278
all 25 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] matchphoenix@feddit.uk 32 points 1 year ago

It’s high time that we stop selling weapons to the Saudis. If they’re not using them to kill migrants, they’re using them to kill Yemenis.

[-] meeeeetch@lemmy.world 24 points 1 year ago

If we suspect the Saudis did this, we should absolutely look into it, and if they did, stop providing them with weapons.

But while we're auditing who may have used American weapons to kill migrants, we might want to check on this little organization called Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

[-] arin@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

Yeah until we can investigate cops killing innocent American citizens i highly doubt they would care about the ICE raping children and killing their migrant parents

[-] Maruki_Hurakami@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

ICE has killed thousands. So of course we need to start with SA's hundreds.

[-] paholg@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

We already know of atrocities they've committed. We should have stopped providing them weapons long ago. Since we failed that, we absolutely should stop right fucking now.

But yeah, also fuck ICE.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 20 points 1 year ago

I'll answer that for you, Joe.

OF COURSE THEY FUCKING DID!

[-] starman2112@sh.itjust.works 16 points 1 year ago

How on earth did these terrorists get their hands on US weapons? Oh, we sold them to them? Why do we keep electing terrorist arms dealers?

[-] expatriado@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

the forever unconditional ally

Well.

Until they run out of delicious, tasty, yummy in our tummies oil.

[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Pretty shitty ally, if you ask me.

[-] notannpc@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

What are you gonna do if they say yes? Are you gonna punish them the same way they were punished for killing Jamal Khashoggi…so not at all and rewarding them with another multimillion dollar arms deal?

Fuck the Saudi government. Bunch of scum.

[-] Mrkawfee@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

Why, yes we did.

[-] Rapidcreek@reddthat.com 5 points 1 year ago

This really isn't much different from what the leading Republican candidates want to do at our southern border.

[-] hark@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

So he wants to know this specifically but doesn't care about all the other atrocities Saudi Arabia is doing in Yemen with full support from the US that he already knows 100% about? He's very good at pretending to care.

[-] generalpotato@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

Current administration’s version of:

“Are you a terrorist?”

[-] TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago

I always hate when Amazon vendors pursue feedback aggressively.

[-] Piye@lemmygrad.ml 4 points 1 year ago

The 80 year old boomer doesn't care and never did

[-] meldroc@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Is Mecca Muslim? Never put anything beneath the Chainsawdis!

[-] Md1501@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

I mean they used american planes to kill Americans and nobody seems to give a shit about that

Ummm…. American weapons can be found in every nation on Earth. Pretty sure Russia is using some in Ukraine.

[-] autotldr 2 points 1 year ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


The Biden administration is demanding answers following a report that Saudi authorities may have killed hundreds of migrants in Yemen, possibly with arms provided by the United States, according to The Washington Post.

Last month, Human Rights Watch issued a report alleging that, between March 2022 and June 2023, Saudi border guards killed "at least hundreds" of Ethiopian migrants who were trying to cross into the country from neighboring Yemen.

The attacks included the use of explosive weapons and execution-style killings of people who had just been released from detention in Saudi Arabia itself, the group charged.

Bill Frelick, director of HRW's refugee and migrant rights division, said he was "shocked and horrified" by the allegations, which he described as among the worst he's seen in more than 30 years.

One person said that an attack on a group of 170 migrants left more than half of them dead, according to HRW, appearing to reflect a conscious decision to discourage migration through targeted killings — and raising the prospect that there is a "state policy of deliberate murder of a civilian population."

Michal Ratney, US ambassador to Saudi Arabia, discussed the allegations last month — ahead of the report's release — and US officials are now trying to determine whether the units accused received training or weapons from Washington.


The original article contains 359 words, the summary contains 219 words. Saved 39%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[-] I_Has_A_Hat@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago

Well of course the administration would want to know.

If they used them, that means they'll need to buy more!

[-] teddy-bonkerz@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

What difference does that make?

this post was submitted on 02 Sep 2023
278 points (97.0% liked)

politics

18883 readers
5697 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS