Yemen is preparing a large-scale offensive against Houthi rebels: 80,000 troops are involved

[Frankfooter]

Fine.
But that doesn't then mean that they only specify "Houthi" when advancing Israeli talking points/view points.

They don't, basketcase did. That was the context and you are trying to change it.

Are you saying that whenever anyone says "Yemen" they are trying to conflate the two sides of the civil war?

No.

Ok, cool.
So both are used here.

Is this a pro-Israeli piece?
View attachment 430321



Then if there is no rule, why did you say this in post #13?

View attachment 430322
You are clearly implying people only use "Houthi" and not Yemen to push isreali views.

Again, this is in context of replies, largely to basketcase. His particular take is similar to his use of the word 'Hamas' in these threads. He'll conflate Hamas and Palestinians in order to demonize Palestinians in general and does a similar tactic with Yemen to support US attacks that are clearly civilian targets. Its an age old device that people who support state terrorism use to justify targeting civilians.

You asked, "How long did the Saudi war last before this?"

So do you consider the answer 7 years or 10?

I'm not interested in this subject in this debate. This is you playing prof again.

Biden reduced the strikes in Yemen, as you know.
Picked up again in 2024.

Trump's nowhere near his 2017 totals yet, either.

US Forces in Yemen

The United States conducted its first targeted assassination by drone outside the hot battlefield in November 2002 in Marib province, killing five reported members of Al Qaeda. However US counterterrorism operations did not begin in earnest until 2009, prompted by the founding of Al Qaeda in the...

airwars.org

View attachment 430323

I see why you like airwars. That chart is useful for the number of attacks but their frame of reference seems to largely justify hitting civilian targets, where they will accept rationalizations for targeting civilian targets like refugee camps, schools and hospitals as 'fair' based on unsupported claims by the aggressor.

Declaring war crimes as 'fair' is not helpful.

That chart also is a good example of the futility of 'fair' attacks on civilians and other countries. Similar to the futility of the wars and attacks in Afghanistan, Libya and Syria, they never achieve any good, unless your idea of good is surrounding yourself with failed states and angry people.

The attacks on Yemen are as useless but not nearly as evil as the genocide on Palestinians.

Again, my thesis here is the blowback doctrine, what the US aids in Israel is farking evil and once that evil becomes acceptable it becomes acceptable to bring it home.

 

[Valcazar]

They don't, basketcase did. That was the context and you are trying to change it.

You're the one who claimed that using it means you are promoting Israeli viewpoints, Frank.

If you just meant basketcase in this one instance just fucking say that.

No.

Cool.
Then what the fuck are you trying to actually say?

Again, this is in context of replies, largely to basketcase. His particular take is similar to his use of the word 'Hamas' in these threads. He'll conflate Hamas and Palestinians in order to demonize Palestinians in general and does a similar tactic with Yemen to support US attacks that are clearly civilian targets. Its an age old device that people who support state terrorism use to justify targeting civilians.

OK, so you didn't mean what you said, you meant something else that was specifically about basketcase.
Then why bring the media into it?

I'm not interested in this subject in this debate. This is you playing prof again.

I love how whenever I question you on some random thing you said you get mad and saying I am playing prof.

YOU brought up the question "How long did the Saudi war last before this?"
You brought it up unprovoked.
Now you say that getting an answer to the question is "playing prof".

Why the fuck did you bring up the question if you didn't care about the answer?
If it was rhetorical question, what rhetorical point did you think you were accomplishing here that you immediately backed off from it and complained when someone engaged with your point?

I see why you like airwars. That chart is useful for the number of attacks but their frame of reference seems to largely justify hitting civilian targets, where they will accept rationalizations for targeting civilian targets like refugee camps, schools and hospitals as 'fair' based on unsupported claims by the aggressor.

LOL!
You're going to claim moral superiority to Airwars?
Amazing.

Declaring war crimes as 'fair' is not helpful.

That chart also is a good example of the futility of 'fair' attacks on civilians and other countries. Similar to the futility of the wars and attacks in Afghanistan, Libya and Syria, they never achieve any good, unless your idea of good is surrounding yourself with failed states and angry people.

Do you honestly think airwars is pro bombing?

 

[Frankfooter]

You're the one who claimed that using it means you are promoting Israeli viewpoints, Frank.

If you just meant basketcase in this one instance just fucking say that.

You're the one that stated this was about the media. I didn't specify, I merely responded to your attack.

Cool.
Then what the fuck are you trying to actually say?

That the zionists on this board try to conflate the two at their whim to score points in debate.
The same way you do later in this post.

OK, so you didn't mean what you said, you meant something else that was specifically about basketcase.
Then why bring the media into it?

I didn't, you did.

I love how whenever I question you on some random thing you said you get mad and saying I am playing prof.

YOU brought up the question "How long did the Saudi war last before this?"
You brought it up unprovoked.
Now you say that getting an answer to the question is "playing prof".

Why the fuck did you bring up the question if you didn't care about the answer?
If it was rhetorical question, what rhetorical point did you think you were accomplishing here that you immediately backed off from it and complained when someone engaged with your point?

You were the one that that claimed I had no idea about Yemen's history in this context. I made a general statement bringing up previous Saudi involvement. You want to continue this attack to claim that you have supremacy but I'm not interested in this debate being derailed.

LOL!
You're going to claim moral superiority to Airwars?
Amazing.

That's a zionist tactic like basketcase or shack would use. False dichotomy, you should know better.
I'd say that Amnesty, HRW, B'tselem, ICC, ICJ, UN and EuroMed are superior in their reporting on human rights abuses and war crimes.
You just did an 'every accusation' tactic and assumed it was about 'moral' supremacy.

Do you honestly think airwars is pro bombing?

Do want me to go through the list of reports on bombings in Gaza on civilian targets that airwars has declared are 'fair'?
I assume this means that you also believe bombing schools, hospitals, medics, journalists, tents, women and children are also 'fair' in war.

Personally, I'll take the reports from Amnesty et al that have been deposited at the ICC and ICJ as parts of cases for war crimes charges for extermination and genocide.
I know this is as close as you'll get to actually discussing the Israeli genocide on this board, you won't debate it directly. Instead you'll try to attack me on these side threads as if that somehow makes support of genocide acceptable if you can score points elsewhere.

 

[Valcazar]

You're the one that stated this was about the media. I didn't specify, I merely responded to your attack.

You know what?
I'll accept that your post in 17 was ambiguous and that the "they" there meant "people in this forum" and not "the media".

That the zionists on this board try to conflate the two at their whim to score points in debate.
The same way you do later in this post.

LOL!!
Oh dear god.

You were the one that that claimed I had no idea about Yemen's history in this context. I made a general statement bringing up previous Saudi involvement. You want to continue this attack to claim that you have supremacy but I'm not interested in this debate being derailed.

So again, what was your rhetorical point there?

That's a zionist tactic like basketcase or shack would use. False dichotomy, you should know better.
I'd say that Amnesty, HRW, B'tselem, ICC, ICJ, UN and EuroMed are superior in their reporting on human rights abuses and war crimes.
You just did an 'every accusation' tactic and assumed it was about 'moral' supremacy.

LOL!
Holy shit that's funny.
Just admit you don't know who airwars is.

Do want me to go through the list of reports on bombings in Gaza on civilian targets that airwars has declared are 'fair'?
I assume this means that you also believe bombing schools, hospitals, medics, journalists, tents, women and children are also 'fair' in war.

You would do yourself a favor to not assume things.
Or, even better, to read.
You don't know what airwars is.
A wise man might read the site a bit before jumping to conclusions.

Personally, I'll take the reports from Amnesty et al that have been deposited at the ICC and ICJ as parts of cases for war crimes charges for extermination and genocide.

That's fine.
Airwars doesn't do legal work.

 

[Frankfooter]

You know what?
I'll accept that your post in 17 was ambiguous and that the "they" there meant "people in this forum" and not "the media".

Thank you.

LOL!
Holy shit that's funny.
Just admit you don't know who airwars is.

I have admitted I don't know who they are. They are not cited, their reports not posted or quoted in the news or social media I check. They even say that their work isn't referenced much, only at the UNHRC and one paper at the University of Sydney. Why is that?

I'll also admit I made a mistake when reading their reports, they list 'Airwars civilian harm grading'. That read to me as their summary of whether the attack was considered 'fair or weak' but you have to read their methodology page to understand that they meant 'Airwars confidence in findings' instead of grading whether civilians were killed or it was considered a 'fair' military target.

Ok, so given my mistake, I'll accept their findings.
Which means you understand that both the US and Israel are killing civilians.

You would do yourself a favor to not assume things.
Or, even better, to read.
You don't know what airwars is.
A wise man might read the site a bit before jumping to conclusions.

I did read their reports, their poor labelling lead me to misunderstand them. You can blame that on me if you like.

That's fine.
Airwars doesn't do legal work.

Which is why its better in this debate to source Amnesty, HRW or other human rights organizations that do investigate war crimes.

The part of this debate that still surprises me is that for someone so steeped in the histories of governments, democracy and its theories you still are unwilling to believe that accepting support of fascist and racist actions in foreign policy would never have any impact on domestic policy. That for all your deep understanding of the history and theories you never seemed to worry about the blowback of making war crimes and targeting of minorities acceptable. That you have your own blind spot where you have very forcefully and clearly articulated how and why trump is destroying the US governance but never saw that as even slightly related to the domestic changes required to support the massive war crimes in Israel.

Once you saw Biden and Harris breaking international law you didn't seem to understand this as making backing war crimes, apartheid, fascism and genocide acceptable to the american public or that it would lead to harm to US democracy. That when you argue that apartheid and genocide are acceptable it destroys the idea of democracy.

What trump is doing is now just importing what the US thinks is acceptable in Israel.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1912103489125114253

 

[Valcazar]

I have admitted I don't know who they are. They are not cited, their reports not posted or quoted in the news or social media I check. They even say that their work isn't referenced much, only at the UNHRC and one paper at the University of Sydney. Why is that?

Because they are journalists, not activists.
They have proved remarkably un-useful for propaganda. Social media isn't super fond of them.

I'm curious where you get "They even say that their work isn't referenced much, only at the UNHRC and one paper at the University of Sydney."
I would think the fact they specifically highlight how useful their Gaza work has been would be the kind of thing you appreciate.

Citations

Major uses to Airwars' documentation from Gaza in legal, media and policy spheres

airwars.org

Of course, they used to get cited quite a bit on social media back in the Obama days, since "Obama is an evil drone warrior" was a narrative people wanted to push.
Once Trump took over, that wasn't useful anymore.

I'll also admit I made a mistake when reading their reports, they list 'Airwars civilian harm grading'. That read to me as their summary of whether the attack was considered 'fair or weak' but you have to read their methodology page to understand that they meant 'Airwars confidence in findings' instead of grading whether civilians were killed or it was considered a 'fair' military target.

It's almost like you shouldn't leap to conclusions about organization, just because you want to desperately prove that everyone is secretly supporting Israel and only you are morally pure.

Ok, so given my mistake, I'll accept their findings.
Which means you understand that both the US and Israel are killing civilians.

I did read their reports, their poor labelling lead me to misunderstand them. You can blame that on me if you like.

I will.
You didn't read shit.
You jumped to a conclusion to support your narrative because you are who you are.

The part of this debate that still surprises me is that for someone so steeped in the histories of governments, democracy and its theories you still are unwilling to believe that accepting support of fascist and racist actions in foreign policy would never have any impact on domestic policy. That for all your deep understanding of the history and theories you never seemed to worry about the blowback of making war crimes and targeting of minorities acceptable. That you have your own blind spot where you have very forcefully and clearly articulated how and why trump is destroying the US governance but never saw that as even slightly related to the domestic changes required to support the massive war crimes in Israel.

Of course this surprises you, your comprehension of things is fairly shallow.

Once you saw Biden and Harris breaking international law you didn't seem to understand this as making backing war crimes, apartheid, fascism and genocide acceptable to the american public or that it would lead to harm to US democracy. That when you argue that apartheid and genocide are acceptable it destroys the idea of democracy.

What trump is doing is now just importing what the US thinks is acceptable in Israel.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1912103489125114253

Exhibit A.