world

Al-Qaida consolidates hold of Yemen province

14 Comments
By AHMED AL-HAJ and SARAH EL DEEB

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2015 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

14 Comments
Login to comment

al-Qaida fighters were holding up large signs reading "Thank You America!"

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

US drones have continued to hit al-Qaida. Why should they say thank you?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Wouldn't have happened if there was no Houthi-ignited chaos

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Quote: "Fighting al-Qaida requires different strategies than that of the current operation, Asiri said, suggesting that such a fight could come later. Once there is a secure and stable Yemen that is able to impose order, there will be no room for al-Qaida,” he told the Saudi-owned Al-Arabiya Al-Hadath TV station.

Is there no possibility that this could be true, BB, no possibility that it could be taken at face value, then?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The Houthis hate al-Qaida and were attacking them.

The US taxpayers are spending millions trying to beat down al-Qaida in Yemen.

Now, the US/Saudi plan is to attack the Houthis and ignore the growing successes of al-Qaida in Yemen created by this vacuum.

nandakandamanda & lostrune2, how can you fit these two conflicting actions into your brain and remain sane?

It's seems you're not thinking logically.

Oh, about and the

Houthi-ignited chaos

Please try to read up on the history. CNN is not a very good source for facts.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Houthi-ignited chaos

Now, the US/Saudi plan is to attack the Houthis and ignore the growing successes of al-Qaida in Yemen created by this vacuum.

A vacuum ignited by the Houthis. Yemen was relatively stable, until the Houthis overthrew the government, Arab-uprising style. If the Houthis had just left the majority Sunni Yemen government, like if Assad is left on Syria, then the country would still be stable. Don't ya see the parallel here?

Furthermore, the Houthis couldn't care less that the US backed the Sunni government. Even if the US did not back the Sunni government, the Houthis would've attacked it anyways since they don't like each other (the government killed their Houthi namesake and former Al-Haqq Islamic party member) and they want to take over. The US being there is just ancillary to their goals.

And yes, we read up on history, college minor. How about you? Just watch TV and newspapers? All you do is make statements and not back it up. You tell us to read up on history, but how do we even know you read up on yours? Nothing you've said so far suggest some research.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Well lostrune2, you're the one reading off of the MSM teleprompter (Houthi-ignited chaos). It goes much deeper than those simple statements.

This is a little better, but still very shallow.

Yemen was relatively stable, until the Houthis overthrew the government, Arab-uprising style.

Saudi Arabia has been trying to destabilize the the country for decades. Here is some info for you if you like.

You can't say that war started in Yemen in 2004, because it had never really stopped. But "the fighting" definitely stepped it up a few notches that year, as the Houthi militias, recruited from Saada Province itself, started taking their home province back from the Yemeni government and its Saudi ally.

http://pando.com/2015/03/30/the-war-nerd-to-lighten-the-mood-heres-the-cheery-tale-of-dammaj/

the Houthis would've attacked it anyways since they don't like each other

It's as simple as that eh?

And please take your time to answer how the recent growth and success of Al-Qaida in Yemen because the US/Saudi campaign is attacking the Houthis who are Al-Qaida's sworn enemy is OK with you.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Well lostrune2, you're the one reading off of the MSM teleprompter (Houthi-ignited chaos). It goes much deeper than those simple statements.

Ah yes, more ad hominem attacks, and I don't even follow MSM. Can ya stick to the facts without resorting to this?

This is a little better, but still very shallow.

Ah again, talk about making simple statements without backing it up. But please don't stop there; now go ahead and expound on your own deep explanations first. All we see are your one-liners, not even a paragraph as support. Write paragraphs, not one-liners.

Yemen was relatively stable, until the Houthis overthrew the government, Arab-uprising style.

Saudi Arabia has been trying to destabilize the the country for decades. Here is some info for you if you like.

It was stable before the overthrow of the government. Why would Saudi Arabia destabilize a Sunni-majority government it supports? At that point, there's no reason for Saudi Arabia to destabilize it! At that point, Saudi Arabia would want the opposite. (That's like Iran trying to destabilize an Assad government it supports - why would Iran do that?)

You can't say that war started in Yemen in 2004, because it had never really stopped. But "the fighting" definitely stepped it up a few notches that year, as the Houthi militias, recruited from Saada Province itself, started taking their home province back from the Yemeni government and its Saudi ally.

http://pando.com/2015/03/30/the-war-nerd-to-lighten-the-mood-heres-the-cheery-tale-of-dammaj/

1) Dude, who's Gary Brecher and why are you reading from his blog? Ah wait, this Gary Brecher:

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

Brecher claims to have been born in 1965 and to have attended community college after high school, dropping out before graduating.[6] He claims to be employed as a data entry clerk in Fresno, California and deeply unsatisfied with his job.[7] Around that time he met Mark Ames, editor of the Moscow-based, English language newspaper the eXile, who offered Brecher a column. He wrote in his first eXile column that life in Fresno is a "death sentence" and that he spends 15 hours a day in front of a computer ("6 or 7 hours entering civilian numbers for the paycheck and the rest surfing the war news").

On June 25, 2008, the following revelation is made on citypaper.[12] in the course of a review of the War Nerd book: But the War Nerd is, in fact, neither of those things. He is not even Gary Brecher! Brecher is the creation of John Dolan, a poet, novelist, lecturer in English at the University of Victoria, and The eXile co-editor.

Suggest ya cite better sources.

2) The Houthis are doing what the Sunni majority is doing in Syria - taking their lands back from Assad's Alawite government. And just like that the Syrian civil war started long before 2011; yet some people seem to think it started with the Arab Spring. The Sunnis in both Yemen and Syria would be OK with just separating from the current governments, but the governments won't let them. Again, you're not seeing the parallels here?

the Houthis would've attacked it anyways since they don't like each other

It's as simple as that eh?

Yes, as simple as the US meddling in the Middle East just because of oil that a lot of people espouse. No, of course not - that's what I've been writing paragraphs about, including the Houthis wanting to control the oil revenue in the Sunni southern Yemen.

And please take your time to answer how the recent growth and success of Al-Qaida in Yemen because the US/Saudi campaign is attacking the Houthis who are Al-Qaida's sworn enemy is OK with you.

And where did I say it's OK? Go ahead, look for it. Otherwise, please don't fabricate straw-man arguments.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

No, of course not - that's what I've been writing paragraphs about, including the Houthis wanting to control the oil revenue in the Sunni southern Yemen.

Hadi hasn't done a very good job of spreading the wealth because he's in Saudi's pocket. Maybe the Houthis could do a better job. That's what they are fighting for. Stop supporting puppet regimes if you really want peace.

Nice research on the blogger though, but to me, people who sound honest and knowledgeable is more important than a big name like Brain Williams. Why do I say that, because if you don't follow the MSM then why do parrot their words? Defining everything into a simple problem like a Spy vs Spy cartoon.

Houthi-ignited chaos

Talk about lame "one-liners"

It was stable before the overthrow of the government.

It's illogical to compare Syria to Yemen.

And please take your time to answer how the recent growth and success of Al-Qaida in Yemen because the US/Saudi campaign is attacking the Houthis who are Al-Qaida's sworn enemy is OK with you.

And where did I say it's OK? Go ahead, look for it. Otherwise, please don't fabricate straw-man arguments.

OK, that was sarcasm. The point was for you to address the whole reason for our conversation, why are you against a people who hate Al-Qaida and favor a people who support them?

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Hadi hasn't done a very good job of spreading the wealth because he's in Saudi's pocket. Maybe the Houthis could do a better job. That's what they are fighting for. Stop supporting puppet regimes if you really want peace.

But some puppet regimes have kept stability. For instance, at one point Saddam Hussein's Iraq can be considered an US-puppet against Iran. Yet, how many people now says that Saddam should've remained in power just for the sake of stability? And the military that runs Egypt too, is still a huge recipient of US aid - how many would want the US to let the Egypt military crumble? In Africa, strongmen warlords in the past were propped up by the West. In the same vein, the Assad and the Shiite Iraqi governments can be considered puppets of Iran - should they go? It's not as easy as black and white.

Maybe you're right; maybe the Houthis could do a better job, but the means of getting there is plunging Yemen first into chaos. Is the means worth getting there, who knows. Both sides are just doing what they need to do. Houthis would want to take over, but the Sunni Yemenis would not want to give up control of their oil lands. Maybe they could've talked it over in negotiations and agreed to share and avoided chaos, but clearly they don't like each other enough to do that.

Nice research on the blogger though, but to me, people who sound honest and knowledgeable is more important than a big name like Brain Williams. Why do I say that, because if you don't follow the MSM then why do parrot their words? Defining everything into a simple problem like a Spy vs Spy cartoon.

But that's not his field of research or even his line of work. Ya don't have to look for a big name, but at least one whose field or line of work. It's not about big name comparisons but establishing some baseline. Has to be more than just sounds honest and knowledgeable - that's how quack doctors fool patients, or taking a non-lawyer best friend's legal advice. (For instance, ex-US Rep. Michele Bachmann was regularly jeered for taking any sources without vetting, such as her whole Obama India trip cost fiasco.)

And those are my own words, not even using words from other people's blogs. So unless ya can provide actual accounts of these so-called MSM I'm supposedly parroting, please refrain from assumptions.

Houthi-ignited chaos

Talk about lame "one-liners"

That's why I expound on my statements afterwards - all one has to do is ask, and it'd be my pleasure to explain. And that's all I've been asking of you to do the same from the start.

Heck, we've been thru several rounds now, and you've yet to share with us your "deep" explanations of the Yemeni conflicts. I'm all for a healthy debate, but that's kinda hard when the other party isn't elaborating. We still don't know your positions, and we're still waiting for you to expound on them. Ya can't say people's takes aren't deep yet not provide your own.

It was stable before the overthrow of the government.

It's illogical to compare Syria to Yemen.

Why do you think it's illogical then? So ya gonna have to elaborate on that too.

The point was for you to address the whole reason for our conversation, why are you against a people who hate Al-Qaida and favor a people who support them?

Not really against nor for (why is everybody going G.W. Bush nowadays "you're either with us or against us"), neither did express support a side or another, certainly not thru Al-Qaeda. First, lest we forget, the US hates Al-Qaeda as well - so what now, if you're against the US, then you're against a people who hate Al-Qaeda too? Also don't forget that the Sunni Yemen government, with US assistance, was attacking Al-Qaeda, not favoring them (US aid trumps their backsides). And so, the issue of Al-Qaeda becomes a wash, almost ancillary to the whole conflict; there are more significant factors above Al-Qaeda to both sides.

But what the Yemen chaos did bring --just like in Syria-- is that all sides are too busy fighting each other that neither can spare any resources to fight Al-Qaeda at all. Neither the Houthis nor the Sunni Yemenis are attacking Al-Qaeda currently! Fight for survival first, worry about Al-Qaeda later, is what both sides are currently doing. There's really no good guy; either side may not even be bad guy. History just happens. AFAIC, both sides are just doing what they have to do from their point of view.

Now it's your turn; let's hear your side. We'd like to hear more of your explanations; expound what you think of these Yemeni conflicts. Please use your paragraphs, not someone's blogs. Take as much space as you'd need; that's fine by us.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Well, I'm not going to pretend to be an expert, but I have read from a handful of some. Needless to say, they don't make it into the MSM.

From my understanding, the Houthis are fighting for their independence. As I write this, the US are sending war ships to the area to "stop Iran weapons shipments". I don't believe Iran is sending weapons for a second as they have shown no proof of their claim. The Saudi / US campaign is an international war crime and should be discussed as so. Hiding behind the MSM propaganda machine for justification is not a valid excuse.

"Yet, how many people now says that Saddam should've remained in power just for the sake of stability?"

And there it is again. Your tacit acceptance of an illegal war. We humans make a lot of mistakes, but the 2nd Iraq was an illegal planned operation and there are a lot of Presidents who should be in prison right now including Bush and Obama.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Well, I'm not going to pretend to be an expert, but I have read from a handful of some. Needless to say, they don't make it into the MSM.

No prob; we're just here to discuss.

From my understanding, the Houthis are fighting for their independence.

And they can have it. And I mean, right now. Yemen used to be separate North and South. Houthis now control the government. The southern Sunni Yemenis won't mind secession. Houthis can separate Yemen again, either side going their separate ways.

But as mentioned, Houthis likely won't want that. The oil fields are in the South. A Yemen government without the oil would be an impoverished government. But of course, the Southern Yemenis won't want to give up control of it.

As I write this, the US are sending war ships to the area to "stop Iran weapons shipments". I don't believe Iran is sending weapons for a second as they have shown no proof of their claim. The Saudi / US campaign is an international war crime and should be discussed as so.

Well, this is where it gets muddy. The last internationally recognized Yemen government is the previous Sunni administration, which is exiled from the capital but still exists. The US has diplomatic relations with that admin, who could then give the US the authority to patrol Yemen waters. So the US would have the legal cover to check Iran ships once it enters Yemen waters (in international waters, they can't do it), in addition to the UN-approved naval blockade of Yemen. Now, whether the US would actually do it, is another matter. If Iran ships aren't carrying weapons, then it shouldn't be a problem if they're searched. But that's why ya check.

And this "legal cover" could also apply to Saudi Arabian air strikes. The Sunni admin is still the legally recognized Yemen government who would give Saudis approval to enter their airspace.

"Yet, how many people now says that Saddam should've remained in power just for the sake of stability?"

And there it is again. Your tacit acceptance of an illegal war. We humans make a lot of mistakes, but the 2nd Iraq was an illegal planned operation and there are a lot of Presidents who should be in prison right now including Bush and Obama.

Please explain how my above statement leads you to believe my acceptance of anything.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Yet, how many people now says that Saddam should've remained in power just for the sake of stability?"

there it is again. Your tacit acceptance of an illegal war

.

You're right. My error. I take that back.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites