| > I don't read that at all You + article are completely correct. That is the problem. Since correctness lasts until the final 'why' Then inverses strongly How can locals be 'rebels' and the Saudi/UAE led forces be legitimate?? -- The last BBC link you placed was impressive and accurate. It ends > The Gulf states and the US appear intent upon denying Ansar Allah international recognition and supporting Mr Hadi's claim to leadership Gulf states are Sunni, Ansar + Houthi's are Shia. The 'unity' government the BBC refers to is 'unity' because it unites two fractious Sunni governments... Definitely not unity because it unites or represents the people of Yemen! The war is Sunni countries attacking a Shia people. This bombing is a response to that The Houthi 'rebels' have held the capital for years. Why are they able to do that in the face of Saudi led bombing campaign? Because they have the support of the people in that area Nuances yes. But government legitimacy here is I assure you based on how much Gulf states pay for arms, and BBC + ourselves whitewashing the why |
The BBC isn't making any judgement here on who is right and who is wrong, and I think it's unfair to paint people like Lyse Doucet, Darren Conway, Marie Colvin, and other journalists who put their lives on the line to perform journalism in warzones, out as tools of the arms trade because they aren't biased in a way you want.
The entire complaint seems to stem from the BBC using internationally recognised terms to describe the beligerants that the UN uses, and saying this is bias.
If you have a complaint about the UN recognising Yemen as a single country represented by, take it up with your country's ambassador. If you don't think the UN is a legitimate organisation that's fine too, but don't pretend others are biased because they don't agree.