I am comparing your use of the word ‘genocide’ to describe a rebel group because they use under-18 soldiers to dwight accusing a pushy italian-american insurance salesman of being in the mob because he drives an suv.
Not as funny when it needs to be explained, though.
That’s not my point. This isn’t about good guys or bad guys. This is about an entire population subjected to a genocide. There are plenty of reasons to not like the Houthis, but that doesn’t change the reality that they only exist as a resistance to the ongoing genocide. The point isn’t that the Houthis are good, it’s that the genocide, facilitated by the US and our Ally Saudi Arabia, is significantly worse by multiple magnitudes.
The root cause of the problem is still the genocide, that’s a much bigger concern, especially to the people of Yemen, than to stop or reform the Houthis themselves. They can only be addressed in a realistic way, by the people of Yemen, once the genocide ends.
As of February 2018, according to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, the coalition had killed 6,000 people in airstrikes and wounded nearly 10,000 more.
Yet, according to the OHCHR report, these counts are conservative. Tens of thousands of Yemenis have also died from causes related to the war. According to Save the Children, an estimated 85,000 children under five may have died since 2015, with more than 50,000 child deaths in 2017 alone from hunger and related causes.
If you’re concern is the well-being of the children in Yemen, which is a completely valid concern, then you can clearly see that the genocide is a far greater threat to them.
Maybe I’m wrong, and definitely correct me if so, but I thought the houthis formed well before the Saudi lead effective genocide occurring in Yemen. In fact, the current conflict is the result of the houthis basically couping the preceding government? If that’s the case, it doesn’t make much sense to characterize them as a resistance or reactionary force to anything externally?
That’s a great question, I’m no expert on the situation so let me see what I can find.
The Houthis emerged as a Zaydi resistance to Saleh and his corruption in the 1990s led by a charismatic leader named Hussein al Houthi, from whom they are named. They charged Saleh with massive corruption to steal the wealth of the Arab world’s poorest country for his own family, much like other Arab dictators in Tunisia, Egypt, and Syria. They also criticized Saudi and American backing for the dictator.
After 2003, Saleh launched a series of military campaigns to destroy the Houthis. In 2004, Saleh’s forces killed Hussein al Houthi. The Yemeni army and air force was used to suppress the rebellion in the far north of Yemen, especially in Saada province. The Saudis joined with Saleh in these campaigns. The Houthis won against both Saleh and the Saudi army, besting them both again and again. For the Saudis, who have spent tens of billions of dollars on their military, it was deeply humiliating.
Since Yemen’s revolution ended in 2012, the Houthis have demanded a greater role in the government and in the drafting of a new constitution. They accuse the government of corruption and oppose polices they say are at odds with their minority group’s interests, including a proposed division of the country into six federal states. They say such a move would weaken their Zaidi sect’s political representation.
It seems like they began as a resistance to US and Saudi interests and corruption in Yemani Government. It could be fair to frame the genocide as a ‘punishment’ for their resistance against US/Saudi interests in the region
I don’t understand, are you upset that they choose to fight back instead of sit back and die regardless? Again, the genocide has killed over 8 times as many children. How is your focus not on the genocide.
The child soldiers are not choosing to fight back. That’s just not what is going on and it’s disgusting that you are suggesting forced conscripts are doing something by choice.
Not even human rights groups are on your side on this.
There’s a reason why they were able to recruit children. Because the US and their allies have created an environment in Yemen where children would rather be soldiers than actual children.
Houthis offer salaries and food baskets for families of those who are willing to join them, which works well given the deteriorated humanitarian and economic situation,” said a female human rights activist in Sanaa. You see the same circumstances in a lot of third-world countries America has decided to fuck up.
Of course my perspective on both is consistent. There is no moral justification for sending a human who’s brain is as undeveloped as a child’s to war. I doubt most people would say it was justified to send intellectually disabled adults to war either. I sure wouldn’t want to see guys with Down’s Syndrome in body armor and carrying a rifle, not having a true conception of the actual danger they’re in or maybe even what they’re fighting for.
I think that’s a fair perspective and one I generally agree with. But I also see a compelling argument for “self defense.” Children are victims of war, maybe they need to be able to defend themselves in times of war at home.
It’s one thing to use child soldiers as cannon fodder or in wars of aggression, but maybe another when they’re defending their homes and themselves. I’m not sure
Putting them on the front lines puts them on the offensive, not the defensive. Sure, let them keep weapons in their home or whatever if they are threatened. That’s a different issue. Then it becomes defensive.
But that is not what is going on. What is going on is that they are being conscripted and put on the battlefield. It’s just not morally defensible.
You’re making this argument from a place of moral privilege. Yes, child soldiers are bad. But this has become a necessity for them and their survival based on foreign countries to deciding to screw them over because of their ethnicity and what side of a border they were born on. How effective or even necessary would this recruitment tactic be if Yemen wasn’t facing the struggles they currently are. Who is directly responsible for these struggles?
I’m not advocating for the use of child soldiers. I’m advocating for the elimination of actions where children feel the need to stop becoming children and start becoming soldiers. Putting the full blame on just the Houthis who are stuck between a rock and a hard place is being very disingenuous.
They do not have to put children on the battle lines. That is a choice and that choice is both a war crime and a human rights violation. That needs to be acknowledged.
If you’re being wiped out by an invading army. Then a lot of things become necessary. This isn’t some kind of political or religious battle. This is a fight for their lives.
I do not disagree.
However, the Houthis are using child soldiers on their front lines.
So fuck them too.
https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/02/13/yemen-houthis-recruit-more-child-soldiers-october-7
There is just no “good guy” involved in this particular conflict.
Which is worse: using “child soldiers” to fight genocide or genociding children including those too young to be soldiers?
B/c the “both sides” argument is just obvious BS.
I would say killing children in large numbers is a form of genocide.
Errr- i see why you might want to say that but that’s not how it works
It seems like it is to me. Killing all the children means there won’t be a next generation.
I have no idea what you’re trying to say.
I am comparing your use of the word ‘genocide’ to describe a rebel group because they use under-18 soldiers to dwight accusing a pushy italian-american insurance salesman of being in the mob because he drives an suv.
Not as funny when it needs to be explained, though.
Cool, that’s not what I said, but ok.
Maybe don’t put words in my mouth?
That’s not my point. This isn’t about good guys or bad guys. This is about an entire population subjected to a genocide. There are plenty of reasons to not like the Houthis, but that doesn’t change the reality that they only exist as a resistance to the ongoing genocide. The point isn’t that the Houthis are good, it’s that the genocide, facilitated by the US and our Ally Saudi Arabia, is significantly worse by multiple magnitudes.
The root cause of the problem is still the genocide, that’s a much bigger concern, especially to the people of Yemen, than to stop or reform the Houthis themselves. They can only be addressed in a realistic way, by the people of Yemen, once the genocide ends.
If you’re concern is the well-being of the children in Yemen, which is a completely valid concern, then you can clearly see that the genocide is a far greater threat to them.
Maybe I’m wrong, and definitely correct me if so, but I thought the houthis formed well before the Saudi lead effective genocide occurring in Yemen. In fact, the current conflict is the result of the houthis basically couping the preceding government? If that’s the case, it doesn’t make much sense to characterize them as a resistance or reactionary force to anything externally?
That’s a great question, I’m no expert on the situation so let me see what I can find.
It seems like they began as a resistance to US and Saudi interests and corruption in Yemani Government. It could be fair to frame the genocide as a ‘punishment’ for their resistance against US/Saudi interests in the region
How is genocide any greater a threat than putting them on the front lines? They’ll be killed either way.
Are you seriously asking how Genocide is a greater threat? Over 5 times as many children have died to starvation alone
If the child is going to die either way, it isn’t a greater threat. It’s an equal threat.
That’s not how Genocide works. It targets children regardless
So do people shooting at child soldiers. The child will die either way.
I don’t understand, are you upset that they choose to fight back instead of sit back and die regardless? Again, the genocide has killed over 8 times as many children. How is your focus not on the genocide.
The child soldiers are not choosing to fight back. That’s just not what is going on and it’s disgusting that you are suggesting forced conscripts are doing something by choice.
Not even human rights groups are on your side on this.
https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/02/13/yemen-houthis-recruit-more-child-soldiers-october-7
There’s a reason why they were able to recruit children. Because the US and their allies have created an environment in Yemen where children would rather be soldiers than actual children.
And the Houthis could tell them no. Children’s brains are not developed enough for them to consent to being sex workers or soldiers.
Underage Western men fought in the world wars
And?
If your perspective on both is consistent, more power to you, but putting that out there for others who may judge things differently in that case.
Of course my perspective on both is consistent. There is no moral justification for sending a human who’s brain is as undeveloped as a child’s to war. I doubt most people would say it was justified to send intellectually disabled adults to war either. I sure wouldn’t want to see guys with Down’s Syndrome in body armor and carrying a rifle, not having a true conception of the actual danger they’re in or maybe even what they’re fighting for.
I think that’s a fair perspective and one I generally agree with. But I also see a compelling argument for “self defense.” Children are victims of war, maybe they need to be able to defend themselves in times of war at home.
It’s one thing to use child soldiers as cannon fodder or in wars of aggression, but maybe another when they’re defending their homes and themselves. I’m not sure
Putting them on the front lines puts them on the offensive, not the defensive. Sure, let them keep weapons in their home or whatever if they are threatened. That’s a different issue. Then it becomes defensive.
But that is not what is going on. What is going on is that they are being conscripted and put on the battlefield. It’s just not morally defensible.
You’re making this argument from a place of moral privilege. Yes, child soldiers are bad. But this has become a necessity for them and their survival based on foreign countries to deciding to screw them over because of their ethnicity and what side of a border they were born on. How effective or even necessary would this recruitment tactic be if Yemen wasn’t facing the struggles they currently are. Who is directly responsible for these struggles?
No, I am making an argument based on human rights and international war crimes.
There is no justification to equip children with weapons and put them on battle lines. They do not have consent to be there.
And I am not alone on this-
The Arab Center agrees- https://arabcenterdc.org/resource/child-soldiers-in-yemen-cannon-fodder-for-an-unnecessary-war/
Human Rights Watch agrees- https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/02/13/yemen-houthis-recruit-more-child-soldiers-october-7
Amnesty International agrees- https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/press-release/2017/02/yemen-huthi-forces-recruiting-child-soldiers-for-front-line-combat/
ReliefWeb/OCHA agrees- https://reliefweb.int/report/yemen/militarized-childhood-report-houthis-recruitment-yemeni-children-during-war-february
If all of those organizations disagree with you, maybe you should rethink your position?
I’m not advocating for the use of child soldiers. I’m advocating for the elimination of actions where children feel the need to stop becoming children and start becoming soldiers. Putting the full blame on just the Houthis who are stuck between a rock and a hard place is being very disingenuous.
Full blame? No.
Blame? Yes.
They do not have to put children on the battle lines. That is a choice and that choice is both a war crime and a human rights violation. That needs to be acknowledged.
If you’re being wiped out by an invading army. Then a lot of things become necessary. This isn’t some kind of political or religious battle. This is a fight for their lives.
I’m sorry… are you saying that it is necessary for them to force children to die in battle?