Saudi coalition used US bombs in obliterating Yemen market

[webfact]

Saudi coalition used US bombs in obliterating Yemen market
By MAGGIE MICHAEL and JON GAMBRELL

CAIRO (AP) — A Saudi-led coalition battling Shiite rebels and their allies in Yemen used U.S.-supplied bombs in an airstrike last month on a market that killed at least 119 people, a human rights group said Thursday, further highlighting American involvement in the conflict.

The March 15 bombing targeting the northwestern town of Mastaba marked the second-deadliest airstrike of the year-long Saudi-helmed campaign — and the results were horrific. Survivors said the outdoor market, next to a shantytown inhabited largely by people who fled there from other battle zones, was obliterated by double strikes that came about 10 minutes apart, with mangled bodies thrown hundreds of yards away.

"I saw the sky raining ball of black fire," recalled a 30-year-old gas worker Omar Mallah, whose brother and several other relatives were killed.

Human Rights Watch said its investigators traveled to the town in Yemen's northwestern Hajja province, controlled by the Shiite rebels known as Houthis. There, the group said it found fragments of a 900-kilogram (2,000-pound) MK-84 bomb and a kind of satellite-guidance hardware known as a JDAM, which together are known as a GBU-31 bomb.

The group said the bomb, as well as its guidance equipment, was supplied by the U.S. Their finding matched an earlier report by British television channel ITV, which said its journalists found remnants of what likely was another MK-84 bomb and a different kind of satellite guiding system supplied by the United States.

"One of the deadliest strikes against civilians in Yemen's yearlong war involved U.S.-supplied weapons, illustrating tragically why countries should stop selling arms to Saudi Arabia," Priyanka Motaparthy, emergencies researcher at Human Rights Watch, said in a statement. "The U.S. and other coalition allies should send a clear message to Saudi Arabia that they want no part in unlawful killings of civilians."

Rights groups have repeatedly warned that U.S. and European weapons sold to Saudi Arabia could be used in strikes violating international law. Saudi Arabia and its allies launched their air campaign in March 2015 aiming to stop advances by the rebels, known as Houthis, who had driven the government out of the capital.

Since then, fighting between the rebels and Saudi-backed factions and airstrikes have killed at least 9,000 people, an estimated 3,000 of them civilians, according to the U.N., which says at least 60 percent of the civilian deaths come from strikes, which have often hit crowded areas including markets, hospitals, factories, schools and residential districts. Coalition officials dispute those figures. The war has displaced 2.4 million people and caused widespread malnutrition.

U.S. Central Command, which oversees American military action in the Mideast, declined to comment on specifics about the Mastaba bombing, saying that the "selection and final vetting of targets in the campaign are made by the members of the Saudi-led coalition, not the United States."

"The U.S. is confident that the information that we relay and noncombat support we provide to Saudi Arabia and other coalition members is sound and provides them the best options for military success consistent with international norms and specifically mitigating the potential for civilian casualties," U.S. Navy Cmdr. Kyle Raines, a Central Command spokesman, said in a statement to The Associated Press.

The U.S. is believed to offer the Saudi-led coalition satellite images and other intelligence about Yemen to guide its campaign.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, asked about the report during a visit to Bahrain, said, "I don't have any solid information, any documentation with respect to what weapon might have been used."

"Whatever weapons are being used, our preference is that all shooting stops," he said.

Saudi officials have said they were investigating the strike, though they previously insisted most of the casualties were Houthi combatants.

Coalition spokesman Brig. Gen. Ahmed al-Asiri sent the AP a map via Whatsapp showing three red circles: One identified as a Houthi gathering position, a second as a small market adjacent to the Houthi position and a third as the large market. He said the airstrikes hit the small market next to Houthi gathering because this is where the militants were buying qat, a leaf chewed by Yemenis.

The Human Rights Watch report said there was a Houthi checkpoint about 250 yards (meters) from the market. It cited witnesses saying 10 Houthi fighters were among the dead in the market.

At Mastaba, relatives of several victims recounted to the AP a horrific scene, searching for days for body parts strewn over a wide area, over trees and rooftops, some as far as a sports center about a quarter-mile (half kilometer) away. Many were eventually buried in a nearby mass grave.

Mastaba was considered a safe haven for those fleeing towns closer to the Saudi border that were heavily pounded in airstrikes. Impoverished residents of a nearby slum of mud-brick houses often sent their children to work in the qat market. UNICEF said 22 children were among the dead in the strikes.

The timing of the airstrikes, at a time when people stock up on qat before lunchtime, contributed to the high death toll. Witnesses said that as rescuers came in to help victims of the first strike, the second strike hit.

Hassan Mafafi said it took him a whole day to locate one piece of remains from his 18-year-old son, Abdel-Rahman. He found his right leg, which he recognized from a scar marking an old axe wound. Choking back tears, he said he still couldn't bring himself to look at his son's picture tucked in his wallet.

Mansour al-Bakili said he collected 18 pieces he believed were body parts of his son, Mohammed. "We put them all in cloth and buried them," he said.
___

Gambrell reported from Dubai, United Arab Emirates. Associated Press writer Bradley Klapper in Manama, Bahrain, contributed to this report.


-- (c) Associated Press 2016-04-08

[wabothai]

"Our preference is that all shooting stops", but in the mean time you have our blessings (weapens).

Says it all. Where is your bloody guts Obama?

[ToS2014]

Not that I'm a big betting man but I would bet that the Saudi's used US supplied airplanes too! Wonder if Russia was their main weapons supplier if this would have made the news?

[2fishin2]

Better to see the manufacture of rebels weapons....

Edited April 8, 2016 by 2fishin2

[2fishin2]

"Our preference is that all shooting stops", but in the mean time you have our blessings (weapens).

Says it all. Where is your bloody guts Obama?

Huh??

[Geoffggi]

Exactly what difference does it make who manufactured or supplied the weapons, Planes, bullets, guns & Bombs don't kill people, it is purely down to the people that use them, and as has already been stated if America didn't supply them then Russia, China, France or UK etc. would have been ready to step into the breach and supply the items required, after all arms supply is one of the most lucrative markets in the world.

[wabothai]

"Our preference is that all shooting stops", but in the mean time you have our blessings (weapens).

Says it all. Where is your bloody guts Obama?

Huh??

Obama does not dare calling a total stop to this madness. Puppet?

[2fishin2]

"Our preference is that all shooting stops", but in the mean time you have our blessings (weapens).

Says it all. Where is your bloody guts Obama?

Huh??

Obama does not dare calling a total stop to this madness. Puppet?

This thread isnt about Obama.

[simple1]

Exactly what difference does it make who manufactured or supplied the weapons, Planes, bullets, guns & Bombs don't kill people, it is purely down to the people that use them, and as has already been stated if America didn't supply them then Russia, China, France or UK etc. would have been ready to step into the breach and supply the items required, after all arms supply is one of the most lucrative markets in the world.

Saudis are using US supplied cluster bombs, at the very least UK no longer supplies these weapons that cause terrible causalities in civilian areas, even after cessation of hostilities.

[Naam]

"Our preference is that all shooting stops", but in the mean time you have our blessings (weapens).

Says it all. Where is your bloody guts Obama?

Huh??

Obama does not dare calling a total stop to this madness. Puppet?

last time i checked President Obama was not an adviser of the Saudi Government.

Edited April 8, 2016 by Naam

[Steely Dan]

It's all totally bogus, just as NGO's slander Israel they have moved on to Saudi Arabia. The question being why?

http://www.thomaswictor.com/disgracing-its-name-human-rights-watch/

[simple1]

It's all totally bogus, just as NGO's slander Israel they have moved on to Saudi Arabia. The question being why?

http://www.thomaswictor.com/disgracing-its-name-human-rights-watch/

There are groups who deliberately attempt to smear Human Rights organisations. The site you refer to from time to time has previously used doctored photo's / misinformation for smear purposes - why? who funds and assists with the content? what's the real agenda?

Below is the reporting by HRW on the marketplace slaughter and other events with killings of civilians in Yemen by Saudi & coalition forces.

https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/04/07/yemen-us-bombs-used-deadliest-market-strike

It's interesting the use of mercenaries by the Sunni dictatorships, who would not abide by the rules of war, in Yemen is rarely mentioned.

Edited April 9, 2016 by simple1

[Steely Dan]

It's all totally bogus, just as NGO's slander Israel they have moved on to Saudi Arabia. The question being why?

http://www.thomaswictor.com/disgracing-its-name-human-rights-watch/

There are groups who deliberately attempt to smear Human Rights organisations. The site you refer to from time to time has previously used doctored photo's / misinformation for smear purposes - why? who funds and assists with the content? what's the real agenda?

Below is the reporting by HRW on the marketplace slaughter and other events with killings of civilians in Yemen by Saudi & coalition forces.

https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/04/07/yemen-us-bombs-used-deadliest-market-strike

It's interesting the use of mercenaries by the Sunni dictatorships, who would not abide by the rules of war, in Yemen is rarely mentioned.

You need proof to assert 'mercenaries' don't abide by the rules of war. I can equally assert that the Houthis use the Hamas tactic of using human shields by placing their operations within the heart of civilian areas, they even kidnap migrants for said purpose.

http://www.almotamar.net/en/6636.htm

Your link is mostly just a regurgitation of the o.p. As for casualty lists they tend to be fiction when scrutinized. For example Amnesty international spent a stack of donors money on some software that supposedly showed the casualties from Israel's last operation in Gaza. The figures were actually a direct lift from those provided by Hamas proxies. Countless supposed child victims turned out to be adult combatants in their mid-twenties. Do you really expect any different from Human rights watch?

They should submit their 'evidence' directly to the ICC not lobby governments supplying Saudi Arabia, have they done that and if not why not?

Edited April 9, 2016 by Steely Dan

[Scott]

Off-topic posts and replies removed. Please stay on topic.

[simple1]

It's all totally bogus, just as NGO's slander Israel they have moved on to Saudi Arabia. The question being why?

http://www.thomaswictor.com/disgracing-its-name-human-rights-watch/

There are groups who deliberately attempt to smear Human Rights organisations. The site you refer to from time to time has previously used doctored photo's / misinformation for smear purposes - why? who funds and assists with the content? what's the real agenda?

Below is the reporting by HRW on the marketplace slaughter and other events with killings of civilians in Yemen by Saudi & coalition forces.

https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/04/07/yemen-us-bombs-used-deadliest-market-strike

It's interesting the use of mercenaries by the Sunni dictatorships, who would not abide by the rules of war, in Yemen is rarely mentioned.

You need proof to assert 'mercenaries' don't abide by the rules of war. I can equally assert that the Houthis use the Hamas tactic of using human shields by placing their operations within the heart of civilian areas, they even kidnap migrants for said purpose.

http://www.almotamar.net/en/6636.htm

Your link is mostly just a regurgitation of the o.p. As for casualty lists they tend to be fiction when scrutinized. For example Amnesty international spent a stack of donors money on some software that supposedly showed the casualties from Israel's last operation in Gaza. The figures were actually a direct lift from those provided by Hamas proxies. Countless supposed child victims turned out to be adult combatants in their mid-twenties. Do you really expect any different from Human rights watch?

They should submit their 'evidence' directly to the ICC not lobby governments supplying Saudi Arabia, have they done that and if not why not?

No answer to my main question; nevermind.

Both AI and HRW report on abuses by various parties engaged in conflict and oppression, including non State actors plus lobbying, successfully, for the release of hundreds if not thousands of political prisoners held in detention who are usually subjected to torture. So yes, I do respect both AI & HRW..

Although it's off topic, in case you overlooked the report, AI also reported on Hamas abuse / war crimes in Gaza during the latest conflict with Israel. I'm assuming you're referring to the forensic tools utilised by AI for their reporting on the Gaza conflict.

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2015/07/gaza-cutting-edge-investigation-rafah/

I agree none of the parties in the Yemeni conflict are clean skins. If you’re of the view the hundreds of mercenaries hired by the UAE from Latin America, Sudan and Eritrea are fighting a 'clean' war in Yemen, so be it. BTW both AI & HRW have reported on the use of torture, disappearances, detention of political prisoners and so on by the UAE

So far as ICC is concerned they usually act on requests from UN Security Council or individual member States, though they do work closely with NGO's for gathering evidence.

[Steely Dan]

It's all totally bogus, just as NGO's slander Israel they have moved on to Saudi Arabia. The question being why?

http://www.thomaswictor.com/disgracing-its-name-human-rights-watch/

There are groups who deliberately attempt to smear Human Rights organisations. The site you refer to from time to time has previously used doctored photo's / misinformation for smear purposes - why? who funds and assists with the content? what's the real agenda?

Below is the reporting by HRW on the marketplace slaughter and other events with killings of civilians in Yemen by Saudi & coalition forces.

https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/04/07/yemen-us-bombs-used-deadliest-market-strike

It's interesting the use of mercenaries by the Sunni dictatorships, who would not abide by the rules of war, in Yemen is rarely mentioned.

You need proof to assert 'mercenaries' don't abide by the rules of war. I can equally assert that the Houthis use the Hamas tactic of using human shields by placing their operations within the heart of civilian areas, they even kidnap migrants for said purpose.

http://www.almotamar.net/en/6636.htm

Your link is mostly just a regurgitation of the o.p. As for casualty lists they tend to be fiction when scrutinized. For example Amnesty international spent a stack of donors money on some software that supposedly showed the casualties from Israel's last operation in Gaza. The figures were actually a direct lift from those provided by Hamas proxies. Countless supposed child victims turned out to be adult combatants in their mid-twenties. Do you really expect any different from Human rights watch?

They should submit their 'evidence' directly to the ICC not lobby governments supplying Saudi Arabia, have they done that and if not why not?

No answer to my main question; nevermind.

Both AI and HRW report on abuses by various parties engaged in conflict and oppression, including non State actors plus lobbying, successfully, for the release of hundreds if not thousands of political prisoners held in detention who are usually subjected to torture. So yes, I do respect both AI & HRW..

Although it's off topic, in case you overlooked the report, AI also reported on Hamas abuse / war crimes in Gaza during the latest conflict with Israel. I'm assuming you're referring to the forensic tools utilised by AI for their reporting on the Gaza conflict.

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2015/07/gaza-cutting-edge-investigation-rafah/

I agree none of the parties in the Yemeni conflict are clean skins. If you’re of the view the hundreds of mercenaries hired by the UAE from Latin America, Sudan and Eritrea are fighting a 'clean' war in Yemen, so be it. BTW both AI & HRW have reported on the use of torture, disappearances, detention of political prisoners and so on by the UAE

So far as ICC is concerned they usually act on requests from UN Security Council or individual member States, though they do work closely with NGO's for gathering evidence.

Your main point would probably take us off topic to reply to it, basically it boils down to source policing. Yes Thomas Wictor has written at length about dodgy NGO's backed up by photographs, kindly give me a source for evidence he doctored photos if you have it. I could equally ask you what's the agenda of HRW and who funds them? I have a stack of information regarding the bias and dishonesty of HRW. I will limit my observations to the Times, where it was mentioned that Iran was not a bad guy they were interested in highlighting. Now the Houthis in Yemen are proxies of Iran so it becomes obvious which side HRW will favour in the Yemen conflict. Edited April 9, 2016 by Steely Dan

[simple1]

There are groups who deliberately attempt to smear Human Rights organisations. The site you refer to from time to time has previously used doctored photo's / misinformation for smear purposes - why? who funds and assists with the content? what's the real agenda?

Below is the reporting by HRW on the marketplace slaughter and other events with killings of civilians in Yemen by Saudi & coalition forces.

https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/04/07/yemen-us-bombs-used-deadliest-market-strike

It's interesting the use of mercenaries by the Sunni dictatorships, who would not abide by the rules of war, in Yemen is rarely mentioned.

You need proof to assert 'mercenaries' don't abide by the rules of war. I can equally assert that the Houthis use the Hamas tactic of using human shields by placing their operations within the heart of civilian areas, they even kidnap migrants for said purpose.

http://www.almotamar.net/en/6636.htm

Your link is mostly just a regurgitation of the o.p. As for casualty lists they tend to be fiction when scrutinized. For example Amnesty international spent a stack of donors money on some software that supposedly showed the casualties from Israel's last operation in Gaza. The figures were actually a direct lift from those provided by Hamas proxies. Countless supposed child victims turned out to be adult combatants in their mid-twenties. Do you really expect any different from Human rights watch?

They should submit their 'evidence' directly to the ICC not lobby governments supplying Saudi Arabia, have they done that and if not why not?

No answer to my main question; nevermind.

Both AI and HRW report on abuses by various parties engaged in conflict and oppression, including non State actors plus lobbying, successfully, for the release of hundreds if not thousands of political prisoners held in detention who are usually subjected to torture. So yes, I do respect both AI & HRW..

Although it's off topic, in case you overlooked the report, AI also reported on Hamas abuse / war crimes in Gaza during the latest conflict with Israel. I'm assuming you're referring to the forensic tools utilised by AI for their reporting on the Gaza conflict.

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2015/07/gaza-cutting-edge-investigation-rafah/

I agree none of the parties in the Yemeni conflict are clean skins. If you’re of the view the hundreds of mercenaries hired by the UAE from Latin America, Sudan and Eritrea are fighting a 'clean' war in Yemen, so be it. BTW both AI & HRW have reported on the use of torture, disappearances, detention of political prisoners and so on by the UAE

So far as ICC is concerned they usually act on requests from UN Security Council or individual member States, though they do work closely with NGO's for gathering evidence.

Your main point would probably take us off topic to reply to it, basically it boils down to source policing. Yes Thomas Wictor has written at length about dodgy NGO's backed up by photographs, kindly give me a source for evidence he doctored photos if you have it. I could equally ask you what's the agenda of HRW and who funds them? I have a stack of information regarding the bias and dishonesty of HRW. I will limit my observations to the Times, where it was mentioned that Iran was not a bad guy they were interested in highlighting. Now the Houthis in Yemen are proxies of Iran so it becomes obvious which side HRW will favour in the Yemen conflict.

Post removed to enable reply.

Last response.

Doctored photo example:

http://gawker.com/david-frums-apology-for-his-nutty-theory-links-to-more-1613454088

I guess you're referring to Soros regards HRW, there are numerous conspiracy theories concerning Soros, but anyone who utilises Karl Popper for the development of his world view has my utmost respect.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Soros_conspiracy_theories

Don't know how you can link HRW supporting Iran & Houthis when HRW has issued a number of reports heavily criticising both.

[chuckd]

Your main point would probably take us off topic to reply to it, basically it boils down to source policing. Yes Thomas Wictor has written at length about dodgy NGO's backed up by photographs, kindly give me a source for evidence he doctored photos if you have it. I could equally ask you what's the agenda of HRW and who funds them? I have a stack of information regarding the bias and dishonesty of HRW. I will limit my observations to the Times, where it was mentioned that Iran was not a bad guy they were interested in highlighting. Now the Houthis in Yemen are proxies of Iran so it becomes obvious which side HRW will favour in the Yemen conflict.

" I could equally ask you what's the agenda of HRW and who funds them?"

Human Rights Watch is on the list of George Soros funded organizations.

That should help explain their agenda.

"

• Human Rights Watch: This group directs a disproportionate share of its criticism at the United States and Israel. It opposes the death penalty in all cases, and supports open borders and amnesty for illegal aliens."

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=1237

[chuckd]

Perhaps this lifted from HRC's own site will remove all doubt they are a Soros sponsored group.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Partners

Human Rights Watch is grateful to these organizations for their partnership and support.

https://www.hrw.org/about/partners

[Steely Dan]

There are groups who deliberately attempt to smear Human Rights organisations. The site you refer to from time to time has previously used doctored photo's / misinformation for smear purposes - why? who funds and assists with the content? what's the real agenda?

Below is the reporting by HRW on the marketplace slaughter and other events with killings of civilians in Yemen by Saudi & coalition forces.

https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/04/07/yemen-us-bombs-used-deadliest-market-strike

It's interesting the use of mercenaries by the Sunni dictatorships, who would not abide by the rules of war, in Yemen is rarely mentioned.

You need proof to assert 'mercenaries' don't abide by the rules of war. I can equally assert that the Houthis use the Hamas tactic of using human shields by placing their operations within the heart of civilian areas, they even kidnap migrants for said purpose.

http://www.almotamar.net/en/6636.htm

Your link is mostly just a regurgitation of the o.p. As for casualty lists they tend to be fiction when scrutinized. For example Amnesty international spent a stack of donors money on some software that supposedly showed the casualties from Israel's last operation in Gaza. The figures were actually a direct lift from those provided by Hamas proxies. Countless supposed child victims turned out to be adult combatants in their mid-twenties. Do you really expect any different from Human rights watch?

They should submit their 'evidence' directly to the ICC not lobby governments supplying Saudi Arabia, have they done that and if not why not?

No answer to my main question; nevermind.

Both AI and HRW report on abuses by various parties engaged in conflict and oppression, including non State actors plus lobbying, successfully, for the release of hundreds if not thousands of political prisoners held in detention who are usually subjected to torture. So yes, I do respect both AI & HRW..

Although it's off topic, in case you overlooked the report, AI also reported on Hamas abuse / war crimes in Gaza during the latest conflict with Israel. I'm assuming you're referring to the forensic tools utilised by AI for their reporting on the Gaza conflict.

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2015/07/gaza-cutting-edge-investigation-rafah/

I agree none of the parties in the Yemeni conflict are clean skins. If you’re of the view the hundreds of mercenaries hired by the UAE from Latin America, Sudan and Eritrea are fighting a 'clean' war in Yemen, so be it. BTW both AI & HRW have reported on the use of torture, disappearances, detention of political prisoners and so on by the UAE

So far as ICC is concerned they usually act on requests from UN Security Council or individual member States, though they do work closely with NGO's for gathering evidence.

Your main point would probably take us off topic to reply to it, basically it boils down to source policing. Yes Thomas Wictor has written at length about dodgy NGO's backed up by photographs, kindly give me a source for evidence he doctored photos if you have it. I could equally ask you what's the agenda of HRW and who funds them? I have a stack of information regarding the bias and dishonesty of HRW. I will limit my observations to the Times, where it was mentioned that Iran was not a bad guy they were interested in highlighting. Now the Houthis in Yemen are proxies of Iran so it becomes obvious which side HRW will favour in the Yemen conflict.

Post removed to enable reply.

Last response.

Doctored photo example:

http://gawker.com/david-frums-apology-for-his-nutty-theory-links-to-more-1613454088

I guess you're referring to Soros regards HRW, there are numerous conspiracy theories concerning Soros, but anyone who utilises Karl Popper for the development of his world view has my utmost respect.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Soros_conspiracy_theories

Don't know how you can link HRW supporting Iran & Houthis when HRW has issued a number of reports heavily criticising both.

Is that all you've got? Incidentally The Ali Gharib (Iranian American) who talked to Thomas Wictor set out to create a hit piece. Thomas Wictor never claimed photos were doctored, but stated Hamas set up the scenes photographers photographed.
For reference his response, then back to topic.

http://www.thomaswictor.com/ali-gharib-will-be-eating-his-words-fairly-soon/

So no photos were actually doctored, yet your first mention of Thomas Wictor in this thread suggested that he himself had fabricated photos to discredit HRW, nonsense he interpreted public domain photos.

Incidentally do you know just how much guided ordinance costs compared to the dumb bombs the Russians drop? We are talking a few thousand pounds verses half a million. If the Saudis didn't care about civilian casualties they would drop non guided bombs and save a stack of money. The o.p mentions signs of guidance systems found, which in itself would suggest targeted attacks not indiscriminate ones.

As I stated if there's any substance in the report HRW either themselves or using a government as proxy will take up the case with the ICC. Edited April 9, 2016 by Scott