Earlier quoted context omitted.
Probably because their president isn't on tv endorsing those horrors, funding them with their tax dollars and in general having their mainstream media champion them.
To take another brutal war affecting civilians: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Saud... sure sounds like it had the endorsement of two US Presidents both from ends of the political spectrum, and it was a money sink for over $50bn in US tax dollars in 6 years (see https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-22-105988 ). I'm not sure if those teens even know how to spell Yemen.
First, it's factually inapposite, because we don't have a bunch of disproportionately pro-Saudi American companies and billionaires trying to intimidate people speaking in favor of Yemeni civilians, considering ad blitzes to gaslight and obfuscate the issues, etc. We don't have a significant pro-Saudi bias in the media such that it views the conflict there as worthy of constant reporting and also as a relatively black-and-white struggle where Yemeni civilians either are getting what they deserve or are merely unfortunate collateral damage for justifiable military actions. We don't have a strong contingency of people in this country trying to act like speaking out against the killing of Yemeni civilians is being "pro-terrorist".
Second, it's logically inane to say that someone's criticism of something is invalid because they didn't speak out or criticize some other thing that they most likely don't even know about.