Cluster bombs sold to Saudis by US used on civilians in Yemen!

Ralphy1

Well-known Member
Only Russia and the US refused to sign a treaty to ban them according to an NPR report. Big money involved is the reason that these sales went on that we are stopping now in response to reports by humanitarian agencies. However, all kinds of other weaponry is still being sold...
 

The US were not the only ones selling arms to the Saudis, including cluster bombs.

Thursday 5 May 2016 20.08 AEST

... something even worse is happening, and it is barely being discussed: the UK’s complicity in an indiscriminate, Saudi-led bombing campaign in Yemen that has killed and maimed thousands of innocent people.Conservative members of the parliamentary select committee on international development blocked a call for the suspension of arms sales to Saudi Arabia. They cast this shameful vote after hearing overwhelming evidence from the world’s leading human rights groups and aid agencies that a Saudi-led coalition is systematically bombing civilian targets in Yemen, exacerbating a humanitarian disaster comparable in scale to that in Syria.

Since the 1960s, Labour and Conservative governments have sold the Saudi regime entire fleets of combat aircraft, as well as providing regular continuing supplies of training, upgrades and ammunition. Since the onslaught on Yemen began in March last year, the flow of arms – bombs, rockets and missiles in particular – has not only continued, but dramatically increased.

The arms that Tory committee members seem to think should continue to be provided include the 500lb Paveway IV bomb, manufactured by Raytheon in the UK, whose production lines were diverted to the replenishment of Saudi stocks last July, in full knowledge of Saudi atrocities. These could be among the “huge bombs” that Unicef’s Julien Harneis told the select committee were being used against civilians in Yemen. Harneis described “a sort of double-tap. They will drop a bomb. Ambulance and health workers will rush to assist the victims, and then they will drop another bomb two hours later and blow up the ambulance crew.”

In evidence to the committee, both Harneis and Save the Children’s Grant Pritchard described the bombing they had witnessed on the ground as “indiscriminate”, corroborating careful investigations by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and UN experts, which all described the same pattern.

In her evidence, Josephine Hutton of Oxfam remarked that attacks on hospitals, schools and aid agency warehouses are so frequent that it is now “pretty hard” to see them as accidental. The committee itself acknowledged that the “evidence we have received, from humanitarian actors operating on the ground in Yemen and respected human rights organisations including UN commissioned evidence, unanimously suggested that humanitarian law is being breached”.

The moral case for not arming the Saudi air force while it is committing mass murder hardly needs to be elaborated upon. But there is a legal case to answer as well. The law forbids arms sales where there is a “clear risk” that they “might” be used in serious violations of international humanitarian law.

The committee’s report says that the “powerful evidence” it has heard “suggests that there is more than a clear risk of IHL [international humanitarian law] violations by the Saudi-led coalition”. Given the Saudis’ extensive use of British planes, missiles and bombs, it would seem to be a miracle if British arms had not been used in any of the scores of documented violations. Yet Tory committee members, with one honourable exception, voted down specific text calling for a suspension in the supply of those arms, instead calling for the parliamentary committees on arms export controls to consider the case for a suspension, and for a separate, independent inquiry into Saudi conduct.

Human rights groups condemn steep rise in UK arms sales to Saudis

More than £1bn worth of bombs, missiles and rockets sold in three-month period that saw surge in airstrikes on Yemen

It is impossible to see why the international development committee would need more inquiries and committee deliberations before making the clear and urgent statement it should have made this week on UK arms sales. Or why those Yemenis who have survived the war so far should have to wait even longer for the British government to stop pouring fuel on the flames.

In fact, what the Tory committee members have done complements the government’s strategy of political and diplomatic stalling. After months of disingenuous denials that any evidence of Saudi atrocities existed, ministers then offered a barely substantiated dismissal of the evidence gathered by the UN, Amnesty and Human Rights Watch, instead telling us to wait with bated breath for the results of an investigation conducted by none other than the Saudis themselves.

In the agreed text of the committee’s report, the UK government’s denials of Saudi crimes are described as “deeply disappointing” and contributing to “an ‘anything goes’ attitude” by parties to the conflict. But by ignoring the basic requirements of the law and common morality and refusing to call for a suspension of arms sales, Tory committee members have contributed to that same atmosphere of impunity, in which “double-tap” bombings can be carried out by the militaries of the richest states in the Middle East against civilians in the poorest. It’s another squalid reminder of Conservative priorities, and how low they are prepared to sink in pursuit of them.

FULL ARTICLE HERE: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/may/05/saudi-arabia-bombs-yemen-tories-human-rights

At least the Obama administration has suspended the sale of cluster bombs to the Saudis, but is that enough? It is too little, too late?
 

Is this not the most bizarre statement and to me seems to demonstrate a certain schizophrenia on the part of the lawyers who drew this up and the law makers that ratified it! Since when did arms sales ever accomplish anything that is not a violation of humanitarian law and particularly when it's a known fact that 90% of all deaths in wars are civilians!


From your comment Warrigal, 'The moral case for not arming the Saudi air force while it is committing mass murder hardly needs to be elaborated upon. But there is a legal case to answer as well. The law forbids arms sales where there is a “clear risk” that they “might” be used in serious violations of international humanitarian law. '


 
I'm more worried about who and why they're being used. The Saudi's have been reported to be working on nukes. Indiscriminate use of cluster bombs is 'a' worry and could be a predictor of what they might do with a nuke.
 
Once weapons are put in the hands of a third party, there is no control over who the weapons get used on.

A follower of Jesus draws his sword and cuts off the ear of a servant of the high priest. Jesus then says to him: Converte gladium tuum in locum suum. Omnes enim, qui acceperint gladium, gladio peribunt. ("Return your sword to its place, for all who will take up the sword, will die by the sword.")
 
Cluster bombs, like guns, are perfectly legitimate weapons of war, invaluable for area denial, such as airfields.

It is the people that misuse them that cause problems.
 
So Laurie, cluster bombs don't kill and maim people, especially children. People kill and maim the people and children.
The cluster bombs, their manufacturers and the governments that sell them are all exonerated?
Tell that to the marines.
 
This thread is depressing. Discussing the efficacy and usefulness and purpose (population control?) of bombs that only kill and maim instead of being horrified that we are still making and using and selling them so that more can be killed and maimed! Has it been so long since the North American continent was digging away rubble and dragging our own children out from under collapsed and burned out homes that we've become that blasé?

Having said that, I'm glad to hear that Obama has suspended sales of cluster bombs to the Saudi's. Mind you, those monsters will only buy them from some one else so that they can continue to drop them on Yemeni children and families.
The UN just removed them from a list of countries committing crimes against children (killing and maiming in war)because the Saudi's had a hissy fit over their inclusion!

'The secretary-general’s annual report on children and armed conflict released Thursday said the U.N. documented 1,953 deaths and injuries of children in Yemen in 2015, 60 percent of them attributed to the coalition.' http://www.salon.com/2016/06/06/un_takes_saudi_coalition_off_yemen_list_of_child_violators/
 
Debby

I must, perhaps a bit elatedly, declare a special interest.

I spent forty years in the service as a weapons and explosives technician making sure our existing weapons killed people as efficiently and cost effectively as possible, and always trying to develop better methods of getting more bodies per bang (actually the best idea is to maim and and wound, not kill. Injured people need looking after and take up resources.) .

I made a good living for myself and my family out of it, and I am now paid a good pension because I was good at it, and before you throw up your hands in horror and condemnation remember that is what you, the NATO taxpayer, paid me to do on your behalf.
 
And am I supposed to be awed, happy, pleased or surprised that I, the NATO taxpayer, paid for your services?

I'm glad you could support your family and have a nice pension to provide comfort nowadays, but I think it's pretty apparent that I would rather no one had to earn a living or pension by killing other people, efficiently or otherwise. Governments and military and military corporate suppliers and banks want wars and they make sure wars happen, even if it means making up stories to justify it or aiding and abetting take overs of other countries. It's all rotten and it's all the result of fear on the parts of those who are calling the shots. And mostly fear that someone else might do better. So invasions are planned, cooperation and diplomacy is ignored as are international laws often and stories are made up to justify and weapons are made to suit agenda's.

90% of the war dead are civilians. Women, children, old people and the body bags go home, and the war moves on and on and on. It is much harder for a man/government to consider the needs of the person or government on the other side of the table, and compromise. And when you factor in the 'corporate' greed that motivates almost everything these days, it is not the least impressive when the 'man' in charge jumps so easily to war.

Am I glad that you are so comfortable now? Sure, why not. But remember this, there are how many people dying right this moment from a bomb that was dropped on their school or their hospital or neighbourhood, right now, right this moment. They are not some invisible, unimportant statistic and they are terrified and they are screaming.....until they're not.
 
We are all complicit in the killing of the innocent whether or not we actually worked on munitions or using them. After the draft ended in the US the peace movement quickly became a quaint anachronism for most...
 
We support our government interventions in all kinds of wars and I have seen more demonstrations against Wall
Street recently than peace ones...
 
I see what you mean and regarding the ' Occupy' movements, yes, I'd agree that economics has been the focus. Regarding the support of government interventions via war, yep, you'd be pretty accurate there too as far as the majority are concerned. I think that most people have assumed that governments are formed to care for the peoples needs but I think that without them realizing it, 'government' has morphed into a club that is more interested in caring for the corporate interests in their respective countries. I know that in Canada, the prevailing sentiment of the majority who voted them out, is that our past government was decidedly working for our oil and gas industries and giving the 'people' short shrift.

But I also wonder if we aren't beginning to wake up to the reality of the world's situation regarding all these wars and conflicts and if we aren't reaching a point of decision. For example, I have a number of alternate news sites showing up on my FB and where a couple years ago, there was lots of defensive commentary from American citizens (when the stories were about Ukraine, Israel, Russia, the MD) there seem to be a growing number of Americans who are not in that supportive camp, indeed are calling 'foul' on the actions in those countries and the 'defensive' folks are fewer. Are we all starting to get tired of the fighting that government and military corporations love and need? Maybe the peace protests are moving off the streets more and more and taking to social media?
 
“90% of the war dead are civilians.”


There are no civilians. If you’re going to fight total war then fight it. Don’t pussyfoot around. Harry Truman understood that. The days of "Gentlemen of the French army, be pleased to fire first" are long gone.


When I was three years old my eight year old brother threw me into a ditch and dived in on top of me, to keep me from the attentions of a Luftwaffe machine gunner. Only twelve years later I enlisted, not to ensure that such things couldn't happen again, that's a Utopian dream at mans' current state of development, but to ensure the next time somebody tried to kill me I could return the compliment.

Since then I have spent many hours drinking with elderly Germans, some of them ex-Luftwaffe air gunners. ( and by gosh those boys could drink!).


At the same period of my life the “Stranger Danger” code we were taught was “If the church bell rings grab the big knife and hide. When the German comes try to stab his willy"

“And am I supposed to be awed, happy, pleased or surprised that I, the NATO taxpayer, paid for your services? “


I'm bot bothered what you feel You paid me to carry out certain tasks for you and I did so to the best of my ability and gave you the best value for money I could.


Don’t do your Pontius Pilate public hand washing ceremony now.


To paraphrase Kipling “Oh it’s vicious this and rapist that and murderer go away, but it’s our brave uniforned bys when machine guns start to play”
 
"No civilians'??? Is your wife a civilian? Do you have children or grandchildren and are they civilians? Is my 80 year old mother a civilian? No civilians? Seriously?

I'm actually not surprised to hear you expressing the kind of philosophy that you have here. Must be somebody who's helping to keep the worlds violence continuing on, ad infinitum and I know it's not me.

If my country is actually attacked, then yes, I hope that our government will do what needs to be done to protect us. But that isn't the case in the majority of wars that are going on these days. Today wars are started just to take from others. Their oil, their resources, their lives...... The Libyan people were doing just fine until NATO decided that Gadaffi wasn't going to sell oil for gold. The people of Iraq had their dictator to deal with, but did America make life better for them when they decided to take him out because he was going to sell his oil for Euro's? Not at all. The people of Yemen are having their schools and hospitals bombed by the Saudi's using American cluster bombs. They aren't better off either. The people of Cambodia, the people of Vietnam......numerous other countries attacked for no good reason except some politician or some general had an agenda and the banks happily lend their support and dollars because 'the bottom line is King'.

Well Laurie, call me a 'bleeding heart liberal' if you want, but I wear the badge proudly because it only identifies me and others like me as compassionate people who genuinely care that people just like myself and my family and all of us here, are suffering unjustly.
 
Last edited:
"Is your wife a civilian?"

At the time of the Cuban missile crisis I urged my wife to take the family somewhere a little safer than the frontline anti-submarine base we lived at. She refused, as did all the other spouses, as did all the citizens of the local town who supported us.


There are no civilians.

"Well Laurie, call me a 'bleeding heart liberal' if you want,"

I don't want. I made no such statement.

You are entitled to hold, and express, your opinion, and I spent forty years defending your right to do so.
 
You spent forty years making bombs to kill people and to get a pension. That's what you did. And today while you sit all comfy in your easy chair, somebody else in America (and wherever else) is making bombs to sell to the Saudi's so that they can blow up little kids and people at weddings. So glorious.
 


Back
Top