blockade of humanitarian aid to Yemen wasn't enough to push the Houthi rebels there into submission, starving the civilian population through the destruction of Hudaida port won't force surrender either.

The harsh reality is that the Houthi rebels do not represent the millions of Yemenis starved by the famine, and therefore will not end the war with the Saudi-led coalition if the famine is furthered by the destruction of the Red Sea port, which is responsible for bringing over 80 percent of humanitarian aid into Yemen.

In typical Conservative government fashion, the British government is shying away from confronting Saudi Arabia over a possible attack on Hudaida, even though it is widely accepted by the international community that any attack on the port would cut off food and medical supplies to millions of innocent civilians.

While the United Nations can be as vocal as possible, major powers are still unwilling to explicitly oppose the potential Saudi offensive, leaving the United Nations Security Council limited in its ability to deter an attack.

The threat of starving civilians through an attack on the Houthi stronghold in Hudaida will not only do nothing to win the hearts and minds of Yemenis who are politically neutral, but is likely to put civilians who live in places previously considered largely safe at risk.

Worst humanitarian disaster

UN figures suggest over 100 people have already been killed in the battle for the port of Hudaida, but the escalation of this aspect of the conflict bares larger consequences as 200,000 people are said to be at risk of being displaced, alongside the threat of 8.4 million people being affected by the famine if food supplies are suddenly cut off.

Without a negotiated settlement, the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen is paving the way for the largest humanitarian disaster of the 21st century. However, this would not be possible if the international community had intervened with action, through the UN, and not just empty rhetoric.

If we are serious about bringing about an end to this conflict, the priority of those in the international community that currently sell arms to the Saudis should be to suspend their arms export licenses immediately.

A catalogue of errors

In fact, British Prime Minister Theresa May's misleading suggestion that the war in Yemen had UN backing through Resolution 2216, which called for an end to the violence in Yemen, was somehow a tacit acceptance of a Saudi bombardment of the country until the Houthis capitulated. This is not only irresponsible but also legitimises a campaign that has deliberately targeted civilians.

Welcoming the Saudi leaders who are responsible for much of the military campaign to Downing Street only adds to the catalogue of foreign policy errors that the British government has been involved in during the conflict.

In the face of a war of attrition in Yemen, there will only be one outcome. With the economic and military strength of the Saudi regime, the Houthis will eventually collapse.

But the fact that the Saudi-led coalition is more than willing to pull the plug on Yemen's life support, in a blatant show of contempt for international law, will be a huge blow to the perceived authority of the United Nations in the Middle East, where its unique powers of neutrality-based action is currently needed the most.

The Labour Party has already committed to a complete suspension of British arms sales to the Saudis should it get into government. However, this policy would apply to any military that is flouting international law with British weapons. A comprehensive review of arms sales across the world is the only way to bring about real arms control and to protect international stability.

Labour would build a Britain that prides itself once again on its humanitarian approach to foreign policy. British foreign policy has been historically defined as one that is concerned with human welfare, based on international law. Make no mistake, there is no justification for obstructing aid into Yemen, and if cosying up to the Saudis fails to deter a further incursion,

http://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/yemen-war-saudis-are-paving-way-largest-humanitarian-disaster-21-century-266834381

[سيف الله]

Salaam

Another update

Embedded Tweet

Embedded Tweet

Embedded Tweet

Embedded Tweet

[سيف الله]

Salaam

Another update

Saudi-UAE led forces 'capture' Yemen's Hudaida airport

Yemeni military announce capture of airport from Houthi rebels, as UN special adviser warns of risk of famine.

Forces from a Saudi and Emirati led coalition have captured the airport in Yemen's port city of Hudaida, military officials announced on Twitter.

In a post on Saturday, an account associated with the Saudi-alligned Yemeni military said the airport had been "freed from the grip of the Houthi militia" and that de-mining operations were ongoing.

Hudaida airport is located just to the south of the city-proper with heavy fighting still ongoing on Hudaida's southern edges.

Houthi sources have not yet confirmed their loss of the airport.

Heavy fighting has left at least 39 people dead as of Thursday, including 30 Hourthi rebels, and nine pro-government troops.

Rebels have instructed civilians to move away from the outskirts of the city and towards the city centre.

Hudaida is home to about 600,000 people and a port responsible for 70 percent of imports into Yemen, raising fears the fighting could ignite a humanitarian catastrophe.

The UN Security Council has expressed its "deep concern" over the fighting and UN officials have warned of a risk of famine.

Adana Dieng, UN special adviser on the Prevention of Genocide, said the attack on Hudaida could heighten the risk of famine.

"The Yemeni port (of Hudaida) is a lifeline for the delivery of aid and the Coalition's air attacks can kill many more people over time through famine and hunger when damaging such civilian infrastructure," Dieng said in a statement.

More than 22 million people in Yemen are in need of aid, including 8.4 million who are at risk of starvation, according to the UN, which considers Yemen to be the world's worst humanitarian crisis.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/06/saudi-uae-led-forces-capture-yemen-hudaida-airport-180616052826677.html

[سيف الله]

Salaam

Another update

Attacking Hodeidah is Trump’s deliberate act of cruelty

The Trump administration is guilty of many acts of deliberate cruelty, such as taking away the children of immigrant parents at the US border. But just as the world was watching the lead up to the Trump-Kim Jong-un meeting in Singapore last Monday, the US may have done something even worse by quietly announcing a decision that threatens to kill millions by starvation or disease.

The potential death sentence came in a short press statement by the US secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, effectively giving a green light for the United Arab Emirates (UAE) to launch an offensive in Yemen aimed at capturing Hodeidah on the Red Sea. The port city is the point of entry for 70 per cent of food and medical supplies for the eight million Yemenis whom the UN says are on the brink of starvation out of the 22 million in need of humanitarian aid.

The eagerness of US officials to avoid accusations of complicity in the Hodeidah attack is a sign that they suspect the outcome may be calamitous. Pompeo was deliberately low-key in his three sentence statement about Hodeidah: “I have spoken with Emirati leaders and made clear our desire to address their security concerns while preserving the free flow of humanitarian aid and life-saving commercial imports.”

Absent from this message for the first time was any call for Saudi Arabia and the UAE not to attack Hodeidah, a city with a population of 600,000 who are already hearing explosions in the distance. The US and UAE have been working hard on a smokescreen of misinformation about who is responsible for what is happening and why they are launching the offensive now.

The 25,000 Yemeni fighters advancing on Hodeidah are not an independent force but are paid for and under the control of the UAE. “We take our orders from the Emiratis, of course,” a Yemeni field commander in the front line told Iona Craig of The Intercept earlier this month as he called in airstrikes. This air support is provided by the Saudis and the UAE with the US providing essential services such as mid-air refuelling and target intelligence. The US is denying that it has a direct role in the assault on Hodeidh, but it would not be happening without its assent.

The UAE has made it clear privately to US officials that it would not attack Hodeidah without the permission and support of the Trump administration. The White House has decided to escalate the Saudi and UAE-led campaign against the Houthis, whom it denounces as Iranian proxies, though without providing much evidence of this. A justification by the UAE for attacking Hodeidah is that it is used by the Houthis to import Iranian-made missiles and other weapons. “Should we leave the Houthis smuggling missiles?” asked a UAE ambassador. But a UN panel of experts concluded earlier in the year that no weapons were coming through the port from Iran because ships are randomly inspected and must be authorised by the UN.

A crude attempt by the UAE to pretend that it is not acting in concert with the US is to announce publicly that its request to the US for satellite imagery, reconnaissance and mine-sweeping had been turned down. Given that countries do not normally put such rejections up in lights, this is clearly another attempt to play down the US role.

Why is the US doing this? Trump is closer to Saudi Arabia and UAE than any another US president and they have put a vast effort into cultivating him. The White House sees Yemen as one front in a broader campaign to put pressure on Iran. But the most important motive for escalation by Saudi Arabia, UAE and their foreign backers such as the US, Britain and France is that their war has not been going well for them.

When Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman began the Saudi air war against the Houthis in March 2015 it was over-confidently named “Operation Decisive Storm”. It turned out to be anything but decisive and is still going on three years later. The Houthis, a Shia minority sect, control the capital Sanaa along with almost all of highly populated north Yemen and remain capable of firing the occasional missile into Saudi Arabia.

The US is encouraging the UAE and its allies to take Hodeidah to break the deadlock, by tightening encirclement of the Houthis. But this is a long way from taking Sanaa and forcing the Houthis to surrender.

What the Hodeidah operation may do is turn a humanitarian disaster, which the UN is already calling the worst humanitarian crisis in the world, into complete catastrophe. Three quarters of the 27 million Yemenis already require aid to survive and this may be cut off in the next few days as the fighting moves into Hodeidah and closes the port.

The Saudis and the UAE are trying to defuse international concerns, particularly in the US Congress, about an impending famine by saying that they are ready and waiting to send in supplies once they have taken Hodeidah. That sounds good, but last year Saudi Arabia even banned chlorine tablets being sent to Yemen though it was suffering from a cholera epidemic in which, according to the World Health Organisation, 500,000 people have been infected and 2,000 children have died. The epidemic started because the Saudi-led coalition had bombed the main electric power station and not enough fuel was getting through to keep the sewage and water purification plants working.

Even if Hodeidah falls, the Saudi and Emirati-backed Yemeni forces will be unable to fight their way into the rugged highlands of Yemen where the terrain favours the defender.

Pretensions of humanitarian concern from Yemen by the US, Britain and France reek of hypocrisy, shedding copious tears for the victims of war while supplying the arms and advisers with which that war is being waged. The largely ineffective Houthi missiles fired at Riyadh are furiously denounced, but scarcely a squeak is heard about the relentless bombing of Sanaa and every other population centre in the country. The US and Britain opposed a demand by Sweden at the UN Security Council on Thursday that Saudi Arabia and UAE declare an immediate ceasefire. Some cynics suspect that the Saudi-UAE offensive is timed to sink peace efforts by the UN Special Envoy Martin Griffiths whereby the Houthis would withdraw from Hodeidah and the UN would take over the port city.

Calling for a political settlement, as Britain has done, sounds better than calling for more war, but the outcome will be much the same so long as Saudi Arabia and UAE try to gain through diplomacy what they have failed to win on the battlefield over the last three years. If the Houthis do not withdraw, then the Saudi-led coalition is likely to rely on bombing to batter their way in. The city will end up looking like Raqqa, West Mosul or East Aleppo where ground troops act as a mopping up force after airstrikes have obliterated everything in front of them. It is only when the US, Britain and France begin to exact a political price from Saudi Arabia and UAE for continuing their disastrous foreign venture in Yemen that the end of the war will be in sight.

https://zcomm.org/znetarticle/attacking-hodeidah-is-trumps-deliberate-act-of-cruelty/

To add

Embedded Tweet

[سيف الله]

Salaam

From RT

'No surprise': US ally UAE uses Guantanamo & Abu Ghraib techniques in Yemen

From Democracy now



Just to add

The so-called “liberators” in Yemen are sexually and physically torturing detainees at secret prisons. Survivors recall disturbing stories laden with gruesome interrogation tactics for extracting false confessions. Meanwhile, the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen attempts to portray themselves as the bearers of freedom and reason.

As an ally of the United States’ “counter-terrorism” operation in Yemen, the United Arab Emirates established 18 prisons throughout territory under their control. An ongoing investigation from the Associated Press has so far identified instances of deranged sexual torture at five of these facilities. The Emirati headquarters in Yemen houses one of such facilities where witnesses have seen American soldiers.

The United States provides the United Arab Emirates with billions in weapons, and military equipment through the Saudi-led coalition and counter-terror operations in Yemen. Washington also has ground troops in Yemen assisting and training Emirati forces.

'Americans use Emiratis as gloves to do their dirty work,” at a prison in Mukallah told the Associated Press.

Two additional prison security officials said Americans were at all locations.

- - - - - - then later on in the article - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Unbelievable Hypocrisy

The Saudi-led coalition includes about 34 different countries from around the world. Many people don’t realize the scope of the war against Yemen. Even nations that tend to stay out of other major conflicts like Morocco, Sudan, Eritrea, and Croatia provide the Saudi coalition with military or logistic support.

The United States, United Kingdom, France, and Canada provide the bulk of the Saudi-coalition’s military support.

Considering that the available evidence linking Iran to Yemen’s resistance, Ansarullah (the “Houthis”), remains inconclusive, this is clearly a world war against Yemenis. Saudi Arabia launched this war in March of 2015 to reinstate their puppet government of Abdrabbuh Mansour Hadi who had already resigned from protests.

Throughout the course of this war, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and the United States have championed themselves as “liberators.” If anyone was fooled into believing a ragtag gang of head choppers and child killers were the “good guys” in this scenario, these torture prisons filled with rape should help change that perception.

Also throughout the course of this war, the Saudi coalition has peddled nonstop — and in most cases false — anti-Ansarullah (Houthi) propaganda about detaining journalists and activists. Of course, the stories about Ansarullah granting amnesty to political prisoners don’t fit the official Saudi narrative so they tend to not make headlines.

This story about rape at the secret prisons broke just as the United Arab Emirates launched their operation to take Hodeidah port from Ansarullah (indigenous Yemeni) forces. France sent special forces to assist the Saudi-UAE coalition. At this point, despite all the military might in the world behind them, coalition efforts to occupy Hodeidah remain unsuccessful.

The Saudi coalition that Ansarullah uses Hodeidah port to import Iranian weapons and military equipment under the front of aid. However, all ships entering the port must first dock at Djibouti or a neighboring port for inspection from the coalition themselves.

Experts say anywhere from 250,000 to 600,000 could die in operation “Golden Victory” to take Hodeidah port. Rough estimates put the casualty toll in Yemen at over 36,000 between killed and injured. Tens of thousands more have died from the Saudi-imposed and U.S.-enforced blockade which restricts land, sea, and air imports exports and the flow of movement.

The blockade has put between 18 and 22 million on the brink of famine and triggered a cholera epidemic completely unprecedented in modern times.

https://www.mintpressnews.com/detainees-rape-yemen/244624/

[JustTime]

I hope the Saudis make the Houthis suffer and all their supporters in Yemen.

[سيف الله]

Salaam

No brother, we need less suffering not more, we need more peace and less war, otherwise the Middle East will never prosper.

[سيف الله]

Salaam

Another update

[JustTime]

Salaam

Another update

This is a total load of Iranian garbage to take attention away from their disgusting and vile crimes in Iraq and Syria that only rival that of the Quraysh Mushrikin that abused the Prophet (SAAWS) and them playing the victim card is not only ironic but wrong on so many levels they have no right on this Earth to claim their failed Houthi proxy as the victims when they fire missiles at our innocent Muslim brothers and sisters in KSA they fire their missiles with zero regard for who they hit and claim it is "retaliation" when it is their Rafidi Mushrik forces that brought this war on themselves, they chose to fight Iran's war in the Arabian Peninsula and Yemen.

The Rafidi plot against the Muslims of Iraq and Syria may have "worked" but Allah would never allow the lands of al Haramain and Yemen to fall into their filthy hands this is why the Arabian Peninsula remains firmly under the control of the people of Sunnah and not the Rafidi Mushrikin or the Bidah of the Jahils of later generations, and all praise is due to Allah for every blow Saudi Arabia and the Yemeni military deal to the Houthis and all praise is due to Allah for every Houthi Mushrik sent to hell.

So don't bother to bore us with the "cholera epidemic" sob story while Iran and Hezbulshaytan continue to do their crimes in Iraq and Syria, do you have any idea how many women (your sisters in Deen) have been raped by these Majoosi dogs? Do you have any idea how many children have been murdered for no reason other than being Muslims? Do you have any idea how many innocent men and women (our brothers and sisters) have been imprisoned by these dogs? Do you have any idea how many Muslims in Iran have been arrested and executed for remaining firm on the path of Tawhid, do you have any idea how many Masjids have been leveled on the orders of Khamenei in Iran?

These Houthi dogs deserve nothing but the worst and nothing but horrors for fighting to expand the Safawi-Majoosi project

- - - Updated - - -

الله أكبر
الموت لإيران
الموت لحزب الشيطان
لعنة على الرافضة
النصر للإسلام

[سيف الله]

Salaam

How convenient

Saudi King absolves troops of any future accountability for their conduct in Yemen war

A royal decree by Saudi King Salman has ‘pre-exonerated’ all troops fighting in Yemen from any accountability issues they may face over their conduct in the war, in which thousands of civilians have been killed and wounded.

A statement announcing the early pardon, released by Saudi Arabia's state news agency SPA, said the pardon extends to “all military men across the armed forces” taking part in Operation Restoring Hope, citing the official codename of the Riyadh-led invasion of Yemen.

The royal decree was issued following “reports submitted” by crown prince Mohammed bin Salman, the kingdom’s sitting defense minister.

It exonerates troops involved in hostilities from “their respective military and disciplinary penalties, in regard of some rules and disciplines.” The statement issued by the SPA wasn’t specific as to any particular crimes, but said the move was to show appreciation for the "heroics and sacrifices" of the soldiers.

The coalition led by the Saudi Arabia has been waging a military campaign against the Iran-backed Shiite Houthi rebels in Yemen since March 2015, in an attempt to put the ousted Yemeni president back in power. Riyadh had formed an alliance of Arab states, and their offensive initially drove the Houthis out of swathes of land in the south, but then stalled. Houthis continue to hit the Arab troops, launching surprise attacks and employing guerilla tactics.

Since the start of the Saudi-led campaign, the coalition has been repeatedly accused of killing dozens of civilians in its airstrikes but it rarely admitted responsibility for such incidents. Saudi-led forces have been repeatedly targeting civilian objects, with rights groups saying their rules of engagement amounted to war crimes. Last year, a Human Rights Watch official, Ahmed Benchemsi, told RT that 61 documented airstrikes, all conducted by the coalition, “may amount indeed to war crimes, that have killed nearly 900 civilians and have hit civilian areas, including markets, schools, hospitals and private homes.”

Later last year, a massive report presented to the UN Security Council, concluded that in eight out of ten inquiries into Saudi bombings “the panel found no evidence that the airstrikes had targeted legitimate military objectives.” In all ten investigations, the panel said “it is almost certain that the coalition did not meet international humanitarian law requirements of proportionality and precautions in attack.”

The persisting Yemen war, which entered its third year in 2018, has brought more than eight million people in the region’s poorest country to the brink of starvation. The worst humanitarian crisis in the world has seen almost two-thirds of the population struggle to provide food and basic amenities to their families.

The campaign and Saudi-imposed blockade of the impoverished nation have contributed to a humanitarian crisis in Yemen, including a major outbreak of cholera and continued malnutrition of the population, the human rights organizations say. Still, major Western powers, inducing the US and the UK, have been contributing to the Saudi war effort by selling Riyadh weapons and providing the coalition air missions with refueling and targeting intelligence.

https://www.rt.com/news/432907-saudi-pardon-soldiers-yemen/

[Futuwwa]

So don't bother to bore us with the "cholera epidemic" sob story while Iran and Hezbulshaytan continue to do their crimes in Iraq and Syria, do you have any idea how many women (your sisters in Deen) have been raped by these Majoosi dogs? Do you have any idea how many children have been murdered for no reason other than being Muslims? Do you have any idea how many innocent men and women (our brothers and sisters) have been imprisoned by these dogs? Do you have any idea how many Muslims in Iran have been arrested and executed for remaining firm on the path of Tawhid, do you have any idea how many Masjids have been leveled on the orders of Khamenei in Iran?

So when people in Yemen die from starvation and cholera, it's a "sob story", but when troops and allies of the Syrian government kill and rape, it's an outrage. Got it.

[JustTime]

So when people in Yemen die from starvation and cholera, it's a "sob story", but when troops and allies of the Syrian government kill and rape, it's an outrage. Got it.

Wallah these are lies fabricated by Iran and the Rafida

[anatolian]

You mean people in Yemen dying from starvation and cholera is a lie of Iran??

[JustTime]

You mean people in Yemen dying from starvation and cholera is a lie of Iran??

Exageration more than anything

[anatolian]

Exageration more than anything

How can you exegerate death?

[JustTime]

How can you exegerate death?

Just ask any Shia about Umar Ibn Khattab (RA) then you will know everything about those lying Mushriks

[سيف الله]

Salaam

You mean people in Yemen dying from starvation and cholera is a lie of Iran??

Yes media can exaggerate but there is no doubt Saudis and their allies have brought much misery suffering and death to Yemen (one of the poorest countries on earth), there's plenty of evidence from multiple sources going back years.

And if the Saudis hold the callous sectarian attitude displayed by JustTime in this thread then no wonder.

[سيف الله]

Salaam

Another update, a historical perspective.

Yemen war: The latest chapter in Western efforts to crush independence
#YemenWar

For decades, Yemen has rarely been left alone, with anything other than total subordination to global capital met with aggressive hostility from the West

Last month, the long-dreaded invasion of the port city of Hodeidah finally began. Although there is now a “pause” in fighting as UN envoy Martin Griffiths attempts to persuade the Houthis to give up the port, this is unlikely to last.

The ceasefire probably came about because the western-backed coalition needed time to lick its wounds amid ferocious resistance, which saw an Emirati ship destroyed and missiles hitting Riyadh for the first time. However, the coalition's western backers will no doubt demand that it fights on after determining a propaganda mechanism for blaming everything on the Houthis.

In a country dependent on imports for 90 percent of its food, fuel and medicine, Hodeidah is Yemen's lifeline, through which 70 percent of the country's supplies arrive. The battle now underway will likely knock out its capacity for months, potentially tipping Yemen into all-out famine. Already, one child starves to death every 10 minutes, in the world’s worst humanitarian crisis.

Strategic objective

Why is this happening? Why is the world - not only the 10-member coalition led by Saudi Arabia and the UAE, but also the US, Britain, France and others - so willing to sacrifice the lives of potentially millions of men, women and children, to help the Saudis prevail over their impoverished southern neighbour?

The truth is that this war has but one overarching strategic objective: to prevent an independent Yemen at all costs.

A century ago, as the First World War neared its indecisive conclusion, the port city of Hodeidah was subjected to another naval blockade. Then, like now, the belligerent powers were Britain and the al-Saud family.

While British troops besieged and ultimately occupied the city, forces loyal to Ibn Saud embarked on an orgy of violence, conducting pogroms that would scar popular attitudes towards Britain and the Sauds for generations. Once again, the motive was to strangle an independent movement that had taken root in Yemen.

Back then, Britain's main rival for control of southern Arabia after the fall of the Ottomans was Imam Yahya, a powerful Zaidi ruler who had taken on his rivals and established his authority across the region that came to be known as North Yemen. He proved himself an adept thorn in the side of the British for years to come.

His insubordination marked the start of a century-long history of Yemeni resistance to western diktat, a story that is the subject of a masterful new study by historian Isa Blumi titled Destroying Yemen: What Chaos in Arabia Tells Us About the World.

Blumi's work provides an invaluable service to those seeking to understand the current war on Yemen in its historical context, explaining the attack currently underway as part of an effort to thwart Yemeni independence that has been ongoing for at least a century.

‘Balancing’ the great powers

Yemen has always posed a particular problem for empire, as, historically, its paramount position at the hub of the Afro-Asian trading system - the precursor to today’s global economy - gave it an unrivalled strategic importance.

By the time Imam Yahya came to power in 1904, he was able to unify the most powerful families and networks under his leadership, in a way that made the young kingdom a formidable entity for the British empire to contend with.

For a start, he refused to recognise British sovereignty over Aden, and worked hard to "balance" other great power suitors - such as Italy and the US - against Britain, without allowing himself to become anyone's vassal. For Blumi, Yahya is an early master of what became the Third World's Cold War strategy par excellence - playing rival great powers against one another.

This soon succeeded in gaining diplomatic recognition - along with arms - from Italy, helping Yahya to unify North and Middle Yemen, and to challenge the British-approved annexation of Yemen's Asir by the Saudis. This defiance won Yahya new swaths of support from those under the jackboot of Saudi rule, including from former sworn rivals the Idrisis, and ultimately scared the British into ceding much of the Red Sea coast to the Yemeni kingdom, breaking their attempt to isolate it from the rest of the world.

After the Second World War, Yahya was again able to marshal inter-imperialist rivalries to his advantage, this time between Britain and the US. Again, he was able to do so without compromising his independence; he gained much-sought diplomatic recognition from the US in 1946 - much to the horror of the British - but denied them any actual diplomatic presence in the country until 1959.

Playing rival imperialists against each other

In the meantime, his son Abdullah - representing Yemen at the 1947 world trade conference in Havana - also demonstrated that Yemen was no pushover, grilling his US handler for more than an hour about the "trade charter" they were pressuring him to sign.

Foreshadowing the anti-globalisation movement of a half-century later, Abdullah articulated "an apprehension that signing such agreements seemed to favor big industrial powers like the USA while punishing small countries like Yemen who would have to lower tariffs and undermine their workers' ability to negotiate salaries abroad”, and insisted he would have to take the details back to Yemen for consultation before agreeing to anything, Blumi noted.

Although Yahya was ultimately assassinated in a coup in 1948, the power base he had knitted together refused to recognise his deposers, and soon afterwards, his son Ahmad stormed to power. Ahmad continued his father’s strategy of playing rival imperialists against one another to secure Yemen’s independence from empire.

This independence allowed him to use Yemen's considerable strategic leverage to support not only Palestine and the South Yemeni anti-colonial forces, but also Gamal Abdel Nasser’s revolution in Egypt and the resulting short-lived United Arab Republic (UAR).

At the same time, while making hard bargains with the US, he developed relations with the Communist bloc, signing a trade treaty with the Soviets in 1956. Blumi noted: “With open arms, Imam Ahmad welcomed the Soviet Union and its allies, who all participated in an impressive period of ‘development’ for North Yemen”, providing massive ports, military training and weapons, a sophisticated civilian transport infrastructure, and, in the case of China, major road construction projects that brought tens of thousands of jobs to Yemenis.

"For a critically located, potentially mineral rich country, this 'neutrality' constituted a major defeat for empire," Blumi said. "Perhaps the most humiliating aspect for the engineers of the US branch of this globalist empire, however, was the fact that they had to ingratiate themselves to [Ahmad’s] regime … white men in crew cuts and a history of bossing around Third World leaders did not take kindly to being told in no uncertain terms NO."

Strings attached

Unfortunately, however, Ahmad's Yemen and Nasser's Egypt, which had by 1955 "become joined at the hip", fell out in 1961. The resulting seizure of power by Nasserists in Yemen following Ahmad’s death in 1962 triggered an Egyptian intervention to shore up the new government in what was, at least in part, an attempt to boost its flagging revolutionary credentials.

Initially, the coup was welcomed by both the US and Saudi Arabia, who had long sought to rid themselves of this troublesome imamate. But for Britain, still licking its Nasser-imposed wounds after the Suez crisis, Egypt’s intervention - and especially its establishment of a National Liberation Front in Yemen - was "a sign that London's worst strategic nightmare was unfolding in Aden's neighbourhood".

This could not be tolerated, and Britain seized the chance to finally bring its erstwhile worst enemy to heel by offering the new imam support, with strings attached.

The Egyptian occupation offered Britain and Saudi Arabia leverage with the imamate, by backing it against Egypt; in Blumi's words, it gave them "a chance to secure influence over a previously inaccessible political theatre", ultimately pushing the new imam into the hands of the British and the Sauds.

Since then, the country has rarely been left alone for long, with anything other than total subordination to global capital met with aggressive hostility from the West. To this end, empire has used the Saudis, sectarian militias, International Monetary Fund austerity and liberalisation, and - as we are witnessing today - outright war. Yet, time after time, they have failed to achieve their goals.

This time will be no different. For, in Blumi's words: "As the coalition of more than ten nations fighting this war on behalf of empire already discovered, Yemenis will bend but not break, and more still, Yemenis will prove to be the deadliest, unflagging enemy empire has ever known.

"And because Yemenis just will not succumb, this war will one day be the point to which empire forever changes and Saudi Arabia itself will disappear. For this, we owe it to Yemenis to honor the sacrifice of tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands who will die to save us from what is, in the end, our empire."

http://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/confronting-threat-independent-yemen-121085297

[JustTime]

Salaam



Yes media can exaggerate but there is no doubt Saudis and their allies have brought much misery suffering and death to Yemen (one of the poorest countries on earth), there's plenty of evidence from multiple sources going back years.

And if the Saudis hold the callous sectarian attitude displayed by JustTime in this thread then no wonder.

Yet again this is total garbage, this is how Iran wants people to think they like to act like victims so they can continue to produce more pawns for vindictive polytheism.

The Rafida, Mujriah, Madkhalis, and Khawarij are all the two sides of the same coins and are children and offshoots of one another therefore one can see their evil traits crossing from one to another.

Case in point with the Khawarij and Rafida they both curse the Sahaba and attack the Muslims, while the Khawarij are at least monotheists and conisdered Muslim despite their deviance, no such case is found with the Rafida, yet they have the same origins based eniterly in hatred for the Muslims.

The Houthi group is a group of Murtad Mushrikin Rafidis, even the Zaydis of Yemen who they claim to be from reject them. The Houthis have the traits of the Khawarij and the beliefs of the Rafida of Iran and all the shirk that comes with it, they have left the fold of Islam and they have transgressed against the Muslims and have taken the disbelivers as allies including Mushrikin like North Korea and even the decendents of the Khawarij the deviant Ibadis of Oman and this is within itself a clear violation of the fold of Islam.

They are part of the Neo-Safawi Majoosi project to destroy Islam from within by spreading their evil religion abroad by means of military force and proselytization missions such you can see this in Iraq and Sham, and of course in Yemen, even in Palestine they have established such a project they have various names but are all the same in Syria it's Liwa al- Baqir, an Arab tribe that became corrupted by the Majoos, in Lebanon they have "cultural" centers which are nothing more than outposts and a form of psuedo-occupation managed by Hezbulshaytan, in Palestine it's Harakat as-Sabireen such a beuatiful name for such an evil group that only causes fitna in Iraq they go by the name "Popular Mobilization Forces" and the Sahwat that ally with them, but the only thing popular about them is their fame among the Rafida, and now in Yemen they go by the name "Ansarullah" when in reality they only serve Shaytan.

The Rafida have shown they have no restraint, they kept their province and took their twisted religion from Iran just as the Iranian constitution says in "exporting the revolution" to Iraq and when they won Iraq they expanded to Sham in Lebanon than Syria where they have shown their hostilites and their lack of humanity and definate lack of Islam and now in Yemen they have attempted but by the will of Allah failed and I ask Allah to cause them to fail in Palestine as well and everywhere they attempt to spread from Khorasan to Nigeria.

Wallahi they are even attempting in Nigeria to expand by encouraging Nigerian Muslims to become Rafidia they have even managed to establish their temples and have funded an Ayatollah to spew their toxic religion in Nigeria, and even in Palestine they managed to convince some to leave Islam and now they have their hordes gathered along Jolan and are working very hard to corrupt the Palestinians and change Palestine from Ahlus Sunnah to Ahlu Shirk and if they are successful May Allah forbid we will never see Masjid al-Aqsa liberated in our lifetime, and if this treand continues the Muslims will truly be a minority in this world, because only God know who their next target is because they have gone uncheked and undefeated for so long before you know it even the people of the Maghreb and Masr will be chanting "Ya Zahra" and cursing the Sahaba, Wallah they know no limits and Allah hates those who exeede their limits. How can any Muslim support this brutal Theological and cultural colonization effort and attempts for demographic change?

The Houthis have no rights under the Shariah of Allah (AWJ) and only deserve anhiliation.

- - - Updated - - -

Salaam

Another update, a historical perspective.

Yemen war: The latest chapter in Western efforts to crush independence
#YemenWar

For decades, Yemen has rarely been left alone, with anything other than total subordination to global capital met with aggressive hostility from the West

Last month, the long-dreaded invasion of the port city of Hodeidah finally began. Although there is now a “pause” in fighting as UN envoy Martin Griffiths attempts to persuade the Houthis to give up the port, this is unlikely to last.

The ceasefire probably came about because the western-backed coalition needed time to lick its wounds amid ferocious resistance, which saw an Emirati ship destroyed and missiles hitting Riyadh for the first time. However, the coalition's western backers will no doubt demand that it fights on after determining a propaganda mechanism for blaming everything on the Houthis.

In a country dependent on imports for 90 percent of its food, fuel and medicine, Hodeidah is Yemen's lifeline, through which 70 percent of the country's supplies arrive. The battle now underway will likely knock out its capacity for months, potentially tipping Yemen into all-out famine. Already, one child starves to death every 10 minutes, in the world’s worst humanitarian crisis.

Strategic objective

Why is this happening? Why is the world - not only the 10-member coalition led by Saudi Arabia and the UAE, but also the US, Britain, France and others - so willing to sacrifice the lives of potentially millions of men, women and children, to help the Saudis prevail over their impoverished southern neighbour?

The truth is that this war has but one overarching strategic objective: to prevent an independent Yemen at all costs.

A century ago, as the First World War neared its indecisive conclusion, the port city of Hodeidah was subjected to another naval blockade. Then, like now, the belligerent powers were Britain and the al-Saud family.

While British troops besieged and ultimately occupied the city, forces loyal to Ibn Saud embarked on an orgy of violence, conducting pogroms that would scar popular attitudes towards Britain and the Sauds for generations. Once again, the motive was to strangle an independent movement that had taken root in Yemen.

Back then, Britain's main rival for control of southern Arabia after the fall of the Ottomans was Imam Yahya, a powerful Zaidi ruler who had taken on his rivals and established his authority across the region that came to be known as North Yemen. He proved himself an adept thorn in the side of the British for years to come.

His insubordination marked the start of a century-long history of Yemeni resistance to western diktat, a story that is the subject of a masterful new study by historian Isa Blumi titled Destroying Yemen: What Chaos in Arabia Tells Us About the World.

Blumi's work provides an invaluable service to those seeking to understand the current war on Yemen in its historical context, explaining the attack currently underway as part of an effort to thwart Yemeni independence that has been ongoing for at least a century.

‘Balancing’ the great powers

Yemen has always posed a particular problem for empire, as, historically, its paramount position at the hub of the Afro-Asian trading system - the precursor to today’s global economy - gave it an unrivalled strategic importance.

By the time Imam Yahya came to power in 1904, he was able to unify the most powerful families and networks under his leadership, in a way that made the young kingdom a formidable entity for the British empire to contend with.

For a start, he refused to recognise British sovereignty over Aden, and worked hard to "balance" other great power suitors - such as Italy and the US - against Britain, without allowing himself to become anyone's vassal. For Blumi, Yahya is an early master of what became the Third World's Cold War strategy par excellence - playing rival great powers against one another.

This soon succeeded in gaining diplomatic recognition - along with arms - from Italy, helping Yahya to unify North and Middle Yemen, and to challenge the British-approved annexation of Yemen's Asir by the Saudis. This defiance won Yahya new swaths of support from those under the jackboot of Saudi rule, including from former sworn rivals the Idrisis, and ultimately scared the British into ceding much of the Red Sea coast to the Yemeni kingdom, breaking their attempt to isolate it from the rest of the world.

After the Second World War, Yahya was again able to marshal inter-imperialist rivalries to his advantage, this time between Britain and the US. Again, he was able to do so without compromising his independence; he gained much-sought diplomatic recognition from the US in 1946 - much to the horror of the British - but denied them any actual diplomatic presence in the country until 1959.

Playing rival imperialists against each other

In the meantime, his son Abdullah - representing Yemen at the 1947 world trade conference in Havana - also demonstrated that Yemen was no pushover, grilling his US handler for more than an hour about the "trade charter" they were pressuring him to sign.

Foreshadowing the anti-globalisation movement of a half-century later, Abdullah articulated "an apprehension that signing such agreements seemed to favor big industrial powers like the USA while punishing small countries like Yemen who would have to lower tariffs and undermine their workers' ability to negotiate salaries abroad”, and insisted he would have to take the details back to Yemen for consultation before agreeing to anything, Blumi noted.

Although Yahya was ultimately assassinated in a coup in 1948, the power base he had knitted together refused to recognise his deposers, and soon afterwards, his son Ahmad stormed to power. Ahmad continued his father’s strategy of playing rival imperialists against one another to secure Yemen’s independence from empire.

This independence allowed him to use Yemen's considerable strategic leverage to support not only Palestine and the South Yemeni anti-colonial forces, but also Gamal Abdel Nasser’s revolution in Egypt and the resulting short-lived United Arab Republic (UAR).

At the same time, while making hard bargains with the US, he developed relations with the Communist bloc, signing a trade treaty with the Soviets in 1956. Blumi noted: “With open arms, Imam Ahmad welcomed the Soviet Union and its allies, who all participated in an impressive period of ‘development’ for North Yemen”, providing massive ports, military training and weapons, a sophisticated civilian transport infrastructure, and, in the case of China, major road construction projects that brought tens of thousands of jobs to Yemenis.

"For a critically located, potentially mineral rich country, this 'neutrality' constituted a major defeat for empire," Blumi said. "Perhaps the most humiliating aspect for the engineers of the US branch of this globalist empire, however, was the fact that they had to ingratiate themselves to [Ahmad’s] regime … white men in crew cuts and a history of bossing around Third World leaders did not take kindly to being told in no uncertain terms NO."

Strings attached

Unfortunately, however, Ahmad's Yemen and Nasser's Egypt, which had by 1955 "become joined at the hip", fell out in 1961. The resulting seizure of power by Nasserists in Yemen following Ahmad’s death in 1962 triggered an Egyptian intervention to shore up the new government in what was, at least in part, an attempt to boost its flagging revolutionary credentials.

Initially, the coup was welcomed by both the US and Saudi Arabia, who had long sought to rid themselves of this troublesome imamate. But for Britain, still licking its Nasser-imposed wounds after the Suez crisis, Egypt’s intervention - and especially its establishment of a National Liberation Front in Yemen - was "a sign that London's worst strategic nightmare was unfolding in Aden's neighbourhood".

This could not be tolerated, and Britain seized the chance to finally bring its erstwhile worst enemy to heel by offering the new imam support, with strings attached.

The Egyptian occupation offered Britain and Saudi Arabia leverage with the imamate, by backing it against Egypt; in Blumi's words, it gave them "a chance to secure influence over a previously inaccessible political theatre", ultimately pushing the new imam into the hands of the British and the Sauds.

Since then, the country has rarely been left alone for long, with anything other than total subordination to global capital met with aggressive hostility from the West. To this end, empire has used the Saudis, sectarian militias, International Monetary Fund austerity and liberalisation, and - as we are witnessing today - outright war. Yet, time after time, they have failed to achieve their goals.

This time will be no different. For, in Blumi's words: "As the coalition of more than ten nations fighting this war on behalf of empire already discovered, Yemenis will bend but not break, and more still, Yemenis will prove to be the deadliest, unflagging enemy empire has ever known.

"And because Yemenis just will not succumb, this war will one day be the point to which empire forever changes and Saudi Arabia itself will disappear. For this, we owe it to Yemenis to honor the sacrifice of tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands who will die to save us from what is, in the end, our empire."

http://www.middleeasteye.net/columns...emen-121085297

Another pathetic attempt to support the Houthis by enabling them to play the victim card of "Poor Yemen", Yemen was successful under the Imamate and at peace for though misguided ruled Islamically and maintained good relations with their neighbors and took the Muslims as allies, whereas who did the Nasserists take as allies? Atheist Communists and today the Houthis who do they take as allies? Mushrikin like Iran and North Korea Wallahi truly pathetic on behalf of yourself, Iran, and Middle East Eye, this leaves one to question who is Qatari leadership truly working for?

[سيف الله]

Salaam

Like to share. I think the 'one airtstrike away' is exaggerated but the situation is dire.

Blurb

The United Nations has warned that heavy fighting around Yemen's main port which is in the hands of the Iranian-backed Houthi rebels is just 'one airstrike away from an unstoppable' cholera epidemic

The port city of al-Hodeida in the west - the main entry point for food and other supplies into the country - is under renewed attack by government forces backed by Saudi Arabian air power, trying to force Houthi rebels out of the area. The UN says there are 22 million people in Yemen who are are in need of humanitarian assistance, with more than 8 million facing starvation.

[سيف الله]

Salaam

Another update, insightful of the broader implications of the war.

Blurb

A Saudi-led airstrike has killed dozens in Yemen's port city of Hodeida amid UN warnings of another catastrophic cholera outbreak. Professor Isa Blumi of Stockholm University and author of "Destroying Yemen," discusses the motives and impact of the unrelenting US-backed assault



Blurb

A Saudi-led airstrike has killed dozens in Yemen's port city of Hodeida amid UN warnings of another catastrophic cholera outbreak. Professor Isa Blumi of Stockholm University and author of "Destroying Yemen," discusses the motives and impact of the unrelenting US-backed assault



The British involvement

Embedded Tweet

Embedded Tweet

Embedded Tweet

Embedded Tweet

[سيف الله]

Salaam

Another update

Yemen suffers cultural vandalism during its war

While Yemen's conflict has devastated its population, another parallel war has ravaged the country: a war on Yemen's historic cultural heritage.

Along with millions suffering malnourishment and diseases such as cholera, with most of the population dependent on humanitarian aid, Yemenis are further dehumanised as a central part of their identity is destroyed.

Historically located at a crossroads between Asia and Africa, Yemen has served as the centre of many dynasties, including the Sabaean Kingdom, and is thought to be the birthplace of the Biblical and Quranic Queen of Sheba. Its vast history has left behind countless unique archaeological wonders, which reflect Yemen's distinct culture.

Yet as with the Islamic State group's deliberate destruction of Syrian monuments, cultural vandalism is also taking place in the Yemen conflict. In many cases, Yemen's sites are also deliberately targeted.

At least sixty of Yemen's monuments have been damaged or destroyed since the Saudi-led coalition began its bombing campaign in March 2015, reported Lamya Khalidi, an archaeologist on Yemen at the CEPAM laboratory at the Université Côte d'Azur. Among these are unique archaeological monuments, old cities, mosques, churches, museums and tombs.

Khalidi highlights that more than three-quarters of these sites had been destroyed by the Saudi-led coalition's bombing.

"All armed groups have targeted historic sites one way or another since March 2015. However, the most blatant and systematic of them is without any doubt, the Saudi coalition, and they are the ones who have made the most irreparable damage in Yemen," she told The New Arab.

She added that, while IS and Al Qaeda had targeted historic sites, their damage was insignificant compared with what the coalition has done.

Despite UNESCO notifying the coalition of historic locations to avoid, it has not noticeably taken measures to prevent damage in its airstrikes.

As soon as the war commenced, the erasing of the country's history began. The first casualty from March 2015 was Sanaa's Old City, one of Yemen's three UNESCO heritage sites. More than 3,000 years old and filled with countless ancient homes, mosques and other historic buildings, much of its architecture was shattered by Saudi bombs. Among the rubble was the prominent Qubbat al-Mahdi mosque.

Soon after, Marib, the ancient capital of the Sabaean Kingdom and a major centre of religious and cultural development in the 8th century BCE, came under fire. It held the largest built dam in antiquity, mentioned in the Old Testament and the Quran. Marib's Dam has been heavily damaged by coalition bombing, as has its Old City and Awwam Temple.

Then there is Baraqish, another archaeological city repeatedly targeted throughout the war, damaging its ancient structures. The Temple of Nakrah, from the 4th century BCE has been mostly destroyed by coalition bombing, along with the ruins of Sirwah, another archaeological site, which has faced extensive damage - including its main tower.

Shibam, famous for its mudbrick-made high-rise buildings and capital of the Hadramawt kingdom, known as "the Manhattan of the Desert", has also been defaced.

Khalidi said that Saudi Arabia's role in causing Yemen's humanitarian crisis indicates it would have no concern for Yemeni heritage.

"If you add to that their glowing record of hitting civilians during weddings, funerals, in schools, marketplaces, in buses and fisherman in boats, to name a few, there is little doubt that there is a total disregard by Saudi Arabia and its coalition for human life, for international law, or for World Heritage, let alone precautionary measures," added Khalidi.

Taiz, a southwestern city in Yemen which, like Sanaa, has many historic buildings, has been hit hard from fighting between pro-Hadi forces, Houthis and Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP). Its Al-Qahira castle has been damaged, along with other structures.

Abdulkader, a Yemeni from Taiz, told The New Arab that all warring sides should bear responsibility for destroying Yemen's precious architecture, which is important to Yemenis.

"Both Houthis and extreme Salafists have an issue with ancient holy shrines that do not conform with their twisted interpretation of religion," he said.

"Taking people's heritage from them is taking their identity, personality and character from them. We love our monuments, shrines and heritage. I almost cry when I hear about this aggression against our heritage."

He reported that the Houthis had repeatedly shelled mosques in Taiz.

Meanwhile other historic locations are still under threat, such as the UNESCO World Heritage site at Zabid. A gem of early Islamic history, Zabid holds the highest concentration of mosques in Yemen, and was its capital in the 13th and 15th centuries. No reports of significant damage have yet emerged, but the International Committee for the Red Cross (ICRC) and UNESCO have warned that warring parties risk damaging the city.

As Zabid is under Houthi control, it could also come under fire from the coalition - which opposes the Houthi rebels.

"Cultural heritage is among the victims of this prolonged conflict," said Anna Paolini of UNESCO.

"The peculiarity of Yemen is that most villages and cities retained their traditional historic vernacular architecture. Yet the risk of damages to this heritage during the conflict is very high, and while it continues, heritage is at high risk," she added.

To prevent further damage to Yemen's cultural heritage, Yemeni factions must negotiate an end to the conflict, and international backers to warring parties must end their support. While it continues, foreign historians and archaeologists are prevented from carrying out important work on these sites.

Preserving and restoring Yemen's historic sites will prove a challenge to the government, as the fractured state struggles to provide a basic healthcare, education and security infrastructure.

UNESCO has, said Paolini, pledged to assess the damage and to restore Yemen's World Heritage properties.

https://www.alaraby.co.uk/english/indepth/2018/3/26/yemen-suffers-cultural-vandalism-during-its-war

[سيف الله]

Salaam

Another update

Embedded Tweet

Embedded Tweet

Embedded Tweet

Embedded Tweet

Embedded Tweet

Without a doubt

Embedded Tweet

[magok]

riiiiiight

[سيف الله]

Salaam

Background information on the Yemen conflict.

Blurb

Yemen is a disaster. But we never hear about it.



Blurb

A quick jog through 500 years of Yemen's history makes it clear that while the United States is responsible for a lot of problems, Yemen's Disaster isn't entirely our fault.



Blurb

More than any other individual, Ali Abdullah Saleh is responsible for Yemen's Disaster. This video covers the beginning of Saleh's decades of rule and misrule, covering Yemen's history from 1970 to 2001.



More later

[سيف الله]

Salaam

Another update.

Embedded Tweet

Blurb

Why is SAUDI ARABIA in YEMEN? Yemen has been locked in a conflict that has killed over 10,000 people and pushed millions to the brink of starvation. Save The Children estimated at least 50,000 children died in 2017, an average of 130 every day. In August 2018, 40 children amongst 51 civilians were killed during a Saudi Airstrike on a school bus in North-western Yemen.

The situation in Yemen is tragic and may well be one of the worst humanitarian crisis in 50 years. According to a United Nations report, the Saudi-led coalition was responsible for more than half of children deaths and injuries in devastated Yemen last year. But what is so important to Saudi Arabia and it’s coalition that has justified such inhumanity.

[سيف الله]

Salaam

Another update

Blurb

The war in Yemen, and US foreign policy more generally is mostly about selling weapons. Mike Pompeo, the US Secretary of State, made all of this very clear this month. This video tells the sad story.



Arms companies from all over want to profit from the misery being inflicted on Yemen.

Embedded Tweet

Embedded Tweet

[azc]

http://saudigazette.com.sa/article/5...ing-of-Yemenis

@Junon : your opinion..?

Mitigating suffering of Yemenis - Saudi Gazette The Council of Ministers on Tuesday commended Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Salman for his directive to provide a grant of $200 million to the Central Bank of Yemen to boost its financial position to help alleviate the suffering of the Yemeni people....

[سيف الله]

Salaam

Hmmm its better than nothing, mind you I think it would be more 'charitable' to stop destroying Yemen. What we the people of Yemen (and the region) is that there is a negotiated settlement between all sides, followed by peace and reconstruction.

Yes I know given the history its a tall order but there is no other way.

[JustTime]

Salaam

Hmmm its better than nothing, mind you I think it would be more 'charitable' to stop destroying Yemen. What we the people of Yemen (and the region) is that there is a negotiated settlement between all sides, followed by peace and reconstruction.

Yes I know given the history its a tall order but there is no other way.

The Houthis don't "deserve" peace the only thing they deserve is total annihilation for waging the Majoosi war against Ahlus Sunnah in Yemen.

[JustTime]

Ansaruldajjal music video calling the Muslims "Kuffar" and praising their use of their Majoosi made ballistic missiles against the innocent and regular Muslims of Riyadh and even Mekkah Munawarah

Wallahi not even the worst Khawarij, Kuffar, Mushrikin of Quraysh or anyone compares to the brutality and hatred of Islam and its people compared to Rafida, Wallah they reject the Sahaba but welcome Shaytan they welcome the Atheist Putin, they welcome Mushrik ruler of North Korea, the Buddhists of China who arm the murderous army of Burma and they have no shame in slaughtering the people of Anbar, Tikrit and Mosul and lie to protect their brother the Nusayri Bashar when he uses his chemical weapons on the Muslims and bombs his way through Syria and when it comes to the land of the Prophet (SAAWS) they have no shame or humiliation in murdering the Grandsons of the Sahaba in their houses, no one is as Brutal towards a Mumin as a Rafidi May Allah usher their destruction.

[سيف الله]

Salaam

Another update

Embedded Tweet

'Very dangerous': UAE assassination campaign in Yemen leaves coalition exposed

Members of Saudi ally al-Islah lash out at the Emiratis after revelations that American mercenaries were hired to kill its leaders

They're supposed to be on the same side.

Since 2015, al-Islah, the Yemeni branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, and the United Arab Emirates have been fighting against Houthi rebels in an attempt to prop up the internationally recognised government of President Abd Rabbuh Mansour Hadi.

But on Tuesday, Buzzfeed revealed that the Emiratis had hired a team of American and Israeli mercenaries to assassinate members of the Islahi leadership - enraging the influential party and exposing the UAE's presence in Yemen to fierce criticism.

It has also placed Saudi Arabia, which leads an anti-Houthi coalition and is closely allied to both the Islahis and Emiratis, in a deeply uncomfortable position.

"Although the announced aim of the Emirates in Yemen is to support the legitimate government, it fights legitimacy with all its might," Issa Qadhi, a member of al-Islah in Taiz, told MEE.

Instead of prioritising the defeat of the Iran-allied Houthi rebels, Qadhi said, "the UAE made the annihilation of the al-Islah party the first aim of its presence in Yemen".

"The UAE is willing to destroy the whole country and bring mercenaries from around the world to annihilate al-Islah," he added.

"The UAE is cunning but God does not help the cunning to succeed."

Questions for Riyadh

Abu Dhabi has long considered the Muslim Brotherhood an enemy, as has Saudi Arabia. However, Riyadh has decades-long ties with al-Islah, with the party an effective client throughout Ali Abdullah Saleh's 20-year rule of a united Yemen.

Together, the Saudis, Emiratis and Islahis were instrumental in seizing Aden and the surrounding area from the Houthi rebels, and gaining a strategic foothold in the country in mid-2015.

Since then, however, the UAE-Islah relationship has soured considerably, and in October 2017 clashes broke out in the southern city of Aden between Islahis and Emirati proxy militias.

In August, al-Islah's Aden branch issued a statement accusing unidentified "militias" of targeting the group since the beginning of the war in March 2015.

The statement notably listed the assassination of nine Islahi leaders, the arbitrary detention of four others, raids of the party’s headquarters on at least five occasions, and four raids of homes belonging to al-Islah leaders in Aden.

At the time, al-Islah had accused the UAE-backed Security Belt forces in Aden of being behind the raids and detentions, but not the assassinations.

Now the UAE have been exposed as ordering a team of American and Israeli mercenaries to kill al-Islah's Anssaf Ali Mayo - as well as everyone else in the office that was targeted, according to one of the mercenaries - the party are asking why its patron Riyadh is letting the assassinations happen.

"Saudi Arabia is the leader of the coalition, so how it can keep silent against the UAE’s violations in Yemen?” Mohammed Abdulwadood, an al-Islah member, told MEE. “I think Saudi Arabia is satisfied with the UAE's violations."

"I believe that [Abu Dhabi Crown Prince] Mohammed bin Zayed convinced [Saudi Crown Prince] Mohammed bin Salman to fight the Muslim Brotherhood in Yemen," he added. "The latter approves all UAE steps in Yemen."

Abdulwadood noted that al-Islah was the first party to welcome the coalition's intervention, and he condemned Saudi Arabia for its silence over the UAE's assassination campaign.
'Very dangerous'

In the three years since the UAE and Saudi Arabia's intervention began, the Yemeni riyal has had its value halved and the country has been plunged to the brink of a famine that the UN warned this week may be the worst the world has seen in 100 years.

Even before the assassination revelations, the Emiratis and Saudis were feeling the heat in southern Yemen. Protests against their presence in the country and the worsening state of Yemen's economy have erupted in key cities Aden and Taiz.

Now the Emiratis risk seeing that anger and distrust turned up a notch, especially amidst the Islahis.

Abdulla Shoraai, an Islah member, accused the UAE of “looting” Yemeni wealth and of using its fight against Muslim Brotherhood groups as a pretext to control Yemeni seaports and airports. "All that is only the tip of the iceberg," he told MEE.

For Yemeni political analyst Nabil al-Bukiri, the Buzzfeed report was “very dangerous”.

“It gives hard evidence of the involvement of the Emirates in supporting an assassination cell including Israelis and Americans to kill the leaders of resistance, political and religious leaders in Aden," he wrote on Facebook.

"This report needs an urgent international investigation to reveal more information and send to the International Criminal Court to investigate as war crimes."

https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/yemen-islah-members-react-outrage-uae-mercenary-report-1628186504

[سيف الله]

Salaam

Another update

Blurb

A new BuzzFeed News investigation has revealed that the United Arab Emirates hired U.S. mercenaries to carry out assassinations of Yemeni leaders it deemed “terrorists” in 2015. This included a local leader of al-Islah, a political party whose members include Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Tawakkul Karman. We speak with journalist Aram Roston, who broke the story. His piece is titled “A Middle East Monarchy Hired American Ex-Soldiers to Kill Its Political Enemies. This Could Be the Future of War.”

[JustTime]

It is truly perplexing how anyone who claims to be from Ahlus Sunnah could have the slightest amount of sympathy for the Mushrikin Safawis of Ansaruldajjal in Yemen

[سيف الله]

Salaam

You are easily perplexed, you might find it amazing not all Sunni Muslims want to identify with your 'views' or 'mentality'.

[JustTime]

Salaam

You are easily perplexed, you might find it amazing not all Sunni Muslims want to identify with your 'views' or 'mentality'.

By Allah these are not my views these are the views of the Prophet, the Companions and Allah as well as the scholars of Islam and rejection of any of these things would mean you're not a Muslim and certainly not a "Sunni".

[سيف الله]

Salaam

Another update

US raises pressure on Saudi Arabia with call for Yemen peace talks

Washington pushes for end to conflict that has resulted in high civilian death toll

The US has called for peace talks to end the fighting in Yemen, underlining the mounting pressure on the Saudi-led coalition battling rebel groups in the impoverished Arab state.

Mike Pompeo, US secretary of state, and Jim Mattis, defence secretary, said in separate statements late on Tuesday that they wanted the warring parties to start peace negotiations “within 30 days”.

The Saudi-led coalition intervened in the conflict in 2015 to back the exiled Yemeni government after the Iran-aligned Houthis seized Sana’a, the capital. The war has triggered what aid groups have described as the world’s worst humanitarian crisis, and scrutiny of Riyadh’s role in the conflict has intensified in the wake of the killing of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi.

The death of Khashoggi in the kingdom’s consulate in Turkey has put renewed focus on the direction Saudi Arabia is taking under Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, the kingdom’s de facto leader. Western politicians believe any Saudi operation against Khashoggi was unlikely to have been authorised without Prince Mohammed’s knowledge. Riyadh has said the journalist was killed by rogue Saudi operatives.

Prince Mohammed has also overseen Saudi Arabia’s intervention in Yemen, where the coalition has been widely condemned for the high civilian death toll caused by air strikes that have hit weddings, funerals, schools and markets.

The US has no direct combat role in the Yemen conflict, but is a key backer and supplier of arms to the Saudi-led coalition.

Speaking at the US Institute for Peace, Mr Mattis said he would separate the Khashoggi “murder” out from the Yemen war. “That stands unique by itself,” he said.

The UN said this month that half of Yemen’s 28m population face “pre-famine conditions”. The warning, combined with the Khashoggi case and rising criticism of the war among US lawmakers, had galvanised those in the Trump administration who have been pushing for a diplomatic solution to the conflict, said a person familiar with the situation.

In a statement, Mr Pompeo said “it is time to end this conflict”, including air, drone and missile strikes by both the Saudi-led coalition and Houthis. He insisted that peace negotiations must start in November to address the underlying causes of the conflict and subject all large weapons in the region to international monitoring.

The conflict has morphed into a proxy war, with Washington and Riyadh accusing Iran of providing arms to the Houthis to stoke a conflict on Saudi Arabia’s doorstep.

The challenge will be trying to find a diplomatic solution to a war that involves myriad armed groups operating in a tribal country that has become increasingly fragmented as a result of the war. The Houthis, a battle-hardened group from Yemen’s north, control Sana’a and northern Yemen, while the exiled government controls the south and has been dependent on military and financial backing from Saudi Arabia and its main ally, the United Arab Emirates.

“There’s a lot of pressure on Saudi Arabia now so that is helping, but you’ve got all kinds of people across all these groups that don’t want this war to end and it’s going to be hard to manage all those interests. There’s also little pressure on the Houthis,” said the person familiar with the situation.

The UN, which has been leading diplomatic efforts to end the war, had sought to host peace negotiations between the Yemeni government and the Houthis in Geneva last month. The talks would have been the first since 2016, but the Houthi delegation failed to turn up, blaming the Saudi-led coalition for blocking its travel.

After the talks failed, the coalition relaunched an offensive to take Hodeidah, a Red Sea port vital for the import of food, medicine and fuel, despite warnings that the operation risked creating a humanitarian disaster. The coalition says the Houthis use the port to earn revenue and smuggle weapons in from Iran. Tehran denies arming the rebels.

A report by a UN panel of experts in August said the Saudi-led coalition was responsible for violations that may be considered war crimes, including torture, rape and air strikes on civilians. At the time Mr Mattis defended US support for the coalition.

https://www.ft.com/content/822261a6-dce6-11e8-9f04-38d397e6661c

[سيف الله]

Salaam

Another update

Embedded Tweet

Embedded Tweet

[JustTime]

Salaam

Another update

US raises pressure on Saudi Arabia with call for Yemen peace talks

Washington pushes for end to conflict that has resulted in high civilian death toll

The US has called for peace talks to end the fighting in Yemen, underlining the mounting pressure on the Saudi-led coalition battling rebel groups in the impoverished Arab state.

Mike Pompeo, US secretary of state, and Jim Mattis, defence secretary, said in separate statements late on Tuesday that they wanted the warring parties to start peace negotiations “within 30 days”.

The Saudi-led coalition intervened in the conflict in 2015 to back the exiled Yemeni government after the Iran-aligned Houthis seized Sana’a, the capital. The war has triggered what aid groups have described as the world’s worst humanitarian crisis, and scrutiny of Riyadh’s role in the conflict has intensified in the wake of the killing of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi.

The death of Khashoggi in the kingdom’s consulate in Turkey has put renewed focus on the direction Saudi Arabia is taking under Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, the kingdom’s de facto leader. Western politicians believe any Saudi operation against Khashoggi was unlikely to have been authorised without Prince Mohammed’s knowledge. Riyadh has said the journalist was killed by rogue Saudi operatives.

Prince Mohammed has also overseen Saudi Arabia’s intervention in Yemen, where the coalition has been widely condemned for the high civilian death toll caused by air strikes that have hit weddings, funerals, schools and markets.

The US has no direct combat role in the Yemen conflict, but is a key backer and supplier of arms to the Saudi-led coalition.

Speaking at the US Institute for Peace, Mr Mattis said he would separate the Khashoggi “murder” out from the Yemen war. “That stands unique by itself,” he said.

The UN said this month that half of Yemen’s 28m population face “pre-famine conditions”. The warning, combined with the Khashoggi case and rising criticism of the war among US lawmakers, had galvanised those in the Trump administration who have been pushing for a diplomatic solution to the conflict, said a person familiar with the situation.

In a statement, Mr Pompeo said “it is time to end this conflict”, including air, drone and missile strikes by both the Saudi-led coalition and Houthis. He insisted that peace negotiations must start in November to address the underlying causes of the conflict and subject all large weapons in the region to international monitoring.

The conflict has morphed into a proxy war, with Washington and Riyadh accusing Iran of providing arms to the Houthis to stoke a conflict on Saudi Arabia’s doorstep.

The challenge will be trying to find a diplomatic solution to a war that involves myriad armed groups operating in a tribal country that has become increasingly fragmented as a result of the war. The Houthis, a battle-hardened group from Yemen’s north, control Sana’a and northern Yemen, while the exiled government controls the south and has been dependent on military and financial backing from Saudi Arabia and its main ally, the United Arab Emirates.

“There’s a lot of pressure on Saudi Arabia now so that is helping, but you’ve got all kinds of people across all these groups that don’t want this war to end and it’s going to be hard to manage all those interests. There’s also little pressure on the Houthis,” said the person familiar with the situation.

The UN, which has been leading diplomatic efforts to end the war, had sought to host peace negotiations between the Yemeni government and the Houthis in Geneva last month. The talks would have been the first since 2016, but the Houthi delegation failed to turn up, blaming the Saudi-led coalition for blocking its travel.

After the talks failed, the coalition relaunched an offensive to take Hodeidah, a Red Sea port vital for the import of food, medicine and fuel, despite warnings that the operation risked creating a humanitarian disaster. The coalition says the Houthis use the port to earn revenue and smuggle weapons in from Iran. Tehran denies arming the rebels.

A report by a UN panel of experts in August said the Saudi-led coalition was responsible for violations that may be considered war crimes, including torture, rape and air strikes on civilians. At the time Mr Mattis defended US support for the coalition.

https://www.ft.com/content/822261a6-...4-38d397e6661c

Why isn't such action called upon for Syria with the rebels?

- - - Updated - - -

I find it oddly hypocritical for Assad supporters to support the Houthis, and I think it's mainly out of despise for Saudi Arabia, rather than facts. So, I have a few question for those supporters.

• Regarding Hezbollah, people made the argument that the Syrian opposition was on the Lebanese border, and that Hezbollah had to act to survive. How is this different from Saudi Arabia, with the Houthis being on the border, whom they view as a threat? One could argue that Houthis are not a threat to Saudi Arabia, the same way they could argue that the opposition was not a threat to Lebanon or Hezbollah - it was only a threat to Bashar.
• People make the argument that Bashar is the legitimate government of Syria and that he has the right to ask for help from outside sources, mainly from Iran or Hezbollah. In the same way, how is this different than the legitimate government (like it or not, it's legitimate the same way Assad's government is) asking for help from Saudi Arabia? Why does Iran have the right to help what it feels as the legitimate government, but Saudi Arabia does not?
• Lastly, why are Islamist Shia taking over the country completely fine, but Islamist Sunni taking over Syria not? I know people like to make it seem like only Sunnis can be terrorists, but Houthis aren't necessarily the friendliest group of people. It would be stupid to argue that they are not islamists the same way a group like Ahrar Al Sham is.

A few notes-
People argue that Houthis are legitimate and that Yemenis overall want their rule. People in Ta'ez and Aden would disagree with that statement. Sunnis in South Yemen would also disagree.
People argue that Hadi is a dictator who won over 99% of the votes. (oddly enough, people who argue this tend to be Assad supporters, who won 99% of the votes on more than one occasion, if I recall). However, people ignore the fact that the dictator of yemen of over 30+ years is ALIGNED with the Houthis. It's no secret how Houthis have been able to overtake towns with barely any resistance from the military or police force (except in some cases such as Ta'ez resistance came from the local population), considering Saleh's son, one of the most influential commanders of over 80,000 troops has been working with the Houthis. So, in essence, Hadi could be classified as a dictator, but so could the Houthis for their support (or alliance) with Saleh.

[JustTime]

These poor defenseless Houthis totally not armed by Iran, Hezbollah and North Korea
Long live the anti-Zionist anti-Wahhabi resistance!:hiding::facepalm:^o)

[anatolian]

Yemen's children are starving-World is silent

[سيف الله]

Salaam

Another update

Yemen: ceasefire agreed for port city of Hodeidah

UN secretary general hails ‘real progress’ as truce agreed at end of peace talks in Sweden

Yemen’s warring parties have agreed to an immediate ceasefire in the Red Sea port of Hodeidah, the UN secretary general has said, in a potential breakthrough at the end of a week of peace talks in Sweden.

Antonio Guterres said the agreement included the future deployment of UN-supervised neutral forces and the establishment of humanitarian corridors. Troops from both sides will withdraw from the entire Hodeidah area within a maximum of 21 days in a process overseen by a UN-chaired committee.

A political framework for Yemen will be discussed in a next round of meetings, scheduled for late January.

If implemented on the ground, the deal would represent a breakthrough because the port is the gateway for the bulk of humanitarian aid coming into the country, and has been the subject of intense fighting. Ceasefires have also been agreed at two other ports, Salif and Ras Issa.

Advertisement

Guterres said the UN would play a key role when the troops withdrew. “It is obvious the UN will play an important role in the port, probably a monitoring role and the management of that port,” he said. This would help “facilitate the humanitarian flow of goods to the civilian population and it will improve the living conditions for millions of Yemenis”.

The UN special envoy for Yemen, Martin Griffiths, said troops would withdraw from the port within days, and from the wider city in a second phase. He said the ceasefire was designed to open up the east-west road that connects Hodeidah to the capital, Sana’a “so that the humanitarian pipeline, which is crucial to the people of Yemen, can start delivering aid”.

Agreements have also been reached on a mass prisoner swap and the easing of the siege of the south-western city of Taiz.

Guterres said the UN security council would discuss the terms of a draft resolution designed to monitor and verify the troop withdrawal agreements on Friday. Western powers will offer to provide technology to monitor the redeployments, with an agreement that policing in Hodeidah becomes the responsibility of “local security forces in accordance with Yemini law”.

He said the outcome of the talks in the Swedish town of Rimbo would mean “concrete results in the daily lives of Yemenis”.

The UN-backed Yemeni government lost control of Hodeidah and Sana’a to Iranian-backed Houthi rebels in 2015. Despite heavy military support from Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirate, the government, which is based in Aden, has been unable to take back either city.

Western backing for the Saudi-led war has frayed in the face of mass casualties, starvation and, more recently, allegations that the Saudi crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman, was instrumental in organising the killing of the Washington Post contributor Jamal Khashoggi.

The agreements, sealed with a handshake between the two sets of negotiators but not any signatures, include the shoring up of the country’s central bank, which should eventually enable the payment of salaries to 1.2 million public sector workers.

The plan raises questions about the capacity of the UN to administer Hodeidah port, including ensuring revenue from it is transferred to Yemen’s central bank. If it fails, the risk remains that fighting for control of the port will continue. Nearly 27% of the Houthi movement’s income comes from the port.

The UK foreign secretary, Jeremy Hunt, who flew to Sweden to attend the final day of the talks, said: “It is now vital that the parties act in good faith and take urgent steps to implement these agreements.”

Griffiths had never expected to reach an overall political settlement in this round of talks, the first since 2016, but he said the agreements covered the most sensitive, dangerous and difficult part of Yemen.

He overcame obstacles to the talks ever starting, including the size of the Houthi delegations, its means of transport to Sweden and a demand that 50 of its most seriously injured fighters be flown to Oman for medical treatment.

Despite the antagonism and brutality of the war, many of the talks in Sweden were conducted face to face. Pictures from inside the conference showed the two teams of negotiators smiling and shaking hands.

Backing in the US Senate for the for the Saudi war in Yemen is declining rapidly, placing pressure on the secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, to urge Washington’s allies to negotiate an end to the conflict.

With both sides suspicious that the other will not honour the agreements struck, Griffiths has tried to draw up detailed implementation plans in an attempt to prevent backsliding.

In Hodeidah, Salem Jaffer Baobaid, an aid worker with Islamic Relief, said: “It is much quieter today. We are not sure what is going to happen, but any relief is welcome.”

Baseem al-Janani, a local resident, said: “We have heard about the ceasefire, but we are very cautious. Today the Houthis dug new trenches, closed off and emptied some neighbourhoods. They do not seem like they are going to stop fighting.”

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/dec/13/yemen-ceasefire-agreed-for-vital-port-city-of-hodeidah

[سيف الله]

Salaam

Like to share.

Embedded Tweet

[Nájlá]

So sad what is happening. In yemen we all lived together no one knew who is a Sunni and who is a Shia we all lived together peacefully. The other countries involved are the ones dividing us and causing chaos between us. This is just a sign of the end times. May Allah (SWT) keep us firm in our religion and protect us from all the fitnahs.

[سيف الله]

Salaam

Another update

UK's Saudi weapons sales unlawful, Lords committee finds

Report finds UK arms ‘highly likely to be cause of significant civilian casualties in Yemen’

The UK is on “the wrong side of the law” by sanctioning arms exports to Saudi Arabia for the war in Yemen and should suspend some of the export licences, an all-party Lords committee has said.

The report by the international relations select committee says ministers are not making independent checks to see if arms supplied by the UK are being used in breach of the law, but is instead relying on inadequate investigations by the Saudis, its allies in the war.

It describes the humanitarian plight of Yemenis as “unconscionable”.

It is the first unanimous report from a parliamentary committee describing Saudi arms export sales as unlawful, and comes ahead of an imminent high court appeal by campaigners to block arms sales to Saudi Arabia on the grounds they are in breach of humanitarian law.

The report places no legal obligation on ministers, but is likely to add indirectly to the pressure on Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) to seek a way out of the war in Yemen through negotiation, rather than further military offensives to dislodge Houthi rebels in the capital Sana’a and the port city of Hodeidah.

Although a patchy ceasefire holds around Hodeidah, Saudi airstrikes are reported by the Yemen Data Project to be at their most intensive since the four-year civil war began in Saada governorate along the border between Yemen and Saudi Arabia.

The US Congress voted earlier this week to suspend US arms sales to Saudi Arabia for use in Yemen, but the White House has signalled the president will veto the resolution if necessary.

The Lords’ international relations committee concludes following a short inquiry: “The government asserts that, in its licensing of arms sales to Saudi Arabia, it is narrowly on the right side of international humanitarian law. Although conclusive evidence is not yet available, we assess that it is narrowly on the wrong side: given the volume and type of arms being exported to the Saudi-led coalition, we believe they are highly likely to be the cause of significant civilian casualties in Yemen, risking the contravention of international humanitarian law.”

The committee also asserts that the UK “should immediately condemn any further violations of international humanitarian law by the Saudi-led coalition, including the blocking of food and medical supplies, and be prepared to suspend some key export licences to members of the coalition”.

It adds it is “deeply concerned that the Saudi-led coalition’s misuse of the weaponry is causing – whether deliberately or accidentally – loss of civilian life.

“Relying on assurances by Saudi Arabia and Saudi-led review processes is not an adequate way of implementing the obligations for a risk-based assessment set out in the arms trade treaty.”

The committee, chaired by the former Conservative cabinet minister Lord Howell, describes the British as supporters of the Saudis in the civil war.

The foreign secretary, Jeremy Hunt, has taken up the search for a peace settlement in Yemen as his single most important priority, apart from Brexit, and travelled to Warsaw this week to meet with Saudi, UAE and US ministers to discuss the state of the limited Yemen ceasefire negotiated in Stockholm in December.

The joint statement issued by the four countries following their talks was sharply critical of the Houthis adherence to the Stockholm agreement, but nevertheless agreed to do more to stabilise the Yemen economy in the north.

However, the peers urge the UK to be more active.

The committee, including senior former diplomats, says: “The government should give much higher priority to resolving – not just mitigating – this situation, particularly in light of the tension between its support for the Saudi-led coalition and its role as a major donor of humanitarian relief to those affected by the conflict.”

In its latest update on the war, the NGO International Crisis Group says: “Though the battle for the Red Sea port and city of Hodeidah is paused until the UN-brokered deal to demilitarise the area succeeds or collapses, fighting on other fronts has intensified, particularly along the Saudi-Yemeni border ... Saada governorate has faced more Saudi bombardments than any other part of Yemen since the war began in March 2015, with the majority of strikes taking place near the border.”

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ommittee-finds

[سيف الله]

Salaam

Another update.

Blurb


timeline of the Yemeni Civil War:

[سيف الله]

Salaam

Another update.

Embedded Tweet

RAF keeping Saudi warplanes which are bombing children in the Yemen in the air

EXCLUSIVE: The shocking revelation of the RAF's role was buried in Commons written answers by the Defence Minister

RAF personnel are servicing Saudi warplanes which are bombing children in the Yemen.

The astonishing revelation was buried in Commons written answers by Defence Minister Mark Lancaster.

He admitted 282 MoD and civilian staff work with Saudi armed forces.

They provide back-up to BAE Systems, which sells arms that the Saudi regime has used to kill an -estimated 60,000 people.

Mr Lancaster said staff were “on secondment” giving “routine engineering support” and “generic training support” for UK-supplied aircraft -operated by the Royal Saudi Air Force, including jets operating in Yemen.

A squadron leader, flight lieutenant and flight sergeant are embedded in the Saudi Air Operations Centre – but the MoD says they are not involved “in planning operational sorties”.

Mr Lancaster was replying to Labour MP Lloyd Russell-Moyle, who said: “British support keeps Saudi’s air war going. We’re party to the Saudi-led coalition which means Britain is involved in a secret war in Yemen.”

Andrew Smith of Campaign Against the Arms Trade called the revelation “shocking but not surprising”.

“UK military personnel should not be servicing Saudi jets or supporting the Saudi armed forces,” he said.

We have sold the country £5billion of jets, helicopters, drones, bombs and missiles since 2015.

Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt hopes to broker a UN peace plan to end a conflict which has left 14 million people on the brink of famine.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politi...paign=sharebar

[AbdurRahman.]

Inna lillahi wa inna ilayhi raji'un

May Allah alleviate their suffering and quickly get the terrorist houthis defeated amen

[سيف الله]

Salaam

Inna lillahi wa inna ilayhi raji'un

May Allah alleviate their suffering and quickly get the terrorist houthis defeated amen

Ok, and what about the Saudi and UAE involvement? Any words of praise or condemnation (or both?)

[AbdurRahman.]

Salaam

Ok, and what about the Saudi and UAE involvement? Any words of praise or condemnation (or both?)

Walaikum assalam rahmatullahi barakatuh

Saudi involvement is complicated. I answered this lately on another forum So I'll post that here:


Q What's going on in Yemen, can you explain? All I ever get is sad headshakes in response

A. Yemen is very sad however all wars are. We never hear of civilians being massacred in Syria for example do we?, or how they're dying of famine and lack of medicine.

The media just mentions the suffering of people of countries at war, which it has an interest in stopping sadly*.

Any war these days are heertbreaking due to inevitable civilian casualties etc however if the West really cared to stop this suffering, it could lend it's military support to the legitimate Yemen government and help it to quickly over-power the houthi rebels.

What is Saudi supposed to do?, stop it's Ariel bombing and risk a Iran/shia takeover of Yemen or risk a shia state in Yemen and thereby risk it's own sovereignty to the age old shia enemy of sunni Islam?

I don't think that's likely so the West should step in and assist Yemen and Saudi to defeat the terrorists quick time. That's how you stop civilian suffering in a complicated war like this.

*the media and other western politicians' and activists interest in stopping the Saudi bombing of houthis is not to save civilian suffering as they make out. Because if they really cared they would have campaigned all these years for stopping Afghan, Syria rohingya etc etc suffering too. Their interests is really 'divide and conquer'. They'd love to see Yemen split into two

What A evil hypocrite state of affairs western politics is in these days. We only feign civilian concern when we see a political or financial benefit to us

Q. How can Saudi Arabia be threatened in its sovereignity if a neighboring state has a Shiite government?

A. Iran is arming the houthis in Yemen. This is a known fact which some Google searches should verify

Basically, Iran wants to dominate all Muslim countries with shiaism (note how Iran lends it's military support to the shia governments of Iraq and Syria) as they believe that to be the true Islam and they regard Sunnis as hypocrites

So if there is a shia takeover of Yemen or a shia state established in Yemen then it would be ultimately an Iranian colony and Irans ultimate goal is to rule the 2 holy cities of Makkah and Medinah.

Remember when Saddam invaded Quwait and Americans told Saudi that Saudi is at risk of invasion too as Saddam is on their border?

Well Iran or a shia state on border of Saudi is far more risky as shias have more imperial tendencies over Saudi then Saddam

[سيف الله]

Salaam

So you take the Saudi line, many in Yemen would disagree with your position

Another update. Ill try and post the full documentary when it becomes available.

Embedded Tweet

Embedded Tweet

Embedded Tweet

British have had a long interest in Yemen.

Embedded Tweet

Protests.

Embedded Tweet

Politicians calling for the conflict to end.

Embedded Tweet

Embedded Tweet

[AbdurRahman.]

Yeah I've been thinking about all this civilian suffering lately and I've decided, I don't care if the ayatollah himself invaded Saudi, stop the bombing!!!

[سيف الله]

Salaam

Nobodys clean in this conflict, no clear 'good guys' or 'bad guys'. Only innocents. You are right though we need an end to the bombing, negotiations that will create a lasting and durable peace.

Good brother to follow if you want a different view from the usual MSM perspective.

Embedded Tweet

[سيف الله]

Salaam

Another update.

Blurb

Reports that the United Arab Emirates (UAE) is withdrawing have been met by surprise and relief in equal measure. By most credible accounts, the UAE’s involvement in has been greater than Saudi Arabia’s, and Abu Dhabi’s concealment of this fact, speaks volumes about the Emirates’ diplomatic and public relations prowess.

[سيف الله]

Salaam

Another update

Embedded Tweet

How is it that Yemeni Muslim Brotherhood unlike other MB branches in the region sides with Saudi Arabia ? Was there ever attempts within the party to oppose the current war ? Is it because it sides with SA that lots of Yemenis abhor the party ?

Well Islah is a whole bunch of interest blocs under a very vaguely Islamist umbrella, ranges from Hashidi clan leaders to hardcore Salafis to ordinary Ikhwan types and sometimes a mixture of the above. They were funded by Saudis for decades and their leaders such as Ali Muhsin, Abdullah Ahmar, Abdulmajeed Zindani were major players in Yemen politics.

Saudis also boosted them in their fight against Houthis where by 2008 or so it was Islah more than the Afash regimes network who were fighting Houthis. By 2009 their relations with regime had soured to the extent that they turned against regime in 2011. In North this meant letting Houthis practically control Saadah. However Houthis sided with ousted Afash regime secretly to take Sanaa, which they did in 2014 sweeping aside largely Islah opposition in the process. Some ppl say but I can't confirm that Saudis' anti-ikhwan stage helped indirectly.

As to why Yemenis don't like them, I can only speculate; they do have a record of opportunism. Also many southern Yemenis oppose basically any northern based faction too

[سيف الله]

Salaam

Another update, a more critical appraisal of UAEs involvement in Yemen.

Why the UAE Cut Their Losses and Pulled Out of Yemen

The loss of the Saudis' most capable partner will be a blow. But what if they can convince Washington to pick up the slack?

The United Arab Emirates (UAE) may have finally learned what Washington will not: that armed interventions with ambiguous aims, unreliable allies, and no exit strategy are doomed to disaster.

Such interventions will rapidly deplete a nation of its blood and treasure while yielding an abundance of dangerous second- and third-order consequences. That’s why, after four years of fighting, the UAE announced that it is withdrawing a significant percentage of its forces from Yemen. It will now pursue a “peace first” strategy as opposed to a “military first” strategy.

The narrative around the UAE’s withdrawal from Yemen has been carefully managed in the American media with the help of some sympathetic Washington-based think-tanks. The shift in policy has been cast as a “mission accomplished” moment for the UAE. But the UAE is getting out of Yemen not because it is winning—or has won—but because the country’s leadership understands they cannot win.

“Little Sparta,” as former secretary of defense James Mattis referred to the UAE, possesses a military that is significantly more competent and capable than that of its main ally in Yemen, Saudi Arabia. However, the UAE and its proxies have failed to defeat Yemen’s Houthi rebels, and while they’ve made some gains against Yemen’s al-Qaeda franchise, al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), these will prove fleeting. Such failures come despite the fact that the UAE has spent tens of billions of dollars in Yemen arming and training various militias and security forces.

While the primary reason for this shift is the UAE’s recognition of the futility involved, there were additional reasons for the change. The UAE’s armed forces are small and dependent on mercenaries for everything from ground troops to general officers. The country’s involvement in the war has strained its armed forces and has left it with little spare capacity to deal with a potential conflict with Iran, which provides limited—but important—aid to the Houthis.

Additionally, the war in Yemen has cost the UAE billions of dollars at a time when its own economy is slowing. The UAE has also become sensitive to international condemnation of the war in Yemen, which is currently home to the world’s worst humanitarian crisis. It has also recognized that Saudi Arabia has become more of a liability than a partner.

For much of the last four years, the UAE and Saudi Arabia have supported a host of militias, factions, and “security forces” that are often more opposed to one another than to to the Houthis they’re supposed to be fighting. Because of the inadequacies of its military, Saudi Arabia has had to rely even more heavily on proxy forces and mercenaries than the UAE. These proxies are unreliable and most are more interested in extracting money and material from their backers than fighting.

Dr. Gabriele vom Bruck, an expert on the Houthis at the University of London’s School for Oriental and African Studies, argues that “many of the proxy forces supported by the UAE and Saudi Arabia are more interested in maintaining their fiefdoms than fighting. Perhaps some of these forces might even have arranged non-aggression pacts with the Houthis as long as both respect the ‘territory’ of the other.”

However, all of these factions will happily continue to accept money and weapons from the UAE and Saudi Arabia. Both countries have already supplied billions of dollars’ worth of advanced weaponry to dubious militias and security forces, which then often sell the weapons to the Houthis and to AQAP.

It is to the credit of the UAE’s de facto ruler, Crown Prince Muhammad bin Zayad, that he and his government have recognized the ineffectiveness and danger of continued military involvement in Yemen’s interlocking wars. Rather than doubling down, as the U.S. has done so many times in its own failed wars, the UAE has decided to cut its losses and shift its policy to something more pragmatic and achievable.

Instead of further enabling Saudi Arabia’s aggressive, high-risk, and counterproductive strategy in Yemen, the UAE seems to be recognizing the merits of the subtle, nuanced, and largely de-escalatory policies of its neighbors Oman and Qatar. While Qatar was initially a member of the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen, when it became a target of Saudi Arabia’s and the UAE’s aggressive foreign policies, it withdrew its support and has since supported Omani-led efforts to end the war.

Without the military involvement of outside powers, it is probable that Yemen’s warring factions will agree on an uneasy and patchwork peace that will in time become more comprehensive and enduring. Yemen’s factions and political parties have a long history of embracing compromise and de-escalation. What was then North Yemen’s civil war, fought between 1962 and 1970, only ended when Egypt and Saudi Arabia (the latter ironically funded and armed the grandfathers of many of the Houthis) ended their involvement in Yemen.

The UAE’s change of heart may mark the beginning of the end of the wars in Yemen. This is not to say that Yemen will be peaceful or unified in the near future. However, as the most competent and capable member of the Saudi-led coalition, the UAE’s withdrawal, even if only partial, will force Saudi Arabia to re-evaluate its own failed strategy. That is, unless Saudi Arabia’s de facto ruler, Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman, can convince the Trump administration to scale up Washington’s role in the war to make up for the UAE’s absence. Given America’s persistent embrace of a foreign policy predicated on forever war, this remains a dangerous possibility.

https://www.theamericanconservative....-out-of-yemen/

[سيف الله]

Salaam

Another update

Blurb

Saudi Arabia's War On Yemen has failed miserably. With UAE withdrawal and US Congressional scrutiny it's only going to get more disastrous. Getting out is the best solution...

[سيف الله]

Salaam

Another update

Yemen's Houthi rebels claim drone attack on 'important target' in Saudi capital Riyadh

Yemen's Houthi's on Monday claimed they struck an "important" military target in the Saudi capital Riyadh, after a series of attacks claimed by the rebels over the weekend.

The Iran-backed rebels said that they had attacked an "important target" in Riyadh with an armed drone, Reuters reported, citing a military spokesman.

The Saudi-led coalition fighting in Yemen dismissed the report, with spokesman Colonel Turki al-Malki saying the Houthi claims were "fake and deceptive".

There were no immediate comments from other authorities in Saudi Arabia.

The incident comes a day after Saudi Arabia intercepted six missiles fired by the Yemeni rebels at the southern city of Jizan on Sunday.
The missiles fired targeted civilians in Jizan, the Saudi-led coalition said in a statement released by the official Saudi Press Agency.

No damage or casualties were reported.

Earlier on Sunday, the coalition said they shot down a Houthi drone fired towards the southern city of Khamis Mushait, the site of a major military base.

The Houthi rebels have stepped up cross-border missile and drone attacks in recent months, saying they are in retaliation for the Saudi-led air war in Yemen.

Saudi Arabia has repeatedly accused Iran of supplying sophisticated weapons to the Houthis, a charge Tehran denies.

https://www.alaraby.co.uk/english/ne...-saudi-capital

- - - Updated - - -

[سيف الله]

Salaam

A major escalation.

Blurb

President Trump has declared the United States is “locked and loaded” and ready to respond over the drone strikes on two major oil facilities in Saudi Arabia, as US officials blamed Iran for the attack, revealing satellite images they claimed contained evidence to support it. Iran has continued to deny any involvement The price of oil has soared by 10 per cent since the strikes, which struck at the heart of Saudi's oil infrastructure.



I agree with this, (minus the usual prejudice)

Embedded Tweet

Embedded Tweet

More generally.

Embedded Tweet

Embedded Tweet

[سيف الله]

Salaam

More comment on the recent strikes.

Houthis change rules of engagement with devastating attack on Saudi Arabia

Veteran Arab journalist Abdel Bari Atwan says Yemen’s Houthi movement has completely changed the equation in its war with Saudi Arabia by taking the fight into Saudi territory in such devastating fashion.

The huge fires started by Saturday’s drone attacks on the Abqaiq and Khurais oil production and processing facilities in eastern Saudi Arabia may have been brought under control. But big questions remain unanswered about where the ten pilotless aircraft came from and how they managed to reach their targets apparently undetected and hit them with such devastating accuracy.

These were no ordinary targets. They were among the most strategically important – and one would have assumed most closely protected — locations in the country. The two oilfields and their related plants have a capacity of more than seven million barrels of crude oil per day and process some 70% of Saudi Aramco’s petroleum output.

Saturday’s attack, which at a stroke cut the country’s oil production by more than half, was the third on Aramco facilities this year. In May seven drones targeted two pumping stations on the main east-west oil pipeline and in August the massive Shayba oilfield was attacked.

In claiming responsibility for the latest (and by far most serious) drone raid, Yemen’s Houthi Ansarullah movement offered possible partial answers to the above questions.

Houthi spokesman Yahya Sarie’ said the operation was carried out after a “careful process of intelligence surveillance” of the sites. He did not elaborate about how and by whom this surveillance was carried out, nor did he comment on this apparent breakthrough in the Houthis’ intelligence capabilities.

Neither did he explain how, if the drones were launched from Yemeni territory, they managed to make the 1,000 km-plus journey without refuelling or being detected.

He did, however, make a point of praising “honourable and freedom-loving people” inside Saudi Arabia for their contribution to the operation. This sounded like a reference to the participation of members of Saudi Arabia’s persecuted Shia minority, who are concentrated in the Eastern Province in the attack, or at least in the intelligence/surveillance process that preceded it.

The drones seem unlikely to have been launched from within Saudi Arabia itself. It would have been very difficult to smuggle such large devices into the Kingdom or assemble them there. They were probably fired from a neighbouring country: Iraq is increasingly being identified as the most likely source (the drones that struck the east-west pipeline were also widely reported to have come from there).

There has also been speculation they may have been clandestinely launched from Bahrain, or from a ship sailing off the Saudi Gulf coast.

Resistance Axis

But the precise source of the missiles is immaterial. Since the start of the Saudi-led war on Yemen, the Houthis have become increasingly closely aligned with the regional “Resistance Axis” comprising Iran and Syria and their allies in Iraq, Lebanon and other Arab countries. They no longer attempt to conceal this: their envoys now visit Tehran openly and their leaders express pride about their relationship with the Islamic Republic.

Sarie’, meanwhile, warned that Ansarullah’s list of targets inside Saudi Arabia is “growing by the day,” meaning that more such attacks can be expected until Riyadh ends its war and lifts its blockade of Yemen.

This warning should be seen in the context of two other highly significant warnings that were issued in recent days: the declaration by Hassan Nasrallah, leader of Lebanon’s Hezbollah, that his movement has new options available for countering U.S. attempts to cripple it and its allies; and the reaffirmation by Iranian leader Ali Khamenei’s advisor Ali Akbar Velayati that if his country is prevented from exporting oil through the Persian Gulf, no other country will be allowed to do so either.

The Houthis have changed the rules of engagement. The message they delivered with the latest attacks is, in their own words, that they will continue striking targets deep inside Saudi Arabia until the country’s leadership realises that “killing more Yemenis will not force them to their knees.”

Saudi fire-fighters may have put out the flames in Abqaiq and Khurais. But the dense smoke from the fires continues to shroud the region, and to conceal, at least for now, many questions about the future of the struggle raging in the Middle East, not just in Yemen but throughout the region.

In the meantime, a question is worth asking: Who is going to buy a stake in Saudi Aramco now? The Saudi government is desperate to offer shares in the giant corporation for sale. But even if they ever go on the market, how much will they fetch? Is it as coincidence that the attacks were launched just as Riyadh was stepping up efforts to proceed with a share offering?

Those unsophisticated mountain-dwelling Yemenis are clearly not as stupid as their enemies think.

https://5pillarsuk.com/2019/09/17/ho...-saudi-arabia/

[سيف الله]

Salaam

Another update.

Embedded Tweet

Blurb

Yemen's Houthi rebels on Sunday broadcast footage they said was of a major attack into Saudi Arabia that killed or wounded 500 soldiers with thousands of others surrendering.

Yahya Saree, a Houthi military spokesman, described an ambush on the Saudi forces that then developed into an "all-out" cross-border offensive that trapped the troops inside Saudi Arabia.

"More than 200 were killed in dozens of [missile and drone] strikes while trying to escape or surrender," Saree said.

The fighting took place in the southern region of Najran with video images aired showing armoured vehicles hit by blasts and surrendering soldiers.

Embedded Tweet

[سيف الله]

Salaam

Another update.

Blurb

Yemen is an important front in the battle against white supremacy as well. US foreign policy is just as, if not much more racist than policing. We should pay more attention.