21 Jun '18 23:23>1 edit
Originally posted by @deepthoughtIn his zeal to 'defend' (as he originally wrote and later retracted perhaps because it
War crimes are a technical matter. You brought up the war in Syria, not I. Since what is at issue is US and UK hypocrisy the comparison is relevant. Saudi has not been accused of the use of chemical weapons. They have been accused of a persistent failure of distinction in their targeting. If you want to show that Saudi is no different to Syria in t ...[text shortened]... construct a case, but complaining that I won't accept vague generalities won't get you very far.
seemed politically embarrassing) the UK government's position on Yemen, DeepThought
keeps being extremely disingenuous.
"War crimes are a technical matter."
This thread is named 'Hypocrisy Over Yemen', NOT 'War Crimes in Yemen'.
Clearly, I did NOT originally intend to start an extremely legalistic argument (better reserved
for a courtroom) among the non-lawyers here. I intended a more general discussion.
"You brought up the war in Syria, not I."
That was only in response to DeepThought's trolling me that my writing on the war in Yemen
was somehow supposed to help China. I don't know of any Chinese involvement in Yemen.
So I explained that a better analogy would be with the civil war in Syria.
"Saudi has not been accused of the use of chemical weapons."
1) Saudi Arabia is fighting a war of choice in Yemen, a foreign civil war.
If Saudi Arabia loses that war, the House of Saud still will be quite safe.
2) Assad is fighting a war of survival in Syria. If Assad loses, then he may well be killed
and many of his Alawite followers may be massacred. That's not to excuse everything
that Assad has done. but it points out that the stakes are much higher for Assad, and
so he has more motivation to act ruthlessly.
"Since what is at issue is US and UK hypocrisy ..."
My general position is that the UK or USA tend to act in the Middle East on account of
expediency due to self-interest rather than consistent moral (or even legal) principle.
That's enough to account for hypocrisy.
I had regarded my position as rather unobjectionable. Many American and British
people have criticized the USA or UK"s lack of consistent moral principle in the Middle East.
Need I quote Noam Chomsky? I already have cited articles ranging from an editorial in
the 'Guardian' to one in an American conservative publication criticizing what the USA
or UK has done in Yemen. DeepThought may prefer to ignore these articles.
Apparently, DeepThought prefers to deny that the USA and UK have acted hypocritically
in Yemen, if not also generally in the Middle East. Therefore, would DeepThought avow
that the USA and UK have acted according to consistent moral (or legal) principle?
"Anything Saudi Arabia supports is generally evil. And anything the US (and Britain generally as well)
does in the Middle-East has to do with oil and / or stupidity covered in hypocrisy and evil."
Apparently, Shavixmir strongly disagrees with DeepThought.