The Arab Spring and "the War on Terror"

[peterms]

5 minutes ago, blandy said:

The RAF personnel in KSA are seconded UK military personnel conducting their roles legally, quaintly under an oath to the Queen, and the UK support to KSA is under a government to government contract/agreement. They aren't and haven't been helping the Saudis with targetting wedding parties or anything else in Yemen. SO, that;'s why there's no chance at all of any of them being in a legally problematic position and nothing's going to happen to them. But then you know that anyway. Still, chuck it in there, eh? why not. Muddy the water a bit. Everyone loves a conspiracy and cover up theory. Bit of false news never hurt anyone, did it? And it sort of makes an argument look stronger if it's got a bit of a guilt-heartstrings puller in it, even if it is untrue.

Quote

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/saudiarabia/12102089/UK-military-working-alongside-Saudi-bomb-targeters-in-Yemen-war.html

Quote

UK military 'working alongside' Saudi bomb targeters in Yemen war

Saudi foreign minister confirms claims that British military advisers are in operation room of heavily criticised bombing campaign

British military advisers are in control rooms assisting the Saudi-led coalition staging bombing raids across Yemen that have killed thousands of civilians, the Saudi foreign minister and the Ministry of Defence have confirmed.

The Saudi air force, along with the United Arab Emirates and other Gulf allies, have backed the internationally recognised government in Yemen against a rebellion that swept much of the country from the north.

But this coalition has been heavily criticised for striking civilian targets, and Britain is under particular fire as a major weapons supplier to the Saudi air force.

The admission that British officers were working alongside Saudi and other coalition colleagues in the campaign’s operations rooms came in a briefing to The Telegraph and other journalists by the Saudi foreign minister, Adel al-Jubeir.

 

“We asked a number of allied countries to come and be part of the control centre,” he said. “I know they are aware of the target lists.”

The Ministry of Defence said that the military officials were not directly choosing targets or typing in codes for the Saudi “smart bombs” but confirmed that they were training their counterparts in doing so.

“We support Saudi forces through long-standing, pre-existing arrangements,” a spokesman said, adding that the purpose of training was to ensure “best practice” and compliance with international humanitarian law.

 

Human rights groups claim more than 3,000 civilians have died since the war began with the attack by the Houthi rebels and forces loyal to former President Ali Abdullah al-Saleh on the capital Sana’a in 2014.

Most of those are said to have been from the Saudi-led coalition bombing campaign. As well as human rights groups, Oxfam and other charities have called for Britain to stop arms sales to Saudi Arabia while the bombing campaign continues.

 

On Sunday, a hospital run by Medecins Sans Frontieres was hit, even though the group says it has provided the coalition with coordinates of its facilities.

Mr Jubeir defended the campaign, saying that battle damage assessment showed many of the claims of atrocities were false. He said that cases where civilians were hit were examined and if mistakes were made they were acknowledged.

That claim is disputed by Human Rights Watch, which has accused the coalition of failing to investigate civilian deaths. However he did win some support from the group on Wednesday when an HRW report said that a compound housing a school for the blind in Sana’a, which was struck by a heavily criticised air strike on January 5, had been used as a military base by the Houthis.

 

[blandy]

5 minutes ago, peterms said:

...The Ministry of Defence said that the military officials were not directly choosing targets or typing in codes for the Saudi “smart bombs” but confirmed that they were training their counterparts in doing so...

So, as I said. They aren't and haven't been helping the Saudis with targetting wedding parties or anything else, as you know.

It's like saying why isn't the driving instructor or driving school prosecuted when a drunk driver, or ram-raider (do they still have those) or a getaway car is used in a bank robbery?

[Wainy316]

Whatever your views on whether or not she should be readmitted, it is very clear from her interviews that she is a complete and utter knob.

[Wainy316]

On 17/02/2019 at 11:31, Xela said:

Was there any ever instances of Brits aligning themselves with Nazi Germany in the second world war? If so what was the punishment? Just interested to see if that situation ever arose. 

King Edward VIII was a pretty prominent name with Nazi sympathies.

[peterms]

6 minutes ago, blandy said:

So, as I said. They aren't and haven't been helping the Saudis with targetting wedding parties or anything else, as you know.

When wedding parties have been attacked, in Yemen and Iraq and other places, the explanation normally given is that a large grouping of people was mistaken for an insurgent force.  As I said, and which you said doesn't happen, we help the Saudi target their assaults.  Their assaults, as a matter of fact, have included killing wedding parties.  Presumably our people have not been deliberately targetting or helping others target what they know to be wedding parties.

On your analogy, if the driving instructor were in the getaway car, they would be prosecuted.  The Telegraph article says our people are in the control rooms, and reports our MoD as saying that they are not directly choosing targets.

[blandy]

48 minutes ago, peterms said:

...British officers were working alongside Saudi and other coalition colleagues in the campaign’s operations rooms...

Just another point on this and the "wedding attacks".

There are essentially 2 different types of targetting. The first type is like "there's a facility (say a bunker, or an airfield or a garrison) that we (generic "we" as in an attacker, not the UK "we", for clarity ) are going to attack. A mission is planned, on the ground. The target co-ordinates are known, are fixed and can be programmed into attack computers, cruise missiles, etc. A record is kept and available of what and where the target is. If a school or a church were to be such a target, then there's a record of potential war-crimes. Mission planning equipment is complex enough that training in its use is essential. In the event of incorrect co-ordinates being given for a location, or used in an attack, then post mission analysis will revela this and steps can be taken to eradicate further occurrences.

The second type of targetting is targets of opportunity  - where the crew of an aircraft are looking for say vehicles, concealed gun positions, mobile roacket launchers etc. These targets are not pre-planned or pre-loaded. They may or may not pop up. People in a room on the ground cannot know beforehand for sure that these targets are there or will be found. The pilot / Nav can make mistakes, though they would be rare for a well trained force. But mistakes do happen. 

In neither instance can an RAF observer on the ground prevent a Saudi pilot or Nav from either missing a legitimate target, or illegitimately attacking a invalid "target" such as a wedding an ambulance or whatever.

The only thing preventing a human in a bomber from ultimately attacking a target is that human's training, skills, obligation, judgement, duty, abilities etc.

So there's a big leap from reality to what you and/or others seem to infer and imply about the RAF personnel in KSA. It's just a completely false comparison..

 

[blandy]

20 minutes ago, peterms said:

we help the Saudi target their assaults

We do not.

[peterms]

45 minutes ago, blandy said:

We do not.

So when the MoD say that we do not directly choose targets or type in codes for the smart bombs but train the Saudis in doing so, and when we learn that our staff sit alongside the Saudis in the control rooms, you consider that not to be helping them to target their assaults?  I don't know what else you could reasonably call it.

[blandy]

4 minutes ago, peterms said:

So when the MoD say that we do not directly choose targets or type in codes for the smart bombs but train the Saudis in doing so, and when we learn that our staff sit alongside the Saudis in the control rooms, you consider that not to be helping them to target their assaults?  I don't know what else you could reasonably call it.

Training someone how to use a piece of equipment for example a computer, or a car or a Mission Planner is not the same as helping them commit cyberfraud, or hit and run, or war crimes. Particularly when that training specifically involves adhering to the law, adhering to procedures to prevent civilian casualties, targetting errors etc. I've already explained how "planning a mission on the ground" cannot prevent pilot's going rogue/making mistakes.

If you wish to think the worst of things, I can't help you. I can't make you accept that people from the RAF endeavour to train Saudis etc. so they have the competence and skills to avoid accidentally bombing weddings . I can't make you disbelieve something just because there's no evidence to support what you say you believe "RAF personnel were helping the Saudis with targetting.. [&] ..killing wedding parties." I can't make you see that these RAF personnel not setting the targets, not programming the weapons is not them helping kill wedding guests. If you want to believe whatever, crack on with it.

It's a shame though, because belieiving the cause or fault for terrible things lies in the wrong area isn't going to help with understanding what needs to be different.

 

[peterms]

3 minutes ago, blandy said:

Training someone how to use a piece of equipment for example a computer, or a car or a Mission Planner is not the same as helping them commit cyberfraud, or hit and run, or war crimes. Particularly when that training specifically involves adhering to the law, adhering to procedures to prevent civilian casualties, targetting errors etc. I've already explained how "planning a mission on the ground" cannot prevent pilot's going rogue/making mistakes.

If you wish to think the worst of things, I can't help you. I can't make you accept that people from the RAF endeavour to train Saudis etc. so they have the competence and skills to avoid accidentally bombing weddings . I can't make you disbelieve something just because there's no evidence to support what you say you believe "RAF personnel were helping the Saudis with targetting.. [&] ..killing wedding parties." I can't make you see that these RAF personnel not setting the targets, not programming the weapons is not them helping kill wedding guests. If you want to believe whatever, crack on with it.

It's a shame though, because belieiving the cause or fault for terrible things lies in the wrong area isn't going to help with understanding what needs to be different.

 

Training someone to use a computer who later uses the computer to commit crimes is really very different from sitting alongside someone while they commit the crime, isn't it?  And coming back the next day, and the next, and the next, in full knowledge of what has been happening.

As Andrew Mitchell says,

Quote

The British government finds itself not on the side of innocent families who fear the fire that falls from above, but on the side of the perpetrator

Though his phrase "finds itself" rather underplays the degree of agency and choice involved here.

[blandy]

1 hour ago, peterms said:

Training someone to use a computer who later uses the computer to commit crimes is really very different from sitting alongside someone while they commit the crime, isn't it?

They're not sitting alongside someone while they commit a crime. There is a difference between training someone how to perform a ground activity (Mission planning) and conducting that activity (Mission planning). There is then a further huge gap between performing Mission Planning and a Pilot dropping a bomb accidentally on a wedding. There is a further gap still if we consider deliberately dropping a bomb on a wedding. The person who trained the planner, who they planned a mission to bomb a (say) arms convoy, which was then flown by a pilot who either accidentally or deliberately bombed not the convoy, but the wedding - the original trainer is not "helping" bomb the wedding.

You appear to have started with the horrifying evidence of a destroyed wedding, a hospital attacked etc. and with no further evidence decided that the RAF are (partially) to blame. It just isn't so. The RAF does not plan the missions, does not fly the missions, does not drop the bombs (accidentally or deliberately or at all), has no command or control over the Saudi Air Force, does not participate in the operations. And back to your orignal question that's why comparison with people joining ISIS is utterly ludicrous.

If you were to suggest that the efforts of UK personnel to bring a stop to the high number of civillian casualties / indiscriminate killing /however you want to phrase it have borne little fruit, similalrly to how the efforts of the international communitiy to bring about a ceasefire have also borne litte fruit then I'd agree. But starting off with "the RAF is helping bomb weddings" is ludicrous and unfounded.

[blandy]

1 hour ago, peterms said:

Quote

The British government finds itself not on the side of innocent families who fear the fire that falls from above, but on the side of the perpetrator

 

The MP is right. It's a different thing to what you raised, but yes, he's right.

[peterms]

3 minutes ago, blandy said:

You appear to have started with the horrifying evidence of a destroyed wedding, a hospital attacked etc. and with no further evidence decided that the RAF are (partially) to blame. It just isn't so. The RAF does not plan the missions, does not fly the missions, does not drop the bombs (accidentally or deliberately or at all), has no command or control over the Saudi Air Force, does not participate in the operations. And back to your orignal question that's why comparison with people joining ISIS is utterly ludicrous.

Well, I'm referencing the opinion of a Tory MP that we are complicit in this conflict in support of my view that we are indeed very complicit - it's a view shared across a fairly wide spectrum of opinion.  I'm quoting the Saudi government and our MoD in establishing what role our personnel have in operations, which apparently is sitting in the control rooms while operations are happening, not inputting the codes on the missiles but training others in how to do it.  You've suggested that the training preceded operations in time, like the driving instructor/getaway car analogy, suggesting that we have no responsibility for what happens afterwards, but the comments from the MoD appear to show that our involvement is more than that.  Since the attacks on civilians are not a one-off, but a long saga of incidents, then continuing the supply of weapons and the training in the light of that knowledge raises different issues than otherwise, don't you think?

On the original question, since we are not at war and therefore the legal protections afforded to military personnel in wars don't apply, if the Saudis are committing acts which appear to qualify as war crimes and we continue to assist them both by supplying weapons and training them in their use, then I think there's a question to be asked about the degree of responsibility for individuals in addition to governments.  I don't understand why you think such a question is ludicrous.  It seems exactly the kind of thing which international law is likely to address, but as I say, I don't know what the legal position is in this situation, though I know it's been established that carrying out orders has been found not to be a defence in some situations.

[blandy]

44 minutes ago, peterms said:

Well, I'm referencing the opinion of a Tory MP that we are complicit in this conflict in support of my view that we are indeed very complicit - it's a view shared across a fairly wide spectrum of opinion.  I'm quoting the Saudi government and our MoD in establishing what role our personnel have in operations, which apparently is sitting in the control rooms while operations are happening, not inputting the codes on the missiles but training others in how to do it.  You've suggested that the training preceded operations in time, like the driving instructor/getaway car analogy, suggesting that we have no responsibility for what happens afterwards, but the comments from the MoD appear to show that our involvement is more than that.  Since the attacks on civilians are not a one-off, but a long saga of incidents, then continuing the supply of weapons and the training in the light of that knowledge raises different issues than otherwise, don't you think?

On the original question, since we are not at war and therefore the legal protections afforded to military personnel in wars don't apply, if the Saudis are committing acts which appear to qualify as war crimes and we continue to assist them both by supplying weapons and training them in their use, then I think there's a question to be asked about the degree of responsibility for individuals in addition to governments.  I don't understand why you think such a question is ludicrous.  It seems exactly the kind of thing which international law is likely to address, but as I say, I don't know what the legal position is in this situation, though I know it's been established that carrying out orders has been found not to be a defence in some situations.

Last answer, so we don't drag it on too long. I think it is ludicrous to claim, as you did, that RAF personnel are helping to bomb weddings. That is utterly untrue. The mechanics of what they do, where their limit of actions lie and their control or authority (none whatsoever) over the independent actions of the RSAF has been explained both by me, and much better, I'm sure elsewhere. The RAF personnel play no role in the targetting of operational, er, targets by the RSAF, nor in executing attacks. None.

Where I am much more in line with your general points, such as they are, is that yes, questions around supplying weapons, or pressuring the KSA to behave differently are entirely valid. I took issue with your point about the RAF people helping kill wedding parties -it's Fake news. Discussion on how to solve the crisis in Yemen - I'm all for it. Like I said blaming the wrong people is not going to do that. 

[snowychap]

20 hours ago, Chindie said:

Shamima Begum's family lawyer has said she's had her citizenship revoked, which is wasn't aware was a thing, and if it is it almost certainly shouldn't be.

Good old Tories.

Apparently, deprivation of citizenship was not used at all between 1973 and 2002 (third tweet in thread beginning with tweet below). There was a huge increase in 2017 according to this:

 

[peterms]

5 minutes ago, blandy said:

I think it is ludicrous to claim, as you did, that RAF personnel are helping to bomb weddings.

Perhaps I'm not making myself clear enough, or perhaps you are reading in too much.

The personnel involved train the Saudis in planning and conducting operations.  Those operations sometimes include outcomes like bombing weddings, funerals, school buses, for example.  These are facts.

This is not the same as the personnel involved actively participating in planning and carrying out an intended attack on a wedding, or an attack which happens to hit such a target even if it is claimed that this was unintended.  That would be a different matter.  You appear to think I make no distinction between the two things.  You are wrong.  Both are bad, but the second would be worse.  Our people prepare, equip and train the Saudis who make these attacks, as the MoD acknowledge, but they don't take part in them (I take the MoD's statement on this at face value, I hope I'm not being too trusting).

But knowing that the Saudis have carried out such attacks over a period of years, and that very many civilians have been attacked, our government and the personnel involved choose to continue to supply and train them.  It is not plausible to claim that they have no idea what the possible outcomes may be, since there is evidence over several years to draw on.

There comes a point at which culpability as well as complicity arises (I suppose everyone would agree with that).  I believe we are well past that point, though others may disagree, and I'd be interested to hear what is the legal position.

[StefanAVFC]

I've flipflopped on Begum.

I've rested on she should be brought back:

1) You can't make somebody stateless

2) She isn't Bangladesh's problem

3) Her innocent baby

[peterms]

Strange take by Javid on citizenship and rights, here.

Quote

Responding to an urgent question on the case in the House of Commons, Javid said: “Children should not suffer, so if a parent loses their British citizenship it does not affect the rights of their child.”

You can come here, newly-born child, but not your mother; your rights are unaffected.  Might be a little difficult to actually exercise those rights.

[peterms]

2 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

2) She isn't Bangladesh's problem

And even if someone had dual nationality, the idea that the quickest to withdraw citizenship can dump the problem on the other country doesn't seem like a sensible way to manage it.

[blandy]

1 hour ago, peterms said:

And even if someone had dual nationality, the idea that the quickest to withdraw citizenship can dump the problem on the other country doesn't seem like a sensible way to manage it.

Agreed. She grew up here, was radicalised here, is (was) a UK citizen. Why the heck should poor old Bangladesh or its people have to deal, with their inferior resources, with someone who's never even been there, who is a barmpot Islamicalist nutter? It's just exporting problems which will bite worse later, for momentary red meat feeding to the EDL tendency.