MPs to investigate use of British weapons by Saudi Arabia in Yemen 'humanitarian disaster'

by Guest Thu Mar 10, 2016 2:35 pm

The Committee on Arms Export Control has launched an inquiry into whether export controls have been broken

MPs have launched an investigation whether British-made arms are being used by Saudi Arabian forces in a widely-criticised military campaign in Yemen.

The Committee on Arms Export Control will probe whether export control rules have been broken – after the United Nations warned of a “humanitarian disaster” and widespread attacks on civilians in the assault.

The inquiry will “examine if weapons manufactured in the UK have been used by the Royal Saudi Armed Forces in Yemen, if any arms export licence criteria have been infringed and discuss what action should be taken in such cases,”
the committee says.

Saudi Arabia bombing Yemen's schools, Amnesty International claims

Minsters have confirmed they have signed off the sale of weapons to Saudi Arabia but say the Saudi Arabians have assured them they are not committing war crimes using British equipment.

Aid group Médecins Sans Frontières have accused Saudi Arabia of bombing multiple hospitals, while others have warned of deadly strikes on weddings and schools.

In a three-month period late last year figures released by the business department showed the sales of bombs and munitions to Saudi Arabia by British firms had increased from £9 million to over £1 billion.

All arms exports from the UK are actively sanctioned by the Government, which issues licenses for deals after scrutinising them.

In December last year the Government was threatened with legal action by campaigners and lawyers for not blocking the flow of guns and bombs to the region.

Lawyers at law firm Leigh Day said it was likely the weapons were being used to “commit serious breaches of international humanitarian law”.

Prime Minister David Cameron speaking to BAE Systems employees in Preston

The European Parliament is the latest body to call for a full arms embargo on Saudi Arabia, following MPs on the House of Commons International Development Committee who also backed a suspension of sales.

The Campaign Against the Arms Trade welcomed the MPs’ inquiry and said the sale of weapons “should not have been allowed in the first place”.

“It is one of the most repressive regimes in the world and has unleashed a humanitarian catastrophe on Yemen, yet it has enjoyed uncritical political and military support from the UK,” Andrew Smith, of CAAT, said.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/mps-to-investigate-use-of-british-weapons-by-saudi-arabia-in-yemen-humanitarian-disaster-a6922836.html

Save them some time, they have and are, we are breaking international law and Cameron always knew that was the case.

by Victorismyhero Thu Mar 10, 2016 2:43 pm

about time something was done....

by Guest Thu Mar 10, 2016 2:59 pm

It is, it is obvious that international law has been broken and the hell that Yemen has been turned into is as bad as Syria, and we are providing the means to do it.

by Guest Thu Mar 10, 2016 3:05 pm

First of all an assumptions is being made war crimes have been committed.
A claim has been made, so I fail to see why even an inquiry is even being started when there is absolutely no inquiry by the UN over any war crimes. Who have no understanding of the rules of engagement.
So why is an investigation being made over sales on hearsay of war crimes?

The UN has shown it is not fit to be impartial.
This is a non-starter investigation as its falsely charging guilty to war crimes that has not been substantiated to then claim illegal sales

by Victorismyhero Thu Mar 10, 2016 3:10 pm

I think that given the fact that MSF state openly that non military targets, like hospitals have been deliberately targeted should give credence to the charge of war crimes...unless of course you think MSF is lying and has an ulterior agenda?

and the claim has been made, ...why should the only authority be a useless one (the UN) it is perfectly in order for our own authorities to make enquiries independantly and act on those conlusions....

by Victorismyhero Thu Mar 10, 2016 3:12 pm

what you are saying didge is basically if the cops dont think theres a case, then that dead guy there wasnt killed....

even though the cops killed him.....

by Guest Thu Mar 10, 2016 3:15 pm

Lord Foul wrote:I think that given the fact that MSF state openly that non military targets, like hospitals have been deliberately targeted should give credence to the charge of war crimes...unless of course you think MSF is lying and has an ulterior agenda?

and the claim has been made, ...why should the only authority be a useless one (the UN) it is perfectly in order for our own authorities to make enquiries independantly and act on those conlusions....

Again because a target has been mistakenly hit, does not mean it is a war crime.At present nobody knows if it was a mistake, weapon malfunction, or deliberate. It has to be the deliberate targeting of civilians. Again people have no comprehension of the rules of engagement and where a hospital is hit immediately scream war crime (not you). This could easily be an error a poor error that has cost lives. It though is wrongly claimed as a war crime without an investigation based solely on the building being hit.
So this investigation is being started not off facts, but hearsay to supposed war crimes.

by Guest Thu Mar 10, 2016 3:17 pm

Lord Foul wrote:what you are saying didge is basically if the cops dont think theres a case, then that dead guy there wasnt killed....

even though the cops killed him.....

False analogy

Its over whether the guns supplied were used to murder someone by the Police, before an investigation has clarified if it was a murder or a lawful killing or self defense

That is just daft to investigate what has not been ascertained or confirmed

by Guest Thu Mar 10, 2016 3:18 pm

There is video after video showing civilian housing areas and schools being blown to smithereens, areas where there has been no fighting. The Yemeni people are suffering terribly.

by Guest Thu Mar 10, 2016 3:19 pm

Again if they are military personal within these buildings firing on military targets, then they cannot be claimed to be civilian, as then it is certainly a war crime of using civilians as human shields

Again so many presumptions off watching a video, that is the first error, not even knowing the intelligence reports that instigated an air strike on that building

by Victorismyhero Thu Mar 10, 2016 3:25 pm

erm...didge...I sorta hate to point out what may seem an obvious fact......

BUT.......without investigating , there can be no ascertaining or confirming, surely thats what is needed.....

and whats being done...

you are in a logical loop

no investigation....nothing to investigate....no investigation...

sorta like

"IF you wake at midnight, and hear a horse's feet,
Don't go drawing back the blind, or looking in the street,
Them that ask no questions isn't told a lie.
Watch the wall my darling while the Gentlemen go by. "

from "the smugglers song"

by Rudyard Kipling

by Guest Thu Mar 10, 2016 3:29 pm

Lord Foul wrote:erm...didge...I sorta hate to point out what may seem an obvious fact......

BUT.......without investigating , there can be no ascertaining or confirming, surely thats what is needed.....

and whats being done...

you are in a logical loop

no investigation....nothing to investigate....no investigation...

sorta like

"IF you wake at midnight, and hear a horse's feet,
Don't go drawing back the blind, or looking in the street,
Them that ask no questions isn't told a lie.
Watch the wall my darling while the Gentlemen go by. "

from "the smugglers song"

by Rudyard Kipling

Er let me point out a little fact that basing a view to investigate the sale of arms to a supposed war crime. Something which is meant to be tried in the International criminal court in the Hague if there is a case even then to try a claim to a war crime, is again utterly absurd. If this does not even go to the international court, you are then making a precedent where a nation has not even been charged with any war crime. That is like saying there should have been an investigation of the gun shop that sold the gun to George Zimmerman even before there has been any charges filed against him.

by Guest Thu Mar 10, 2016 3:33 pm

IN YEMEN, CIVILIANS SUFFER RELENTLESS BOMBING BY SAUDI-LED COALITION

MPs to investigate use of British weapons by Saudi Arabia in Yemen 'humanitarian disaster' 14525996961

MPs to investigate use of British weapons by Saudi Arabia in Yemen 'humanitarian disaster' 14525996961

AFTER NEARLY 10 MONTHS of war, the destruction of Yemen continues with little respite for civilians.
On Sunday, a hospital in northern Yemen supported by Doctors Without Borders (known by its French acronym, MSF) was bombed, killing at least five people and destroying several buildings that were part of the facility. Ten people were injured in the attack, including three of the group’s staff.
The humanitarian group said it cannot confirm the origin of the attack but that planes were seen flying over the facility at the time. The only air power currently operating in Yemen is a Saudi-led coalition of Arab states that have waged a relentless bombing campaign since March.
More than 6,000 people have been killed in the war, including over 2,800 civilians, the majority of them from airstrikes,according to the United Nations. The United States has backed the Saudi-led coalition with logistical and intelligence support, including crucial aerial refueling and targeting assistance, as well as billions of dollars worth of arms sales.

This is the third MSF facility to be bombed in Yemen in less than three months. In October, airstrikes destroyed an MSF hospital in Haydan, while a health center run by the group in Taiz was hit by the Saudi coalition in December. Dozens of medical facilities have been destroyed or damaged in the conflict by Saudi airstrikes, as well as, on the other side, indiscriminate shelling by the Houthis and their allies.
“We strorgly condemn this incident that confirms a worrying pattern of attacks to essential medical services and express our strongest outrage as this will leave a very fragile population without healthcare for weeks,” said MSF’s director of operations, Raquel Ayora, in a statement.

The Shiara hospital hit on Sunday lies close the Saudi border in the Razeh district of Saada province. Saada, a stronghold of the Houthi rebels the coalition is fighting, has been subjected to some of the fiercest bombardment in Yemen, causing widespread destruction and massive displacement.
The hospital had been bombed before MSF started supporting it, in an airstrike in September that killed two patients and destroyed several departments in the facility. The only functioning hospital in Saada lies in the provincial capital, leaving hundreds of thousands of Yemenis in the area without adequate access to medical treatment for war injuries as well as for ailments like malnutrition and malaria.

Since April, the Saudi-led coalition has imposed a crippling siege on Yemen, by far the poorest country in the region. Severe import restrictions on basic goods have led to a deepening humanitarian crisis, with over 21 million people now in need of basic assistance — more than anywhere else in the world. The blockade comes under the rubric of an arms embargo imposed by a U.N. Security Council resolution that was drafted largely by the Gulf countries taking part in the U.S.-supported Saudi coalition.

http://www.awdnews.com/top-news/in-yemen,-civilians-suffer-relentless-bombing-by-saudi-led-coalition

by Guest Thu Mar 10, 2016 3:36 pm

Yes we can all read media claims sassy, which fail to show any of the military information of the Saudis, making such articles moot

Again basing a view that does not know the intelligence reports and military information of the Saudis is a one sided view where again many military do use human shields

Again a criminal case has to be made and presented before the Hague if there is evidence to any war crimes.

by Guest Thu Mar 10, 2016 3:40 pm

120 Killed as Saudi Regime Commits Fresh Atrocities in Taiz Yemen

Saudi forces have committed fresh atrocities in Yemen by killing more than 120 innocent people in airstrikes on the residential complex for engineers and technicians of al-Mukha power plant of Taiz province on Friday.
MPs to investigate use of British weapons by Saudi Arabia in Yemen 'humanitarian disaster' 14381687721

MPs to investigate use of British weapons by Saudi Arabia in Yemen 'humanitarian disaster' 14381687721

120 Killed as Saudi Regime Commits Fresh Atrocities in Taiz YemenAl-Masirah satellite television network reported that in Saudi warplanes struck 200 residential units, housing the families of electrical engineers and technicians, in al-Mukha district of the province were destroyed.
Public Health and Population Ministry spokesman Tamim al-Shami said the complex also housed tens of displaced families in Taiz province.
Reports coming out of the area also say most of the dead bodies, including women, children and elderly, were burnt beyond recognition in the flames caused by strikes.
Members of rescue teams as well as ambulances had difficulty reaching the area due to incessant bombardment, and were even at times targeted by Saudi military aircraft.
Earlier in the day, four civilians lost their lives when Saudi warplanes carried out ten airstrikes against multiple areas in the Dhi Na’im district of the southern province of Bayda.
Several people were also killed or injured as Saudi fighter jets pounded a residential neighborhood in al-Ashah district of the northwestern Amran Province, located 53 kilometers northwest of Sana’a.
Saudi planes also targeted passenger buses and a popular market in Yemen’s southwestern province of Lahij. There were no immediate reports of fatalities and the extent of damage inflicted.
The Saudi regime launched an illegal aggression against Yemen on March 26 with the stated objective of toppling the Ansarullah movement and restoring power to fugitive President Mansour Hadi.
Despite Riyadh's claims that it is bombing the positions of the Ansarullah fighters, Saudi warplanes are flattening residential areas and civilian infrastructures including hospitals, schools, mosques, bridges and food factories.

http://whatsupic.com/news-politics-world/143816-120-killed-as-saudi-regime-commits-fresh-atrocities-in-taiz-yemen.html

by Guest Thu Mar 10, 2016 3:41 pm

Must be spamming season

by Guest Thu Mar 10, 2016 3:43 pm

Saudi-led forces accused of cluster bombings in Yemen

Rights group says civilians killed after coalition troops used cluster munition rockets in attacks in Hajja governorate.

Human Rights Watch has accused Saudi-led coalition forces of using cluster bombs that are illegal under international law in its conflict with Houthi rebels in Yemen.
In a statement released on Wednesday, HRW said the coalition troops used cluster munition rockets in at least seven attacks between April and July in Yemen's northwestern Hajja governorate, killing and wounding dozens of civilians.
"Cluster munitions caused civilian casualties both during the attacks, which may have been targeting Houthi fighters, and afterwards, when civilians picked up unexploded submunitions that detonated," it said.
HRW said that it visited four of the seven attack sites in the Haradh and Hayran districts of Hajja, a region bordering Saudi Arabia, in July, and in each of them found unexploded submunitions and remnants of cluster munition rockets.
According to the report, "several of the attacks took place in or near areas with concentrations of civilians", which the group said violates international law.
Local residents named 13 people, including three children, who were killed as well as 22 people who were wounded in the seven attacks, the report said.
Ole Solvang, an HRW researcher, told Al Jazeera that most of the rockets were likely launched from Saudi territory.
Saudi response
In an interview with Al Jazeera, Ahmed Asiri, the spokesman for the Saudi-led coalition, denied use of the specific types of cluster munitions listed by HRW.

Saudi-led coalition spokesman denies use of illegal cluster munitions

He said, however, that not all types of cluster munitions are illegal under international law.
Asiri said the HRW report failed to prove its claims with reliable evidence, saying that the use of "reports from Houthis" was not impartial.
Saudi Arabia has repeatedly said it will only stop its military campaign when it is confident that Houthi rebels no longer pose a threat to its internal security.
HRW called for the UN Human Rights Council to create a commission to investigate war crimes by "all parties" involved in the country's conflict.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/08/cluster-bombs-yemen-150827155039946.html

by Guest Thu Mar 10, 2016 3:45 pm

Yes accused not even seeing the Saudi Military information

In other words hearsay

Do they understand "Rules of Engagement"?

Nope, which has been proved many times they do not.

Again of course all such claims should be investigated to supposed war crime and then put forward charges through the International criminal courts, but people need to understand in war sadly there will always be civilian collateral damage. Sadly some civilians do die in the conflict and people wrongly;y assume they are all victims of a war crime

by Guest Thu Mar 10, 2016 3:48 pm

UN report into Saudi-led strikes in Yemen raises questions over UK role
Experts conclude Saudi-led coalition conducted widespread airstrikes against civilian targets in violation of international law

A United Nations panel investigating the Saudi-led bombing campaign in Yemen has uncovered “widespread and systematic” attacks on civilian targets in violation of international humanitarian law, raising questions over UK arms exports to Saudi Arabia and the role of British military advisers.
The final 51-page report by a panel of experts on Yemen, which was sent to the UN security council last week but had not yet been published, has been obtained by the Guardian.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/27/un-report-into-saudi-led-strikes-in-yemen-raises-questions-over-uk-role

by Guest Thu Mar 10, 2016 3:49 pm

Didge wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:erm...didge...I sorta hate to point out what may seem an obvious fact......

BUT.......without investigating , there can be no ascertaining or confirming, surely thats what is needed.....

and whats being done...

you are in a logical loop

no investigation....nothing to investigate....no investigation...

sorta like

"IF you wake at midnight, and hear a horse's feet,
Don't go drawing back the blind, or looking in the street,
Them that ask no questions isn't told a lie.
Watch the wall my darling while the Gentlemen go by. "

from "the smugglers song"

by Rudyard Kipling

Er let me point out a little fact that basing a view to investigate the sale of arms to a supposed war crime. Something which is meant to be tried in the International criminal court in the Hague if there is a case even then to try a claim to a war crime, is again utterly absurd. If this does not even go to the international court, you are then making a precedent where a nation has not even been charged with any war crime. That is like saying there should have been an investigation of the gun shop that sold the gun to George Zimmerman even before there has been any charges filed against him.

To get the debate back on track

by Guest Thu Mar 10, 2016 3:52 pm

As I said, so much evidence already out there. The Conservatives are trying like mad to get this stopped, because after all, it's their 'mates' who make the money out of the arms sales. In fact, 40 MPs were invited to the dinner for arms dealers, you have to wonder why.

by Victorismyhero Thu Mar 10, 2016 3:53 pm

so who's going to make the case

and in the case of the gun shop you brought up, it could be argued that they should have been investigated for selling guns to "undesireables" a long while before they sold the gun to zimmerman??
in fact all gun shops in america should be challenged on their sell anything to anybody
but of course theres no 2mandate " for that so...

however in this case...

claims have been made....somebody has to investigate.....and since we sell the arms that are implicated, moraly at least we have a right to ask questions....

NOT LEAST, because if someone else investigates and war crimes are found...we will be held accountable...

in your gun shop scenario.....

we would be in the position of the gun shop being charged for "reckless supply" once zimmerman was charged....

obviously that wouldnt happen ITRW..because no one would expect te shop owner to have the facility or ability to check out his customers

as a state however , britain has both the capacity and ability to properly investigate and take action should it be necessary.....

by Guest Thu Mar 10, 2016 3:56 pm

That is not evidence
That is claims, made only from a point of casualties, not anything from the Saudis
That would not even pass for being an investigation
Again a proper investigation to claims to war crimes has to happen first. Then if there is enough evidence it is then through the International Court to file war crime charges at Saudi Arabia. Then we have to wait until the outcome of the trial

by Guest Thu Mar 10, 2016 4:01 pm

Lord Foul wrote:so who's going to make the case

and in the case of the gun shop you brought up, it could be argued that they should have been investigated for selling guns to "undesireables" a long while before they sold the gun to zimmerman??
in fact all gun shops in america should be challenged on their sell anything to anybody
but of course theres no 2mandate " for that so...

however in this case...

claims have been made....somebody has to investigate.....and since we sell the arms that are implicated, moraly at least we have a right to ask questions....

NOT LEAST, because if someone else investigates and war crimes are found...we will be held accountable...

in your gun shop scenario.....

we would be in the position of the gun shop being charged for "reckless supply" once zimmerman was charged....

obviously that wouldnt happen ITRW..because no one would expect te shop owner to have the facility or ability to check out his customers

as a state however , britain has both the capacity and ability to properly investigate and take action should it be necessary.....

1) You are making a subjective claim on the now an innocent person, to then claim he should be investigated off your opinion. That is again absurd.

2) So now you are widening the goal posts to all crimes and now not supposed crimes by the Police. Again only on a conviction should you then make an investigation on the stores and even then, its a false pretense because you have supplied arms with good intentions, not knowing if that nations would then if proved they have commit war crimes.

3) Its an absurd claim being made in hindsight off hearsay and not any judgement made in a criminal court. Even if that court did find they were guilty of a war crime, how can you then charge the UK to having made illegal sales not knowing they would commit a crime if they have no previous convictions. That would have to be the most daffiest precedent to make on a nation that they are then at fault for supplier arms for decades to that nation.

On every level it is quite ridiculous

by Victorismyhero Thu Mar 10, 2016 4:08 pm

no didge it isnt

we wouldnt be held reponsible...UP to the time the possibility of war crimes was raised...

from that point on...if we failed to do anything we could be held culpable for "turning a blind eye"

we do not need a judgement to be able to investigate...

cops dont wait for a conviction to investigate a crime......

they decide IF a crime has occured by investigating

by Guest Thu Mar 10, 2016 4:16 pm

Lord Foul wrote:no didge it isnt

we wouldnt be held reponsible...UP to the time the possibility of war crimes was raised...

from that point on...if we failed to do anything we could be held culpable for "turning a blind eye"

we do not need a judgement to be able to investigate...

cops dont wait for a conviction to investigate a crime......

they decide IF a crime has occured by investigating

Again absurd

Yes you do need a judgement from a proper investigation that involves all countries involved in the conflict. If you go off claims made which do not even get to the international court then you cease to have a need for such a system. You are deciding to go over this system designed to try war crimes and even offer up a fair balance. You would need to have access to Saudi intelligence to then have any fair investigation. You falling Foul, no pun intended of people making poor claims not understanding the "Rules of Engagement", who constantly make these charges when civilians die in Air strikes. Where again they have not even had access to military information. Yes and investigation should always be carried out, where there is real evidence civilians have been deliberately targeted. Not as collateral damage. I have read so much on this with false claims on Israel who do more than any nation in the world. They go above and beyond what they need to do and actually warn the enemy of their intended target, so civilians can clear the area and yet Hamas forces them to remain so they become cannon fodder. A war crime by Hamas. Also if civilians remain after being warned, they become active participants. You do not see any of the warnings Israel use, such as texts, phones calls, roof tapping, leaflets dropped by then Saudi, or the allies in Syria and yet here is the next issue for you then to tackle.

U.N. war crimes team will not investigate foreign air strikes in Syria - chairman

http://news.trust.org//item/20151216230747-x1ept

by Victorismyhero Thu Mar 10, 2016 4:20 pm

Didge wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:so who's going to make the case

and in the case of the gun shop you brought up, it could be argued that they should have been investigated for selling guns to "undesireables" a long while before they sold the gun to zimmerman??
in fact all gun shops in america should be challenged on their sell anything to anybody
but of course theres no 2mandate " for that so...

however in this case...

claims have been made....somebody has to investigate.....and since we sell the arms that are implicated, moraly at least we have a right to ask questions....

NOT LEAST, because if someone else investigates and war crimes are found...we will be held accountable...

in your gun shop scenario.....

we would be in the position of the gun shop being charged for "reckless supply" once zimmerman was charged....

obviously that wouldnt happen ITRW..because no one would expect te shop owner to have the facility or ability to check out his customers

as a state however , britain has both the capacity and ability to properly investigate and take action should it be necessary.....

1) You are making a subjective claim on the now an innocent person, to then claim he should be investigated off your opinion. That is again absurd.

you are conflating example and point....

2) So now you are widening the goal posts to all crimes and now not supposed crimes by the Police. Again only on a conviction should you then make an investigation on the stores and even then, its a false pretense because you have supplied arms with good intentions, not knowing if that nations would then if proved they have commit war crimes.

my point exactly, BUT if whispers of possible war crimes reach you, as a STATE there is an obligation to INITIATE that required investigation from that point on

3) Its an absurd claim being made in hindsight off hearsay and not any judgement made in a criminal court. Even if that court did find they were guilty of a war crime, how can you then charge the UK to having made illegal sales not knowing they would commit a crime if they have no previous convictions. That would have to be the most daffiest precedent to make on a nation that they are then at fault for supplier arms for decades to that nation.

the point is its not about past sales, since as you say they were made "in good faith" The investigation is into whether that "good faith " has been breached, and if so , what to do....

On every level it is quite ridiculous

by Guest Thu Mar 10, 2016 4:24 pm

Lord Foul wrote:
Didge wrote:

1) You are making a subjective claim on the now an innocent person, to then claim he should be investigated off your opinion. That is again absurd.

you are conflating example and point....

2) So now you are widening the goal posts to all crimes and now not supposed crimes by the Police. Again only on a conviction should you then make an investigation on the stores and even then, its a false pretense because you have supplied arms with good intentions, not knowing if that nations would then if proved they have commit war crimes.

my point exactly, BUT if whispers of possible war crimes reach you, as a STATE there is an obligation to INITIATE that required investigation from that point on

3) Its an absurd claim being made in hindsight off hearsay and not any judgement made in a criminal court. Even if that court did find they were guilty of a war crime, how can you then charge the UK to having made illegal sales not knowing they would commit a crime if they have no previous convictions. That would have to be the most daffiest precedent to make on a nation that they are then at fault for supplier arms for decades to that nation.

the point is its not about past sales, since as you say they were made "in good faith" The investigation is into whether that "good faith " has been breached, and if so , what to do....

On every level it is quite ridiculous

1 No you are

2) That is not a point, you are trying to investigate something you would need the backing of all nations involved, which they can say get stuffed. As its not a UN investigation, which is what is needed to then press ahead with charges then be made in the International criminal court

3) So is its not about past sales, then how can you assert its illegal whilst a country is in conflict? To then base an investigation which needs the cooperation of all nations involved. You have no UN investigation either.

4) The worst part of this is its immediately assumed something is a war crime when ever a civilian dies. That is where the problem is.

by Victorismyhero Thu Mar 10, 2016 4:26 pm

Didge wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:no didge it isnt

we wouldnt be held reponsible...UP to the time the possibility of war crimes was raised...

from that point on...if we failed to do anything we could be held culpable for "turning a blind eye"

we do not need a judgement to be able to investigate...

cops dont wait for a conviction to investigate a crime......

they decide IF a crime has occured by investigating

Again absurd

Yes you do need a judgement from a proper investigation that involves all countries involved in the conflict. If you go off claims made which do not even get to the international court then you cease to have a need for such a system. You are deciding to go over this system designed to try war crimes and even offer up a fair balance. You would need to have access to Saudi intelligence to then have any fair investigation. You falling Foul, no pun intended of people making poor claims not understanding the "Rules of Engagement", who constantly make these charges when civilians die in Air strikes. Where again they have not even had access to military information. Yes and investigation should always be carried out, where there is real evidence civilians have been deliberately targeted. Not as collateral damage. I have read so much on this with false claims on Israel who do more than any nation in the world. They go above and beyond what they need to do and actually warn the enemy of their intended target, so civilians can clear the area and yet Hamas forces them to remain so they become cannon fodder. A war crime by Hamas. Also if civilians remain after being warned, they become active participants. You do not see any of the warnings Israel use, such as texts, phones calls, roof tapping, leaflets dropped by then Saudi, or the allies in Syria and yet here is the next issue for you then to tackle.

U.N. war crimes team will not investigate foreign air strikes in Syria - chairman

http://news.trust.org//item/20151216230747-x1ept

yebbut.....you have already, repeatedly, said the UN is useless.......(which I agree with)

and whats rather more to the point, as suppliers of arms ...we are perfectly entitled to hold the user to account.....if we suspect things are not OK....and we are also entitled to make judgements on whether to continue to supply on the basis of that accounting MPs to investigate use of British weapons by Saudi Arabia in Yemen 'humanitarian disaster' 2190311264

MPs to investigate use of British weapons by Saudi Arabia in Yemen 'humanitarian disaster' 2190311264

te rules round states "shopping" from one another are somewhat different to individuals shopping from shops...

a state is both supplier and regulator....at its own end.....

by Guest Thu Mar 10, 2016 4:28 pm

Lord Foul wrote:
Didge wrote:

Again absurd

Yes you do need a judgement from a proper investigation that involves all countries involved in the conflict. If you go off claims made which do not even get to the international court then you cease to have a need for such a system. You are deciding to go over this system designed to try war crimes and even offer up a fair balance. You would need to have access to Saudi intelligence to then have any fair investigation. You falling Foul, no pun intended of people making poor claims not understanding the "Rules of Engagement", who constantly make these charges when civilians die in Air strikes. Where again they have not even had access to military information. Yes and investigation should always be carried out, where there is real evidence civilians have been deliberately targeted. Not as collateral damage. I have read so much on this with false claims on Israel who do more than any nation in the world. They go above and beyond what they need to do and actually warn the enemy of their intended target, so civilians can clear the area and yet Hamas forces them to remain so they become cannon fodder. A war crime by Hamas. Also if civilians remain after being warned, they become active participants. You do not see any of the warnings Israel use, such as texts, phones calls, roof tapping, leaflets dropped by then Saudi, or the allies in Syria and yet here is the next issue for you then to tackle.

U.N. war crimes team will not investigate foreign air strikes in Syria - chairman

http://news.trust.org//item/20151216230747-x1ept

yebbut.....you have already, repeatedly, said the UN is useless.......(which I agree with)

and whats rather more to the point, as suppliers of arms ...we are perfectly entitled to hold the user to account.....if we suspect things are not OK....and we are also entitled to make judgements on whether to continue to supply on the basis of that accounting

te rules round states "shopping" from one another are somewhat different to individuals shopping from shops...

a state is both supplier and regulator....at its own end.....

We can hold the user to account if found to have done wrong by a proper investigation that leads to a criminal case. Its absurd to then say we should have known they would commit war crimes or they are committing wars crimes based off organisations that have no understanding of the Rules of Engagement. Have not seen Saudi military intelligence and are just going off civilian deaths. I mean come on victor, that is saying the most racial argument going, that we should expect Arabs to commit war crimes and not sell an ally any arms.

by Victorismyhero Thu Mar 10, 2016 4:34 pm

Didge wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:
Didge wrote:

1) You are making a subjective claim on the now an innocent person, to then claim he should be investigated off your opinion. That is again absurd.

you are conflating example and point....

2) So now you are widening the goal posts to all crimes and now not supposed crimes by the Police. Again only on a conviction should you then make an investigation on the stores and even then, its a false pretense because you have supplied arms with good intentions, not knowing if that nations would then if proved they have commit war crimes.

my point exactly, BUT if whispers of possible war crimes reach you, as a STATE there is an obligation to INITIATE that required investigation from that point on

3) Its an absurd claim being made in hindsight off hearsay and not any judgement made in a criminal court. Even if that court did find they were guilty of a war crime, how can you then charge the UK to having made illegal sales not knowing they would commit a crime if they have no previous convictions. That would have to be the most daffiest precedent to make on a nation that they are then at fault for supplier arms for decades to that nation.

the point is its not about past sales, since as you say they were made "in good faith" The investigation is into whether that "good faith " has been breached, and if so , what to do....

On every level it is quite ridiculous

1 No you are

2) That is not a point, you are trying to investigate something you would need the backing of all nations involved, which they can say get stuffed. As its not a UN investigation, which is what is needed to then press ahead with charges then be made in the International criminal court

wrong...we do not NEED the backing of all nations involved...we supply, we can choose NOT to supply, we are NOT obliged to supply and can stop doing so if WE think there is a problem.....and to decide that we can...and it seems are doing to investigate whats going on....
I would have a problem if supply was stopped merely on the basis of the claims made....I have no problem with the claims being investigated...

3) So is its not about past sales, then how can you assert its illegal whilst a country is in conflict? To then base an investigation which needs the cooperation of all nations involved. You have no UN investigation either.

since the crimes are obvioulsy going to be commited whilst in conflict whats the problem? we are not culpable for the misues of past sales, but if we investigate and find the past sales were misused then we have the obligation to ensure that future ones are not...or else not supply ....

4) The worst part of this is its immediately assumed something is a war crime when ever a civilian dies. That is where the problem is.

Maybe thats more moral than assuming every civilian killed is merely "collateral damage"

by Guest Thu Mar 10, 2016 4:38 pm

Lord Foul wrote:
Didge wrote:

1 No you are

2) That is not a point, you are trying to investigate something you would need the backing of all nations involved, which they can say get stuffed. As its not a UN investigation, which is what is needed to then press ahead with charges then be made in the International criminal court

wrong...we do not NEED the backing of all nations involved...we supply, we can choose NOT to supply, we are NOT obliged to supply and can stop doing so if WE think there is a problem.....and to decide that we can...and it seems are doing to investigate whats going on....
I would have a problem if supply was stopped merely on the basis of the claims made....I have no problem with the claims being investigated...

3) So is its not about past sales, then how can you assert its illegal whilst a country is in conflict? To then base an investigation which needs the cooperation of all nations involved. You have no UN investigation either.

since the crimes are obvioulsy going to be commited whilst in conflict whats the problem? we are not culpable for the misues of past sales, but if we investigate and find the past sales were misused then we have the obligation to ensure that future ones are not...or else not supply ....

4) The worst part of this is its immediately assumed something is a war crime when ever a civilian dies. That is where the problem is.

Maybe thats more moral than assuming every civilian killed is merely "collateral damage"

1) Wrong. Yes you do need their backing as how on earth can you know whether there was military intelligence of a target? Why do you think Israel has never been charged with a war crime? Again having an investigation that does not have access to all details is default before its starts. so you are utterly wrong on that aspect.

2) Again that is again making a racial claim that we should not sell arms to Arabs, based racially off a view thy are going to commit them or are committing them.

3) You failed to answer my other posts

Back later

by Victorismyhero Thu Mar 10, 2016 4:41 pm

Didge wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:
Didge wrote:

Again absurd

Yes you do need a judgement from a proper investigation that involves all countries involved in the conflict. If you go off claims made which do not even get to the international court then you cease to have a need for such a system. You are deciding to go over this system designed to try war crimes and even offer up a fair balance. You would need to have access to Saudi intelligence to then have any fair investigation. You falling Foul, no pun intended of people making poor claims not understanding the "Rules of Engagement", who constantly make these charges when civilians die in Air strikes. Where again they have not even had access to military information. Yes and investigation should always be carried out, where there is real evidence civilians have been deliberately targeted. Not as collateral damage. I have read so much on this with false claims on Israel who do more than any nation in the world. They go above and beyond what they need to do and actually warn the enemy of their intended target, so civilians can clear the area and yet Hamas forces them to remain so they become cannon fodder. A war crime by Hamas. Also if civilians remain after being warned, they become active participants. You do not see any of the warnings Israel use, such as texts, phones calls, roof tapping, leaflets dropped by then Saudi, or the allies in Syria and yet here is the next issue for you then to tackle.

U.N. war crimes team will not investigate foreign air strikes in Syria - chairman

http://news.trust.org//item/20151216230747-x1ept

yebbut.....you have already, repeatedly, said the UN is useless.......(which I agree with)

and whats rather more to the point, as suppliers of arms ...we are perfectly entitled to hold the user to account.....if we suspect things are not OK....and we are also entitled to make judgements on whether to continue to supply on the basis of that accounting

te rules round states "shopping" from one another are somewhat different to individuals shopping from shops...

a state is both supplier and regulator....at its own end.....

We can hold the user to account if found to have done wrong by a proper investigation that leads to a criminal case. Its absurd to then say we should have known they would commit war crimes or they are committing wars crimes based off organisations that have no understanding of the Rules of Engagement. Have not seen Saudi military intelligence and are just going off civilian deaths. I mean come on victor, that is saying the most racial argument going, that we should expect Arabs to commit war crimes and not sell an ally any arms.

we dont need a criminal case didge...

even if whats been done merely "offends our sensibilities" we can refuse future sales.....we are NOT OBLIGED to make any such sales......

and

investigating is NOT holding them to account...its finding out if they need to be held to account....

the investigation is triggered on the possibility that something is amiss
it will either clear the saudis or implicate them fully

we cant even ask for the un to investigate...with out an investigation.... MPs to investigate use of British weapons by Saudi Arabia in Yemen 'humanitarian disaster' 1780941361

MPs to investigate use of British weapons by Saudi Arabia in Yemen 'humanitarian disaster' 1780941361

this is the problem

a complaint has been made.....

we either ignore it
or investigate it

aside from te differences between states and individuals

someone reports seeing a man murdered

do the cops ignore it

or investigate it.....

by Victorismyhero Thu Mar 10, 2016 4:50 pm

Didge wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:
Didge wrote:

1 No you are

2) That is not a point, you are trying to investigate something you would need the backing of all nations involved, which they can say get stuffed. As its not a UN investigation, which is what is needed to then press ahead with charges then be made in the International criminal court

wrong...we do not NEED the backing of all nations involved...we supply, we can choose NOT to supply, we are NOT obliged to supply and can stop doing so if WE think there is a problem.....and to decide that we can...and it seems are doing to investigate whats going on....
I would have a problem if supply was stopped merely on the basis of the claims made....I have no problem with the claims being investigated...

3) So is its not about past sales, then how can you assert its illegal whilst a country is in conflict? To then base an investigation which needs the cooperation of all nations involved. You have no UN investigation either.

since the crimes are obvioulsy going to be commited whilst in conflict whats the problem? we are not culpable for the misues of past sales, but if we investigate and find the past sales were misused then we have the obligation to ensure that future ones are not...or else not supply ....

4) The worst part of this is its immediately assumed something is a war crime when ever a civilian dies. That is where the problem is.

Maybe thats more moral than assuming every civilian killed is merely "collateral damage"

1) Wrong. Yes you do need their backing as how on earth can you know whether there was military intelligence of a target? Why do you think Israel has never been charged with a war crime? Again having an investigation that does not have access to all details is default before its starts. so you are utterly wrong on that aspect.

2) Again that is again making a racial claim that we should not sell arms to Arabs, based racially off a view thy are going to commit them or are committing them.

3) You failed to answer my other posts

Back later

point 2...when faced with a losing situation ...scream racist (or any one of SIXHIRB)!!!!! what I say would apply to anyone we are arming Rolling Eyes

point 3 ...please be specific.....or are you deploying tactic #3 ....when on a hiding to nothing complain you points are not being answered...but dont specify which ones....always a good distraction....

AND

point 1.......surely we are able to gain access to saudi intel.....
in fact .."give us the intel...or we wont supply" is it seems to me a damn fine way for the investigation to proceed...
indeed, I would have thought that that intel would be supplied in any case if saudi wishes to absolve itself of the accusations......

kinda ...like ...we had proof that fighters were hiding weapons there...because of this(and here follows 26 pages of proof) MPs to investigate use of British weapons by Saudi Arabia in Yemen 'humanitarian disaster' 2190311264

i mean...if the cops asked you where you were on the night fred was strangled...I'm sure you would supply all proof possible to show you were elsewhere.....

by Guest Thu Mar 10, 2016 7:36 pm

Lord Foul wrote:
Didge wrote:

We can hold the user to account if found to have done wrong by a proper investigation that leads to a criminal case. Its absurd to then say we should have known they would commit war crimes or they are committing wars crimes based off organisations that have no understanding of the Rules of Engagement. Have not seen Saudi military intelligence and are just going off civilian deaths. I mean come on victor, that is saying the most racial argument going, that we should expect Arabs to commit war crimes and not sell an ally any arms.

we dont need a criminal case didge...
even if whats been done merely "offends our sensibilities" we can refuse future sales.....we are NOT OBLIGED to make any such sales......
and investigating is NOT holding them to account...its finding out if they need to be held to account.... the investigation is triggered on the possibility that something is amiss it will either clear the saudis or implicate them fully we cant even ask for the un to investigate...with out an investigation.... ::::blr:: :: this is the problem a complaint has been made..... e either ignore itew or investigate it aside from te differences between states and individuals someone reports seeing a man murdered do the cops ignore it or investigate it.....

So there you have it, you argument is fucked
If the Saudis do not wish to cooperate with any investigation by the British on possible war crimes, there is no way to even begin an investigation without access to witness army personnel, intelligence fault equipment or a multitude of reasons and they have the right to do and yet allow UN inspectors to have this access to investigat. Not only that as seen they are fighting to stop an insurgency the same as we are doing in Syria and the UN is not going to investigate rendering them any claim on Saudi thrown out
How then can a team then investigating that is British come to any real conclusion of war crime? They cannot.

Now that part has been repeated again which you failed to counter

Even then, you cannot claim that a Government is responsible for illegally selling weapons based in claims during the middle of a conflict by organisations that have no military experts and are going off organisations that have no concept of the rules of engagement. These same organisations wrongly seem to conclude that any civilian casualty is a war crime. Its not. What you are in fact saying is that a nation is guilty before being proven either way and we should stop based on poor leftist organisations that have no utter clue on conflict,.

That just does not cut it

Not only that you have just also agree the UN is not worth a piss and this is based on them making such assertions even though they have not done any investigation

Again is guilty before any investigation which is wrong

by Guest Thu Mar 10, 2016 7:52 pm

Lord Foul wrote:
Didge wrote:

1) Wrong. Yes you do need their backing as how on earth can you know whether there was military intelligence of a target? Why do you think Israel has never been charged with a war crime? Again having an investigation that does not have access to all details is default before its starts. so you are utterly wrong on that aspect.

2) Again that is again making a racial claim that we should not sell arms to Arabs, based racially off a view thy are going to commit them or are committing them.

3) You failed to answer my other posts

Back later

point 2...when faced with a losing situation ...scream racist (or any one of SIXHIRB)!!!!! what I say would apply to anyone we are arming

point 3 ...please be specific.....or are you deploying tactic #3 ....when on a hiding to nothing complain you points are not being answered...but dont specify which ones....always a good distraction....

AND

point 1.......surely we are able to gain access to saudi intel.....
in fact .."give us the intel...or we wont supply" is it seems to me a damn fine way for the investigation to proceed...
indeed, I would have thought that that intel would be supplied in any case if saudi wishes to absolve itself of the accusations......

kinda ...like ...we had proof that fighters were hiding weapons there...because of this(and here follows 26 pages of proof)

i mean...if the cops asked you where you were on the night fred was strangled...I'm sure you would supply all proof possible to show you were elsewhere.....

Well Vic, having read your replies it seems Didge is complaining that people are complaining about Saudi. How very strange, because when we were discussing Israel's crimes he used to moan that no-one was talking about Saudi's crimes in Yemen. It seems as normal, he's Mr Flip Flop. Doesn't surprise me.

by Guest Thu Mar 10, 2016 7:58 pm

Sassy lies yet again

Never once in this debate have I stated that its impossible for any war crime to have happened. Its possible there might have been, then again its possible there has been none. Interesting you twist what I did say, which is a tactic of the left. I said, why is the UN not investigating all the civilian deaths as a possible war crime?

I did also say how hypnotically the media is over civilian deaths in Yemen and the left

Is this all you have sassy?

lol

Which is why you cannot have adult debates with me and Victor, you are just not that smart enough

by Guest Thu Mar 10, 2016 8:10 pm

Lord Foul wrote:
Didge wrote:

1) Wrong. Yes you do need their backing as how on earth can you know whether there was military intelligence of a target? Why do you think Israel has never been charged with a war crime? Again having an investigation that does not have access to all details is default before its starts. so you are utterly wrong on that aspect.

2) Again that is again making a racial claim that we should not sell arms to Arabs, based racially off a view thy are going to commit them or are committing them.

3) You failed to answer my other posts

Back later

point 2...when faced with a losing situation ...scream racist (or any one of SIXHIRB)!!!!! what I say would apply to anyone we are arming

point 3 ...please be specific.....or are you deploying tactic #3 ....when on a hiding to nothing complain you points are not being answered...but dont specify which ones....always a good distraction....

AND

point 1.......surely we are able to gain access to saudi intel.....
in fact .."give us the intel...or we wont supply" is it seems to me a damn fine way for the investigation to proceed...
indeed, I would have thought that that intel would be supplied in any case if saudi wishes to absolve itself of the accusations......

kinda ...like ...we had proof that fighters were hiding weapons there...because of this(and here follows 26 pages of proof)

!00
i mean...if the cops asked you where you were on the night fred was strangled...I'm sure you would supply all proof possible to show you were elsewhere.....

1) Show me where I am even stated racist? Never did I say you are making a racial argument, so that is poor on your part and you are making an assertion not to supply arabs when we have for decades

2) Point is clear enough

3) So you wont supply to them, they go big deal
How can you then conduct a proper investigation? Even then they can present their side showing malfunctions, human error and countless other reasons if they did comply, the point being you need them to do so in order to have a thorough investigation, of which again the British cannot make such a rulling on "war crimes" only the International criminal court can

by Victorismyhero Thu Mar 10, 2016 8:17 pm

Didge wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:
Didge wrote:

We can hold the user to account if found to have done wrong by a proper investigation that leads to a criminal case. Its absurd to then say we should have known they would commit war crimes or they are committing wars crimes based off organisations that have no understanding of the Rules of Engagement. Have not seen Saudi military intelligence and are just going off civilian deaths. I mean come on victor, that is saying the most racial argument going, that we should expect Arabs to commit war crimes and not sell an ally any arms.

we dont need a criminal case didge...
even if whats been done merely "offends our sensibilities" we can refuse future sales.....we are NOT OBLIGED to make any such sales......
and investigating is NOT holding them to account...its finding out if they need to be held to account.... the investigation is triggered on the possibility that something is amiss it will either clear the saudis or implicate them fully we cant even ask for the un to investigate...with out an investigation.... ::::blr:: :: this is the problem a complaint has been made..... e either ignore itew or investigate it aside from te differences between states and individuals someone reports seeing a man murdered do the cops ignore it or investigate it.....

So there you have it, you argument is fucked
If the Saudis do not wish to cooperate with any investigation by the British on possible war crimes, there is no way to even begin an investigation without access to witness army personnel, intelligence fault equipment or a multitude of reasons and they have the right to do and yet allow UN inspectors to have this access to investigat. Not only that as seen they are fighting to stop an insurgency the same as we are doing in Syria and the UN is not going to investigate rendering them any claim on Saudi thrown out
How then can a team then investigating that is British come to any real conclusion of war crime? They cannot.

Now that part has been repeated again which you failed to counter

what you fail to se...is that we may take the attitude that they either cooperate of we dont supply....simples....

there is NO obligation on us to supply they have no redress if we refuse

we coud, if so minded...turn round and say we aint bothered about investigating even...we've heard that you are doing (whatever) and thats good enough

we have the power to investigate, we probably have a duty to investigate, we certainly have the right to decide whether or not to continue supply

in other words...whether it offends YOUR sensibility.or not...

mr Saudi...we,ve heard you are being naughty...and we ARE going to investigate....if you dont cooperate ...we stop supplying you anyway, on the assumption you are trying to hide something

kinda tough init....

Even then, you cannot claim that a Government is responsible for illegally selling weapons based in claims during the middle of a conflict by organisations that have no military experts and are going off organisations that have no concept of the rules of engagement. These same organisations wrongly seem to conclude that any civilian casualty is a war crime. Its not. What you are in fact saying is that a nation is guilty before being proven either way and we should stop wrong... thats your (MIS)interpretation....the investigation is to prove or disprove guilt no one is saying they are ...well apart from MSF what IS being said is ...this respected organisation is saying this...lets find out if its true... based on poor leftist organisations that have no utter clue on conflict,.

no one is saying that they are...what WOULD be illegal is if, after investigating they continued to supply knowing such abuses were taking place...OR idf the investigation proves that the govt KNEW or reasonably could forsee that such abuses would take place....

That just does not cut it

Not only that you have just also agree the UN is not worth a piss and this is based on them making such assertions even though they have not done any investigation

Again is guilty before any investigation which is wrong

you are going round in such small circles you will bite your own ass...

what part of

complaint...investigate.......guilty/not guilty dont you get

the complaint has been made....so some MPS are going to investigate... then the decision to supply or not will be made... MPs to investigate use of British weapons by Saudi Arabia in Yemen 'humanitarian disaster' 2396444674

MPs to investigate use of British weapons by Saudi Arabia in Yemen 'humanitarian disaster' 2396444674

by Guest Thu Mar 10, 2016 8:20 pm

Lord Foul wrote:
Didge wrote:

So there you have it, you argument is fucked
If the Saudis do not wish to cooperate with any investigation by the British on possible war crimes, there is no way to even begin an investigation without access to witness army personnel, intelligence fault equipment or a multitude of reasons and they have the right to do and yet allow UN inspectors to have this access to investigat. Not only that as seen they are fighting to stop an insurgency the same as we are doing in Syria and the UN is not going to investigate rendering them any claim on Saudi thrown out
How then can a team then investigating that is British come to any real conclusion of war crime? They cannot.

Now that part has been repeated again which you failed to counter

what you fail to se...is that we may take the attitude that they either cooperate of we dont supply....simples....

there is NO obligation on us to supply they have no redress if we refuse

we coud, if so minded...turn round and say we aint bothered about investigating even...we've heard that you are doing (whatever) and thats good enough

we have the power to investigate, we probably have a duty to investigate, we certainly have the right to decide whether or not to continue supply

in other words...whether it offends YOUR sensibility.or not...

mr Saudi...we,ve heard you are being naughty...and we ARE going to investigate....if you dont cooperate ...we stop supplying you anyway, on the assumption you are trying to hide something

kinda tough init....

Even then, you cannot claim that a Government is responsible for illegally selling weapons based in claims during the middle of a conflict by organisations that have no military experts and are going off organisations that have no concept of the rules of engagement. These same organisations wrongly seem to conclude that any civilian casualty is a war crime. Its not. What you are in fact saying is that a nation is guilty before being proven either way and we should stop wrong... thats your (MIS)interpretation....the investigation is to prove or disprove guilt no one is saying they are ...well apart from MSF what IS being said is ...this respected organisation is saying this...lets find out if its true... based on poor leftist organisations that have no utter clue on conflict,.

no one is saying that they are...what WOULD be illegal is if, after investigating they continued to supply knowing such abuses were taking place...OR idf the investigation proves that the govt KNEW or reasonably could forsee that such abuses would take place....

That just does not cut it

Not only that you have just also agree the UN is not worth a piss and this is based on them making such assertions even though they have not done any investigation

Again is guilty before any investigation which is wrong

you are going round in such small circles you will bite your own ass...

what part of

complaint...investigate.......guilty/not guilty dont you get

the complaint has been made....so some MPS are going to investigate... then the decision to supply or not will be made...

NPD does tend to make people do that.

by Guest Thu Mar 10, 2016 8:20 pm

Lord Foul wrote:
Didge wrote:

So there you have it, you argument is fucked
If the Saudis do not wish to cooperate with any investigation by the British on possible war crimes, there is no way to even begin an investigation without access to witness army personnel, intelligence fault equipment or a multitude of reasons and they have the right to do and yet allow UN inspectors to have this access to investigat. Not only that as seen they are fighting to stop an insurgency the same as we are doing in Syria and the UN is not going to investigate rendering them any claim on Saudi thrown out
How then can a team then investigating that is British come to any real conclusion of war crime? They cannot.

Now that part has been repeated again which you failed to counter

what you fail to se...is that we may take the attitude that they either cooperate of we dont supply....simples....

there is NO obligation on us to supply they have no redress if we refuse

we coud, if so minded...turn round and say we aint bothered about investigating even...we've heard that you are doing (whatever) and thats good enough

we have the power to investigate, we probably have a duty to investigate, we certainly have the right to decide whether or not to continue supply

in other words...whether it offends YOUR sensibility.or not...

mr Saudi...we,ve heard you are being naughty...and we ARE going to investigate....if you dont cooperate ...we stop supplying you anyway, on the assumption you are trying to hide something

kinda tough init....

Even then, you cannot claim that a Government is responsible for illegally selling weapons based in claims during the middle of a conflict by organisations that have no military experts and are going off organisations that have no concept of the rules of engagement. These same organisations wrongly seem to conclude that any civilian casualty is a war crime. Its not. What you are in fact saying is that a nation is guilty before being proven either way and we should stop wrong... thats your (MIS)interpretation....the investigation is to prove or disprove guilt no one is saying they are ...well apart from MSF what IS being said is ...this respected organisation is saying this...lets find out if its true... based on poor leftist organisations that have no utter clue on conflict,.

no one is saying that they are...what WOULD be illegal is if, after investigating they continued to supply knowing such abuses were taking place...OR idf the investigation proves that the govt KNEW or reasonably could forsee that such abuses would take place....

That just does not cut it

Not only that you have just also agree the UN is not worth a piss and this is based on them making such assertions even though they have not done any investigation

Again is guilty before any investigation which is wrong

you are going round in such small circles you will bite your own ass...

what part of

complaint...investigate.......guilty/not guilty dont you get

the complaint has been made....so some MPS are going to investigate... then the decision to supply or not will be made...

So they just get their arms off someone else and then the Uk loses revenue

The UK then loses out because its just pissed off its ally making poor unfounded claims they have committed war crimes and that they want to investigate this based off poor agencies who have no military expects or access to the Saudi military

We have no case to rule if it is a war crime, without access to this or the power to even make a ruling especially if then no case is brought before the international criminal court in the hague

You are the only one that fails to grasp the law

You have gone around in circles and made no case at all

by Victorismyhero Thu Mar 10, 2016 8:27 pm

Didge wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:
Didge wrote:

1) Wrong. Yes you do need their backing as how on earth can you know whether there was military intelligence of a target? Why do you think Israel has never been charged with a war crime? Again having an investigation that does not have access to all details is default before its starts. so you are utterly wrong on that aspect.

2) Again that is again making a racial claim that we should not sell arms to Arabs, based racially off a view thy are going to commit them or are committing them.

3) You failed to answer my other posts

Back later

point 2...when faced with a losing situation ...scream racist (or any one of SIXHIRB)!!!!! what I say would apply to anyone we are arming

point 3 ...please be specific.....or are you deploying tactic #3 ....when on a hiding to nothing complain you points are not being answered...but dont specify which ones....always a good distraction....

AND

point 1.......surely we are able to gain access to saudi intel.....
in fact .."give us the intel...or we wont supply" is it seems to me a damn fine way for the investigation to proceed...
indeed, I would have thought that that intel would be supplied in any case if saudi wishes to absolve itself of the accusations......

kinda ...like ...we had proof that fighters were hiding weapons there...because of this(and here follows 26 pages of proof)

!00
i mean...if the cops asked you where you were on the night fred was strangled...I'm sure you would supply all proof possible to show you were elsewhere.....

1) Show me where I am even stated racist? Never did I say you are making a racial argument, so that is poor on your part and you are making an assertion not to supply arabs when we have for decades

2) Point is clear enough

3) So you wont supply to them, they go big deal
How can you then conduct a proper investigation? Even then they can present their side showing malfunctions, human error and countless other reasons if they did comply, the point being you need them to do so in order to have a thorough investigation, of which again the British cannot make such a rulling on "war crimes" only the International criminal court can

errm

" I mean come on victor, that is saying the most racial argument going, that we should expect Arabs to commit war crimes and not sell an ally any arms."

and

2) Again that is again making a racial claim that we should not sell arms to Arabs, based racially off a view thy are going to commit them or are committing them.

by Guest Thu Mar 10, 2016 8:28 pm

BRUSSELS (AP) — European Union lawmakers called on Thursday for an EU arms embargo against Saudi Arabia over airstrikes and a naval blockade in Yemen, despite lobbying by the kingdom.

In a resolution, the legislators called for the EU's foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini "to launch an initiative aimed at imposing an EU arms embargo against Saudi Arabia."

They expressed concern "at the airstrikes by the Saudi-led coalition and the naval blockade it has imposed on Yemen," saying that they have led to thousands of deaths.

The resolution was passed by 449 votes to 36, with 78 abstentions.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/a599f9b9ffaf4e79ad4639079d3db07b/eu-lawmakers-call-arms-embargo-against-saudi-arabia

by Guest Thu Mar 10, 2016 8:30 pm

Letter before action sent as threat of legal action over arms export licences to Saudi Arabia increases

Judicial review launched over Government's decision to export arms to Saudi Arabia
MPs to investigate use of British weapons by Saudi Arabia in Yemen 'humanitarian disaster' Sanaa-City-Yemen.aspx?width=300&height=199&ext=

MPs to investigate use of British weapons by Saudi Arabia in Yemen 'humanitarian disaster' Sanaa-City-Yemen.aspx?width=300&height=199&ext=

10 January 2016
Law firm Leigh Day, representing Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT), has issued a pre-action protocol letter for judicial review challenging the government's decision to export arms to Saudi Arabia despite increasing evidence that Saudi forces are violating international humanitarian law (IHL) in Yemen.

As set out in the letter, a range of international organisations including the European Parliament and many humanitarian NGOs, have condemned the ongoing Saudi air strikes against Yemen as unlawful. Matters of particular concern include the following:

The targeting of civilians and those not directly participating in hostilities.
The apparent targeting of civilian objects in Saudi air strikes; including facilities that are necessary to meet basic humanitarian needs such as electricity and water processing plants.
The disproportionate scale of civilian casualties.
Failure to take precautions to prevent or minimise the loss of civilian life of the infliction of harm or unnecessary suffering on civilians.
The destruction of cultural property.
A naval blockade contrary to international humanitarian law enforced by Saudi Arabia, preventing goods from entering the country, including essential foodstuffs and medicine.

Despite these serious allegations the UK government has refused to suspend any military licences to Saudi Arabia or to call for an investigation into whether IHL has been broken.

Leigh Day has asked the government to confirm if it now accepts there is credible evidence Saudi Arabia has violated IHL in its conduct in Yemen.

The letter before action has asked the government to confirm within 14 days whether the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation & Skills, Sajid Javid will:

Agree to suspend extant licences for the export of military equipment and technology to Saudi Arabia for possible use in Yemen pending the outcome of a full review as to whether the export of military equipment is compatible with EU arms control legislation.
Agree not to grant further licences for the export of military equipment to Saudi Arabia pending the completion of such a review.
Agree not to grant further licences (and to suspend existing licences) until the government is in possession of sufficiently clear information to enable a proper assessment as to whether such licences can be granted lawfully.

Rosa Curling from the human rights team at Leigh Day, which is representing CAAT, said:

“The UK government is under a clear legal obligation to ensure any military equipment and/or technology exported from this country to another, is not being used in breach of international humanitarian law.

"Given the widespread and credible evidence that the Saudi authorities are breaching their international obligations in Yemen, we can see no credible basis upon which the UK government can lawfully continue to export arms to them.

"We hope our client’s letter will cause the government to reconsider its position and suspend all licences with immediate effect pending a proper investigation into the issue.”

Andrew Smith of Campaign Against Arms Trade said:

"UK weapons have been central to a bombing campaign that has killed thousands of people, destroyed vital infrastructure and inflamed tensions in the region. The UK has been complicit in the destruction by continuing to support air strikes and provide arms, despite strong and increasing evidence that war crimes are being committed."

"These arms sales should never have been approved in the first place. The Saudi regime has an appalling human rights record and always has done. How many more people will be tortured and killed before the government finally says it will stop arming what is one of the most oppressive regimes in the world?"

https://www.leighday.co.uk/News/News-2016/January-2016/Letter-before-action-sent-as-threat-of-legal-actio

by Victorismyhero Thu Mar 10, 2016 8:31 pm

well didge...that may be your opinion...but you are wrong , morally AND legally,,,

we CAN investigate and SHOULD investigate....

by Guest Thu Mar 10, 2016 8:31 pm

This government will cave in to the Saudi's just like Blair did in halting the SFO investigation over corruption in the Saudi Tornado CTT.

by Guest Thu Mar 10, 2016 8:31 pm

Lord Foul wrote:
Didge wrote:

1) Show me where I am even stated racist? Never did I say you are making a racial argument, so that is poor on your part and you are making an assertion not to supply arabs when we have for decades

2) Point is clear enough

3) So you wont supply to them, they go big deal
How can you then conduct a proper investigation? Even then they can present their side showing malfunctions, human error and countless other reasons if they did comply, the point being you need them to do so in order to have a thorough investigation, of which again the British cannot make such a rulling on "war crimes" only the International criminal court can

errm

" I mean come on victor, that is saying the most racial argument going, that we should expect Arabs to commit war crimes and not sell an ally any arms."

and

2) Again that is again making a racial claim that we should not sell arms to Arabs, based racially off a view thy are going to commit them or are committing them.

errrmmm never claimed any racism

Making a racial argument does not mean you are being racist

Or are you claiming it does?

by Guest Thu Mar 10, 2016 8:34 pm

Lord Foul wrote:well didge...that may be your opinion...but you are wrong , morally AND legally,,,

we CAN investigate and SHOULD investigate....

Morally, based on what parameters and evidence?

Some lefties who have no military experience and see some dead people, and claim its a war crime?
Not then knowing if a target was hit by mistake, as happened in Afghanistan with also a hospital, recently prior to this by the Americans off bad intelligence.
That means the intention was not deliberate but a mistake
That is not a war crime
So legally and more so on the Rules of engagement you are again presuming guilt based off no evidence just dead civilians

The point is not on whether we should investigate but how can we investigate
The other point is on if they have committed war crimes, how they can you make a case on legality in hindsight to the sale of arms, which is absurd

by Victorismyhero Thu Mar 10, 2016 8:37 pm

Didge wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:
Didge wrote:

1) Show me where I am even stated racist?

Never did I say you are making a racial argument

so that is poor on your part and you are making an assertion not to supply arabs when we have for decades

2) Point is clear enough

3) So you wont supply to them, they go big deal
How can you then conduct a proper investigation? Even then they can present their side showing malfunctions, human error and countless other reasons if they did comply, the point being you need them to do so in order to have a thorough investigation, of which again the British cannot make such a rulling on "war crimes" only the International criminal court can

errm

" I mean come on victor, that is saying the most racial argument going, that we should expect Arabs to commit war crimes and not sell an ally any arms."

and

2) Again that is again making a racial claim that we should not sell arms to Arabs, based racially off a view thy are going to commit them or are committing them.

errrmmm never claimed any racism

Making a racial argument does not mean you are being racist

Or are you claiming it does?

uhm......

by Guest Thu Mar 10, 2016 8:38 pm

Lord Foul wrote:
Didge wrote:

errrmmm never claimed any racism

Making a racial argument does not mean you are being racist

Or are you claiming it does?

uhm......

Did I say racist argument or racial argument

Take your time

by Sponsored content