By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Yemen: yet another proxy war

Adan is literally days maybe hours away from falling under the rebels... Same time IS is and handful miles away from Damascus...

Also difficult to find a site with a map showing Is teritorry..Looks like they are still gaining terrain.



Around the Network
mai said:

While entire world is undoubtly recovering from the global economic crisis :D for unknown reasons Yemen is place of violent outbreak for quite some time now and certainly it's not getting better.

So what we have here? The Yemeni "revolution" created situation of instability by removing president Saleh (North, zaidite ~ shia) and putting his vice-president Hadi (South with allegiance to North, sunni) in power. Shia rebellion (aka Houthi insurgency, named after the imam al-Houthi, aka Ansar Allah) has long history in North Yemen, but we're interested only in recent years, starting from 2011 of so called Arab spring and Yemeni "revolution" that fueled the conflict, which in turn led to Hadi being captured, eventually he managed to escape. That's one side on the conflict, roughly located at the north, potentially (if not already) a proxy of Iran. Another side is government forces (Hadi), roughly located at the south (starting today de-facto Saudis proxy). Third side is AQAP (currently it's a branch of ISIL), US proxy. And fourth side is South separatists about whom I have even less idea than about the former sides. Worth mentioing that Yemen in current shape and form is relatively young nation, North and South has been unificated in 1990.

Insightful comments about what is happening in Yemen are appreciated, the place for me (and likely for the majority) is an informational black hole aside from a bunch of banalities posted above.

 

Saudi Arabia bombs Yemen, launches coalition op against Houthi rebels

Saudi Arabian forces, joined by nine other countries, have launched a military operation in Yemen against Shiite Houthi rebels, the Saudi ambassador to the US said. The offensive, which started with airstrikes, will also involve “other military assets.”

According to Ambassador Adel bin Ahmed Al-Jubeir, the military operation in Yemen started at 7 p.m. EST (11 p.m. GMT). The US is not participating in the operation, the envoy stressed.

Al Arabiya reported that warplanes of the Royal Saudi Air Force bombed positions of Yemen’s Houthi militia, targeting their air defenses.

The Saudi-led coalition has declared Yemeni airspace a “restricted zone.” Ships in the region have also been urged not to approach Yemen’s ports due to the ongoing military operation.

More than 20 people have reportedly died and over 30 others were injured following Saudi Arabia-led airstrikes in Yemen, Sputnik news agency cited local security and medical sources as saying. 

The majority of the strikes around Sanaa hit residential areas located near the capital’s international airport. Government buildings and the airport were also hit during the offensive.

When making posts about an international topic, it's best to use an unbiased source. RT is the Russian equivalent of Fox News, but even more overt about it's agenda. Reuters or Al Jazeera will give better articles on the topic.

Saudi will annihilate the uprising and won't let Iran get a foothold. However, just like the proxy war in Ukraine, the real victims are the population who just know that their towns are being burnt and their friends and families killed.



ps4tw said:
mai said:

...

When making posts about an international topic, it's best to use an unbiased source... Reuters or Al Jazeera will give better articles on the topic.

a) You've been fooled, there's no such thing in the world.

b) It was quite simply first result in Google on "Saudi Arabia bombs Yemen" search request. If that's have been Fox News, I'd have posted link to Fox News.

c) It's pretty much irrelevant in the topic how biased RT is anyway, it's here for descriptive purposes, see b).



More violence in Qatif (Saudi Arabia region populated by Shiites), to my best knowledge first time since 2012. Nothing too serious, but would be interesting to see if that'll have any kind of development.


View on YouTube



SlayerRondo said:
ReimTime said:
I don't pretend to know much about Yemen, but I am interested in discussions such as this and will do a bit of research. You said that the Shiites are rebelling because a Sunni took over as President? And the USA is fighting ISIL in Yemen as well? AND there is a a faction of separatists in the South? AND the Sunni Empire of Saudi Arabia is helping Hadi attack the Shiite rebels as well? Sounds like a clusterfuck. But the again, almost all Middle-Eastern countries are clusterfucks; thanks to a century of political botches by Western countries.
I will do some research and return to the thread. It sounds like another Syria to me.

While Western Countries did play a part in the political mess in the middle east they were under the rule of the Ottoman empire for centuries before that which was a huge part of the political problems there today, also religious differences also play a part in th conflicts as they have for centuries before the west and Ottoman empire.

While the Ottoman Empire was far from perfect (they eventually collapsed for a reason after all), they were still at peace for quite some time. You still had the religious differences but they were kept mostly in check. It really wasn't until after the first World War that that most of the problems the region faces today really started. The British and French did such an awful job managing that region of the world. Also, who in the hell decided that it was a good idea to carve out Iraq the way they did? Anyway, what they really should have done was replace the dying Ottoman Empire with a union based on democracy. That way, the region as a whole would still have been under the control of a central government while each region could have somewhat of it's own identity and voice.



Check out my art blog: http://jon-erich-art.blogspot.com

Around the Network
mai said:
ps4tw said:

When making posts about an international topic, it's best to use an unbiased source... Reuters or Al Jazeera will give better articles on the topic.

a) You've been fooled, there's no such thing in the world.

b) It was quite simply first result in Google on "Saudi Arabia bombs Yemen" search request. If that's have been Fox News, I'd have posted link to Fox News.

c) It's pretty much irrelevant in the topic how biased RT is anyway, it's here for descriptive purposes, see b).


a) Who has fooled who if you think there is no such thing as non-biased news reporting?

b and c) Doesn't matter. If you want to talk politics, best to try and use a good source, not one of the worst.



ps4tw said:

a) Who has fooled who if you think there is no such thing as non-biased news reporting?

Yes, there's no such thing as unbiased news reporting. Mind I remind you extremely one-sided position of Al-Jazeera on Lybian conflict and photos pusblished by Reauters on Georgian conflict, when they failed to mention the fact that said photos were staged. If you fail to see their bias that's most likely you have one of your own. Check who owns Al-Jazzera for god's sake, that's not that hard.

ps4tw said:

b and c) Doesn't matter. If you want to talk politics, best to try and use a good source, not one of the worst.

So far so good this thread have 2.5 decent opinions on the matter, while yours is as pointless as it hollow -- fire is hot, water is wet -- more or less good equivalent. I assume that's because you use "good sources"? I'd suggest you don't tell me what I should use, and I won't tell you where you should go and what to do with yourself, so we keep this civilized, ok?



Is the coalition led by the Saudis just bombing the rebels in Yemen? Because as we have seen in Syria that just creates more problems and doesn't really solve or stop anything, except add fuel to the fire.



mai said:
ps4tw said:

a) Who has fooled who if you think there is no such thing as non-biased news reporting?

Yes, there's no such thing as unbiased news reporting. Mind I remind you extremely one-sided position of Al-Jazeera on Lybian conflict and photos pusblished by Reauters on Georgian conflict, when they failed to mention the fact that said photos were staged. If you fail to see their bias that's most likely you have one of your own. Check who owns Al-Jazzera for god's sake, that's not that hard.

ps4tw said:

b and c) Doesn't matter. If you want to talk politics, best to try and use a good source, not one of the worst.

So far so good this thread have 2.5 decent opinions on the matter, while yours is as pointless as it hollow -- fire is hot, water is wet -- more or less good equivalent. I assume that's because you use "good sources"? I'd suggest you don't tell me what I should use, and I won't tell you where you should go and what to do with yourself, so we keep this civilized, ok?

While Al-Jazeera will be biased towards certain ME politics, it's very good at reporting on Western affairs, and Reuters on generally all affairs as it prides itself on being impartial. With those photographs, it was never proven if they were fake, and at any rate were provided by the AP, a trustworthy source. If they were staged, that will have been on account of a rogue photographer and nothing to do with Reuters or AP.

You last paragraph is little more than "You can't tell me what to do". I'm giving you good advice - it's up to you whether you take it or have a tantrum.



ps4tw said:

You last paragraph is little more than "You can't tell me what to do". I'm giving you good advice - it's up to you whether you take it or have a tantrum.

I suggest you either post on topic or beat it, that's not an advice thread.