Saudi-led Coalition in Yemen Used 2,000lbs American Bombs to Kill 97 Civilians

[Diamond Jim]

A Saudi-led coalition airstrike on a Yemeni market killed at least 97 civilians on March 15 in one of the deadliest attacks on innocents since its campaign began a year ago. On Thursday, Human Rights Watch reported that the strike had in fact been carried out with massive American-supplied bombs that weighed 2,000 pounds each.

Investigators from HRW visited the site of the attack in the northwestern village of Mastaba on March 28, where they spoke with witnesses and injured victims collected weapon fragments. They found remnants of a GBU-31 satellite-guided bomb, which combines a 2,000-pound MK-84 bomb with a DAM satellite guidance kit, also of American provenance. The team reviewed footage and photographs taken by British TV journalists two days prior, which it said showed "remnants of an MK-84 bomb paired with a Paveway laser guidance kit."

That a Saudi-led attack made use of US weapons is not surprising. Since 2010, Riyadh has purchased more than $100 billion in arms from the US, and Washington has approved orders to replenish Saudi stockpiles during the course of their air campaign in Yemen. But the presence of American bombs at a site of such carnage, and the Saudi-led coalition's decision to employ a particularly destructive explosive in a civilian area — let alone a market — raises further questions about America's support for Riyadh's military campaign.

Since the start of hostilities in late March 2015, the US has provided intelligence and logistical support to Riyadh in addition to continued weapons sales, while also unloading fuel from tankers to coalition jets over Saudi airspace thousands of times.

https://news.vice.com/article/saudi...bs-to-kill-97-civilians?utm_source=vicenewsfb


Glad to see Saudi Arabia take the fight to ISIS.



Oh

 

[BruceLeeOnTRT]

I mean is this a shocker? You have the current Democrat candidate bragging about how Libya was handled compared to Iraq. The Democrats have always prefered arming muslim cells with American weapons to do their bidding compared to sending armies out to war like Republicans do.

It saves American lives in the short term, but costs the West in the long run. We'll pay some heavy prices for this in decades to come.

 

[Abezal]

Well gee, i'm honest surprised they actually manged to drop them and not blow them selves up while loading them.

 

[TheStruggle]

Good thing Trump isn't president or this could have been worse....

 

[Quipling]

I mean is this a shocker? You have the current Democrat candidate bragging about how Libya was handled compared to Iraq. The Democrats have always prefered arming muslim cells with American weapons to do their bidding compared to sending armies out to war like Republicans do.

It saves American lives in the short term, but costs the West in the long run. We'll pay some heavy prices for this in decades to come.

While Carter started the program supporting the muhajadeen, it was vastly expanded by Reagan, who also armed the Iranians. And the Iraqis, a program continued by Bush. This is not really something you can pin exclusively or even predominantly on the left.

 

[Rex Kwon Do]

Aaaaaaaaand America will get 98% of the blame as always. A Muslim in the ME could trip and scrape his knee and will blame America for it. Lots of countries sell arms to other countries, who then use them to nefarious ends.

 

[SouthoftheAndes]

I mean is this a shocker? You have the current Democrat candidate bragging about how Libya was handled compared to Iraq. The Democrats have always prefered arming muslim cells with American weapons to do their bidding compared to sending armies out to war like Republicans do.

It saves American lives in the short term, but costs the West in the long run. We'll pay some heavy prices for this in decades to come.

Libya was a humanitarian mission supported even by France, Canada and Sweden.

It was a success. The only failure is the people in Libya could not use the great opportunity provided. But things will get better.

Aaaaaaaaand America will get 98% of the blame as always. A Muslim in the ME could trip and scrape his knee and will blame America for it. Lots of countries sell arms to other countries, who then use them to nefarious ends.

Yeah that is what the OP is doing. Like Chomsky. Blame America and corporations for everything.

 

[SouthoftheAndes]

If things get really out of hand Saudi Arabia could actually justified in invading Yemen and even annexing parts. Yemen isn't exactly a happy or peaceful place or stable compared to say Saudi Arabia.

Not saying it will happen but the Saudis seem to keep things in check and stable at least within their own borders.

 

[Rex Kwon Do]

Yeah that is what the OP is doing. Like Chomsky. Blame America and corporations for everything.

It is very telling of VICE's agenda that, despite the fact that the VAST majority of the blame for Saudi Arabia killing civilians rests on Saudi Arabia's proverbial shoulders, America/Washington was mentioned 8 times, which is the same number of times KSA/Riyadh was mentioned. VICE knows what they're doing. By mentioning America just as much as KSA, they are essentially trying to deflect at least half of the blame (if not most) to America.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

That kind of spending must have earned the Saudis Lockheed Martin's Preferred Killer status.

Hnnnng the perks!

 

[BruceLeeOnTRT]

Libya was a humanitarian mission supported even by France, Canada and Sweden.

It was a success. The only failure is the people in Libya could not use the great opportunity provided. But things will get better.



Yeah that is what the OP is doing. Like Chomsky. Blame America and corporations for everything.

You are right about one thing there, and that it was a successful venture for the west. As for the humanitarian stuff, you really need to read more about this topic. I'll give you some food for thought here:

Gaddafi was planning to create a new currency for the middle eastern countries, that would have changed the way oil transactions were handled, and hurt both the Euro and the Dollar. Here is a couple of links

http://www.thedailybell.com/editorials/anthony-wile-gaddafi-planned-gold-dinar-now-under-attack/

The idea, according to Gaddafi, was that African and Muslim nations would join together to create this new currency and would use it to purchase oil and other resources in exclusion of the dollar and other currencies. RT calls it "an idea that would shift the economic balance of the world."

It was not a democratic perspective in the sense that a country's wealth would revolve around gold and its population. But that's how modern money works. The current dollar reserve system benefits the US. In Gaddafi's case, as he held some 144 tons of gold against a fairly small population, a gold dinar would prove a most powerful currency.

Here is some more, from a leaked US Department of State e-mail to none other than Mrs Clinton (http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com...6/01/110402-France-client-gold-State-Dept.pdf):

This gold was accumulated prior to the current rebellion and was intended to be used to establish a pan-African currency based on the Libyan golden Dinar. This plan was designed to provide the Francophone African Countries with an alternative to the French.franc (CFA). (Source Comment: According to knowledgeable individuals this quantity of gold and silver is valued at more than $7 billion. French intelligence officers discovered this plan shortly after the current rebellion began, and this was one of the factors that influenced President Nicolas Sarkozy's decision to commit France to the attack on Libya. According to these individuals Sarkozy's plans are driven by the following issues:

a. A desire to gain a greater share of Libya oil production,
b. Increase French influence in North Africa,:

Same as with Saddam wanting to sell his oil using the Euro over USD, this would have dramatically hurt a US economy that was recovering from a housing market collapse. It was 100% a monetary driven regime takeover.

And it was successful as you said. At least in the short term. Remember, the Jimmy Carter government armed Afghan rebels too, including Islamic Salvation Front, a group that harbored Osama Bin Laden, and a lot of other Al Quaeda. Decades later, those guys were attacking your home soil. So yes, Gadaffi is gone, his economic threat is gone, but we'll pay a price for arming these idiots down the road.

 

[BruceLeeOnTRT]

While Carter started the program supporting the muhajadeen, it was vastly expanded by Reagan, who also armed the Iranians. And the Iraqis, a program continued by Bush. This is not really something you can pin exclusively or even predominantly on the left.

Make no mistake, I am not a right winger. I don't think the massive invasions are the way to go either. And i'm not against arming proxy groups, but I don't like the fact we keep using radical islam cells for these jobs. I guess it's easier to pin it on the left because of Zbigniew Brzezinski. That man's blueprints have been followed for a long time.

 

[SouthoftheAndes]

You are right about one thing there, and that it was a successful venture for the west. As for the humanitarian stuff, you really need to read more about this topic. I'll give you some food for thought here:

Gaddafi was planning to create a new currency for the middle eastern countries, that would have changed the way oil transactions were handled, and hurt both the Euro and the Dollar. Here is a couple of links

http://www.thedailybell.com/editorials/anthony-wile-gaddafi-planned-gold-dinar-now-under-attack/


Here is some more, from a leaked US Department of State e-mail to none other than Mrs Clinton (http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com...6/01/110402-France-client-gold-State-Dept.pdf):




Same as with Saddam wanting to sell his oil using the Euro over USD, this would have dramatically hurt a US economy that was recovering from a housing market collapse. It was 100% a monetary driven regime takeover.

And it was successful as you said. At least in the short term. Remember, the Jimmy Carter government armed Afghan rebels too, including Islamic Salvation Front, a group that harbored Osama Bin Laden, and a lot of other Al Quaeda. Decades later, those guys were attacking your home soil. So yes, Gadaffi is gone, his economic threat is gone, but we'll pay a price for arming these idiots down the road.

So what is your issue or hope?

That the West rolls over and let's people like Gaddafi (lots of blood on his hands) rule over us instead of our own leaders?

You seem to believe that there is a good and bad side and that we are the bad side. If that is the case then by all means to a place like Libya. I just don't see the issue. You can complain about what we do in Libya but if it wasn't for our side then it would be someone else acting against our interests or swallowing up nations until they are at our back door.

The threat of communism was also very real.

 

[BruceLeeOnTRT]

So what is your issue or hope?

That the West rolls over and let's people like Gaddafi (lots of blood on his hands) rule over us instead of our own leaders?

You seem to believe that there is a good and bad side and that we are the bad side. If that is the case then by all means to a place like Libya. I just don't see the issue. You can complain about what we do in Libya but if it wasn't for our side then it would be someone else acting against our interests or swallowing up nations until they are at our back door.

The threat of communism was also very real.

I don't think there is a good or a bad side here. To us, Gadaffi was a threat to western economy. To a lot of the poorer african countries, his currency would have had a lot of positive benefits, by giving Africa more power in trade. It may have very well turned some of these 3rd world disaster zones into stabler nations over time that were not exploited by the west. It's all a matter of perspective right?

My main issue is with arming Radical Islamists. It's short term success for long term problems. I don't like that strategy man, and I don't think all democrats are guilty of it, but I know the Clinton administration fully supports this type of warfare.

 

[SouthoftheAndes]

I don't think there is a good or a bad side here. To us, Gadaffi was a threat to western economy. To a lot of the poorer african countries, his currency would have had a lot of positive benefits, by giving Africa more power in trade. It may have very well turned some of these 3rd world disaster zones into stabler nations over time that were not exploited by the west. It's all a matter of perspective right?

My main issue is with arming Radical Islamists. It's short term success for long term problems. I don't like that strategy man, and I don't think all democrats are guilty of it, but I know the Clinton administration fully supports this type of warfare.

I don't see it as warfare. Even ultra liberal Canada and France supported it.

 

[GhostZ06]

So they cant even handle simple fucking tasks...

 

[BruceLeeOnTRT]

I don't see it as warfare. Even ultra liberal Canada and France supported it.

France had no choice, their economy would have taken the worst hit. This whole region was originally under their sphere of influence. And Canada will follow US into the gates of hell if need be, Canadian economy is very closely tied to USA's.

It's totally a form of warfare.

Look at Syria. Qatar wanted to build a pipeline to turkey that would have gone through Syria, and Assad didnt want to allow this because of his trade agreements with Russia. Had they gone along with it, Europe would no longer have had the need to purchase natural gas from Russia, and it would have been a wonderful time for the Western corporations.

So just like with Gadaffi, the government decides to arm a bunch of rebels and take this guy out. Only it doesn't work, and Russians step in to back him up. End result? Syria is empty, and Europe is full of hostiles.

Arming radical idiots to do your fighting for you never works out in the long-run man. What's the point of taking out a Gadaffi-like figure, when you're arming people way more dangerous than him, and potentially creating an even more dangerous regime down the road.

 

[Rod1]

Aaaaaaaaand America will get 98% of the blame as always. A Muslim in the ME could trip and scrape his knee and will blame America for it. Lots of countries sell arms to other countries, who then use them to nefarious ends.

Then why do you bitch about Obamas deals with Iran?

 

[KILL KILL]

Two 2,000 pound bombs in a populated area is overkill. They had to know that it would cause a ridiculous amount of collateral.

 

[Rex Kwon Do]

Then why do you bitch about Obamas deals with Iran?

Because there's a difference between selling some conventional tech and freeing up tens of billions of dollars for a country that has been screaming "death to America" for 40+ years that is increasingly closer to developing nuclear weapons. Obviously.