GCC troops arrive to Bahrain following weeks of protests

[Ulysses G.]

You behave like a small todler who's ball was taken away by some other boys in Kindergarden.

POT, kettle, black.

[LaoPo]

You behave like a small todler who's ball was taken away by some other boys in Kindergarden.

POT, kettle, black.

You behave like a small todler who's ball was taken away by some other boys in Kindergarden. -AGAIN-

LaoPo

[Ulysses G.]

POT, kettle, black.

[Ulysses G.]

That is a quick shift in US policy in regards to the situation in Libya. It may have something to do with the fact that the Rebllion is in trouble. When they were going well the world were bust trying to look like they were going in to set up a no fly zone. My guess being that they thought the rebels would overthrow Gaddafi for them. Now that are in under the pump and Gaddafi seems sure to hold onto power they know he cannot be deseated without foriegn intervention. So that is why the is a change in policy. I don't like the man too much myself. I am stating what should seem obvious to everybody. He has the backing of the majority by way that he has defeated a rebelious minority.

I am very much against intervention. No one appreciates it anyway and the US has more than enough on its plate already.

[cdnvic]

Please read the warning in the closed Bahrain topic.

[Steely Dan]

I can't get hold of the article yet, but according to Debkafile Iran has started to escalate matters by inciting Shia protesters to armed rebellion. The stakes are high, there are no moral absolutes but it's time to decide which regime you want to come out on top, Riyadh or Tehran. Apocalypse beckons.

[bangkokeddy]

I can't get hold of the article yet, but according to Debkafile Iran has started to escalate matters by inciting Shia protesters to armed rebellion. The stakes are high, there are no moral absolutes but it's time to decide which regime you want to come out on top, Riyadh or Tehran. Apocalypse beckons.

debkafile - a fringe outfit catering to conspiracy theorists.

[coma]

I can't get hold of the article yet, but according to Debkafile Iran has started to escalate matters by inciting Shia protesters to armed rebellion. The stakes are high, there are no moral absolutes but it's time to decide which regime you want to come out on top, Riyadh or Tehran. Apocalypse beckons.

debkafile - a fringe outfit catering to conspiracy theorists.

There is another cracker.

If one is going to quote an article it would help to wait until one can "get hold " of it.

[Steely Dan]

Ok, try this one instead. Of course using Geriatrickid's patented Good Arab Bad Arab test I know which side some of you will be batting for.

http://disasteremergencysupplies.com/snafu/2011/03/drumbeats-of-war-iran-promises-action-against-saudi-invasion-of-bahrain/

Drumbeats of War - Iran Promises Action Against Saudi Invasion of Bahrain

Mainstream media is reporting a lot about the crisis in Bahrain, and none of it is good news for the Bahraini protesters.

But the situation it is creating in the Middle East is far more serious than simply another entrenched Arab monarch performing acts of violence on his unruly people.

There is extreme anger in Iran over the Saudi invasion of this tiny kingdom. So much anger, that it may appear to be grossly out of proportion with the admittedly grim situation. But it is the straw that breaks the camels back.

Edited March 18, 2011 by metisdead
Edited/clipped for fair use.

[LaoPo]

I can't get hold of the article yet, but according to Debkafile Iran has started to escalate matters by inciting Shia protesters to armed rebellion. The stakes are high, there are no moral absolutes but it's time to decide which regime you want to come out on top, Riyadh or Tehran. Apocalypse beckons.

If you pay you will...

The article "The Shiite Guerilla War in Bahrain Has Begun" is an exclusive article and can be purchased.

From:

http://www.debka.com/article/20774/

AND:

The article "Hizballah and Hamas Get Hold of Chemical Weapons" is an exclusive article and can be purchased.

Same-same

LaoPo

[coma]

Reads like an editorial to me. Just another one in 5 billion opinions on this earth.

[bangkokeddy]

Ok, try this one instead. Of course using Geriatrickid's patented Good Arab Bad Arab test I know which side some of you will be batting for.

http://disasteremergencysupplies.com/snafu/2011/03/drumbeats-of-war-iran-promises-action-against-saudi-invasion-of-bahrain/

disasteremergencysupplies.com/ another alarmist paranoia web nonsense for the tin foil hat faction. Telling you that the apocalypse comes tomorrow.

The domain name suggest that an online shop selling survivalist stuff was/is the original concept behind that website.

[Steely Dan]

Ok, try this one instead. Of course using Geriatrickid's patented Good Arab Bad Arab test I know which side some of you will be batting for.

http://disasteremergencysupplies.com/snafu/2011/03/drumbeats-of-war-iran-promises-action-against-saudi-invasion-of-bahrain/

disasteremergencysupplies.com/ another alarmist paranoia web nonsense for the tin foil hat faction. Telling you that the apocalypse comes tomorrow.

The domain name suggest that an online shop selling survivalist stuff was/is the original concept behind that website.

And I thought you chaps would appreciate broadening your horizons from sundry left wing crackpots, holocaust deniers and Iranian press TV.

[Ulysses G.]

Apparently not.

[LaoPo]

Splits inside Bahrain's ruling al-Khalifah family

By Bill Law Reporter, Crossing Continents

16 March 2011 Last updated at 12:51 GMT

As the situation in Bahrain continues to deteriorate, splits in the ruling al-Khalifah family are beginning to surface.

A source close to the family told me that on Sunday morning, Crown Prince Sheikh Salman bin Hamad al-Khalifah was close to reaching a breakthrough with pro-democracy activists on terms that would allow a dialogue to begin.

Thus far, a coalition of religious and secular groups had refused to meet with the government until key demands were met.

The crown prince had offered a parliament with "full legislative authority", a government that represents the will of the people, and an end to gerrymandered electoral districts that had ensured the majority Shia population was held to a minority of seats.

By any standards, these represented significant concessions.

Continues:

http://www.bbc.co.uk...e-east-12760883

LaoPo

[LaoPo]

Bahrain's king as a royal wedding guest? What an dreadful message

Being 'royal' doesn't stop you being a violent dictator. Why are such people receiving invitations to Prince William's wedding?

Graham Smit guardian.co.uk, Thursday 17 March 2011 16.20 GMT

A man from the Shia village of Sitra in hospital this week after he was shot with pellets of buckshot as the king of Bahrain imposed a state of emergency. Photograph: James Lawler Duggan/AFP/Getty Images

I have written a letter to Prince William and Kate Middleton calling on them to remove the king of Bahrain and other vile men from their wedding invitation list. The king, who has reportedly received a personal invitation to the wedding from the Queen, has violently crushed the pro-democracy movement in his country. I reminded the couple of this country's duty to support the oppressed and the democrats over the despots and oppressors, and warned that it would send an "appalling message to the world were any dictators of the Middle East – royal or otherwise – seen enjoying the hospitality of your family and rubbing shoulders with Hollywood stars and politicians at your wedding".

The inclusion of these dictators on a wedding invitation list that excludes democratic leaders from Europe and the US speaks volumes about the world view of the Windsor family. These are people who favour status over principle and "royalty" over legitimacy.

The relationship between our royal family and those of the Middle East has a long history. It is a very deep and very personal one – as we saw when Prince Charles used his connections with the Qatari princes to pull the plug on the Chelsea barracks developer at the cost of thousands of jobs.

• 
  Continues:
  http://www.guardian....g-royal-wedding
  LaoPo

[LaoPo]

March 17, 2011

Interests of Saudi Arabia and Iran Collide, With the U.S. in the Middle

By HELENE COOPER and MARK LANDLER

WASHINGTON — The brutal crackdown in Bahrain poses the greatest Middle East democracy dilemma yet to the Obama administration, deepening a rift with its most important Arab ally, Saudi Arabia, while potentially strengthening the influence of its biggest nemesis, Iran.

Relations between the United States and Saudi Arabia have chilled to their coldest since the American invasion of Iraq in 2003. Saudi officials, still angry that President Obama abandoned President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt in the face of demonstrations, ignored American requests not to send troops into Bahrain to help crush Shiite-led protests there. A tense telephone call between Mr. Obama and King Abdullah on Wednesday, Arab officials said, failed to ease the tensions.

"King Abdullah has been clear that Saudi Arabia will never allow Shia rule in Bahrain — never," an Arab official who was briefed on the talks said. He said King Abdullah's willingness to listen to the Obama administration had "evaporated" since Mr. Mubarak was forced from office.

The Saudi position is rooted in the royal family's belief that a Shiite uprising next door in Bahrain could spread and embolden Saudi Arabia's own minority Shiite population and increase Iranian influence in the kingdom, a fear that American officials share. But where Mr. Obama and King Abdullah have parted ways, administration officials say, is on how to handle the crisis.

Continues:

http://www.nytimes.c...&ref=middleeast

LaoPo

[Steely Dan]

March 17, 2011

Interests of Saudi Arabia and Iran Collide, With the U.S. in the Middle

By HELENE COOPER and MARK LANDLER

WASHINGTON — The brutal crackdown in Bahrain poses the greatest Middle East democracy dilemma yet to the Obama administration, deepening a rift with its most important Arab ally, Saudi Arabia, while potentially strengthening the influence of its biggest nemesis, Iran.

Relations between the United States and Saudi Arabia have chilled to their coldest since the American invasion of Iraq in 2003. Saudi officials, still angry that President Obama abandoned President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt in the face of demonstrations, ignored American requests not to send troops into Bahrain to help crush Shiite-led protests there. A tense telephone call between Mr. Obama and King Abdullah on Wednesday, Arab officials said, failed to ease the tensions.

"King Abdullah has been clear that Saudi Arabia will never allow Shia rule in Bahrain — never," an Arab official who was briefed on the talks said. He said King Abdullah's willingness to listen to the Obama administration had "evaporated" since Mr. Mubarak was forced from office.

The Saudi position is rooted in the royal family's belief that a Shiite uprising next door in Bahrain could spread and embolden Saudi Arabia's own minority Shiite population and increase Iranian influence in the kingdom, a fear that American officials share. But where Mr. Obama and King Abdullah have parted ways, administration officials say, is on how to handle the crisis.

Continues:

http://www.nytimes.c...&ref=middleeast

LaoPo

Could my approved conspiracy crackpots be ahead of the curve? They also flagged the falling out between Obama and Abdullah weeks ago. :jap:

[LaoPo]

Could my approved conspiracy crackpots be ahead of the curve? They also flagged the falling out between Obama and Abdullah weeks ago. :jap:

Feel free to think of it what you want.

It's a NEWS ANALYSIS by two journalists:

Helen Cooper:

Helene Cooper (born April 22, 1966) is a Liberian-born American journalist who is a White House correspondent for the New York Times.

from: http://en.wikipedia....i/Helene_Cooper

Mark Landler:

Mark Aurel Landler (born October 26, 1965 in Stuttgart, Germany^[1]) is an American journalist who has been the Diplomatic Correspondent of the New York Times, based in Washington, since January 2009.^[2]

http://en.wikipedia....ki/Mark_Landler

I'm most interested in a written analysis by Steely Dan

LaoPo

[beechguy]

Bahrain's king as a royal wedding guest? What an dreadful message

Being 'royal' doesn't stop you being a violent dictator. Why are such people receiving invitations to Prince William's wedding?

Graham Smit guardian.co.uk, Thursday 17 March 2011 16.20 GMT

A man from the Shia village of Sitra in hospital this week after he was shot with pellets of buckshot as the king of Bahrain imposed a state of emergency. Photograph: James Lawler Duggan/AFP/Getty Images

I have written a letter to Prince William and Kate Middleton calling on them to remove the king of Bahrain and other vile men from their wedding invitation list. The king, who has reportedly received a personal invitation to the wedding from the Queen, has violently crushed the pro-democracy movement in his country. I reminded the couple of this country's duty to support the oppressed and the democrats over the despots and oppressors, and warned that it would send an "appalling message to the world were any dictators of the Middle East royal or otherwise seen enjoying the hospitality of your family and rubbing shoulders with Hollywood stars and politicians at your wedding".

The inclusion of these dictators on a wedding invitation list that excludes democratic leaders from Europe and the US speaks volumes about the world view of the Windsor family. These are people who favour status over principle and "royalty" over legitimacy.

The relationship between our royal family and those of the Middle East has a long history. It is a very deep and very personal one as we saw when Prince Charles used his connections with the Qatari princes to pull the plug on the Chelsea barracks developer at the cost of thousands of jobs.

• 
  Continues:
  http://www.guardian....g-royal-wedding
  LaoPo

Do they have a different, international standard for buckshot? Looks more like he got hit with birdshot, but it does seem like it was close range.

Edited March 18, 2011 by beechguy

[bangkokeddy]

March 17, 2011

Interests of Saudi Arabia and Iran Collide, With the U.S. in the Middle

By HELENE COOPER and MARK LANDLER

WASHINGTON — The brutal crackdown in Bahrain poses the greatest Middle East democracy dilemma yet to the Obama administration, deepening a rift with its most important Arab ally, Saudi Arabia, while potentially strengthening the influence of its biggest nemesis, Iran.

...

Continues:

http://www.nytimes.c...&ref=middleeast

LaoPo

Could my approved conspiracy crackpots be ahead of the curve? They also flagged the falling out between Obama and Abdullah weeks ago. :jap:

Yes, everyone knows that and we don't need your alarmist propaganda boys to check it. Abdullah made his indignation public. "Saudis Tell Obama: Don't Humiliate Mubarak."

Guess why Obama keeps so quiet on Bahrain and is suddenly open for military intervention in Libya, just like the Arab League voted for? Because he don't want upset his Arab 'friend' once more and do him a favor too.

For the gulf monarchs and their sunni clerics Gaddafi isn't a true muslim.

Saudi Cleric Denies Fatwa Against Protests in Libya [/size]

2011-03-01 18:36:55 Xinhua

A prominent Saudi cleric threw his weight behind anti-government protests that swept Libya to bring down leader Muammar Gaddafi's 41-year-old rule, denying there has been a fatwa (a religious edict) to condemn anti-Gaddafi protesters.

"Qaddafi's government is not Islamic," local daily Arab News quoted sheikh Saleh Al-Lehaydan, as saying.

"He is not an imam (leader) or a true Muslim," the member of the Saudi Council of Ulema (senior religious scholars), the kingdom's top Islamic body, said.

...

http://english.cri.cn/6966/2011/03/01/2743s623454.htm

Top Sunni cleric says army should kill Gaddafi

DOHA - INFLUENTIAL Muslim cleric Yusuf al-Qaradawi issued a fatwa on Monday that any Libyan soldier who can shoot dead embattled leader Moamer Gaddafi should do so 'to rid Libya of him.'

'Whoever in the Libyan army is able to shoot a bullet at Mr Gaddafi should do so,' Mr Qaradawi, an Egyptian-born cleric who is usually based in Qatar, told Al-Jazeera television. ...

http://www.straitstimes.com/BreakingNews/World/Story/STIStory_637548.html

Edited March 18, 2011 by bangkokeddy

[bangkokeddy]

Once again a basic thread gets hijacked by those with an agenda of hate. Here's a dose of reality. The entry of Saudi forces was legal and occurred at the request of an internationally recognized and accepted government. One may not approve and one may not like it, but it is a legal action.

...

The USA is one of the few western countries that has shown diplomatic tact and restraint in the entire mess, but don'tlet that stop the hate speech. I sense another thread closure since some people can't be civil

Why is US backing force in Libya but not Bahrain, Yemen?

By Andrew North

BBC News, Washington

What's the difference between Libya and Yemen or Bahrain?

All three states have been using violence to crush pro-democracy protests.

But only against Libya are the US and its Western allies planning a military response.

Yemen and Bahrain's crackdowns have so far been met only with words, not action.

On one level the answer is obvious.

Bahrain and Yemen are US allies - especially Bahrain with its large US naval base. Libya is not.

...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12792637

Edited March 19, 2011 by bangkokeddy

[Ulysses G.]

Why is US backing force in Libya but not Bahrain, Yemen?

Because other Arab countries have demanded it.

[hammered]

Once again a basic thread gets hijacked by those with an agenda of hate. Here's a dose of reality. The entry of Saudi forces was legal and occurred at the request of an internationally recognized and accepted government. One may not approve and one may not like it, but it is a legal action.

...

The USA is one of the few western countries that has shown diplomatic tact and restraint in the entire mess, but don'tlet that stop the hate speech. I sense another thread closure since some people can't be civil

Why is US backing force in Libya but not Bahrain, Yemen?

By Andrew North

BBC News, Washington

What's the difference between Libya and Yemen or Bahrain?

All three states have been using violence to crush pro-democracy protests.

But only against Libya are the US and its Western allies planning a military response.

Yemen and Bahrain's crackdowns have so far been met only with words, not action.

On one level the answer is obvious.

Bahrain and Yemen are US allies - especially Bahrain with its large US naval base. Libya is not.

...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12792637

Excellent question. There is a big dose of hypocrisy going on in. It is a good lesson for students of politics etc but the sad thing is people are dying in Yemen and Bahrain. No doubt a bunch more unnecessary radicalisation and anti-westernism will stem from this silly and niave foreign policy of doing one thing uif we like the state and another if we dont while going on about demcoracy, human rights and bizarrely considering Saudi is an acceptable government women's rights

[mark45y]

Once again a basic thread gets hijacked by those with an agenda of hate. Here's a dose of reality. The entry of Saudi forces was legal and occurred at the request of an internationally recognized and accepted government. One may not approve and one may not like it, but it is a legal action.

...

The USA is one of the few western countries that has shown diplomatic tact and restraint in the entire mess, but don'tlet that stop the hate speech. I sense another thread closure since some people can't be civil

Why is US backing force in Libya but not Bahrain, Yemen?

By Andrew North

BBC News, Washington

What's the difference between Libya and Yemen or Bahrain?

All three states have been using violence to crush pro-democracy protests.

But only against Libya are the US and its Western allies planning a military response.

Yemen and Bahrain's crackdowns have so far been met only with words, not action.

On one level the answer is obvious.

Bahrain and Yemen are US allies - especially Bahrain with its large US naval base. Libya is not.

...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12792637

Excellent question. There is a big dose of hypocrisy going on in. It is a good lesson for students of politics etc but the sad thing is people are dying in Yemen and Bahrain. No doubt a bunch more unnecessary radicalisation and anti-westernism will stem from this silly and niave foreign policy of doing one thing uif we like the state and another if we dont while going on about demcoracy, human rights and bizarrely considering Saudi is an acceptable government women's rights

Just so I get the players on the right teams, Hammered, do you think the Western democracies should send armed force to aid the people of Libya, Yemen, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia?

[hammered]

Once again a basic thread gets hijacked by those with an agenda of hate. Here's a dose of reality. The entry of Saudi forces was legal and occurred at the request of an internationally recognized and accepted government. One may not approve and one may not like it, but it is a legal action.

...

The USA is one of the few western countries that has shown diplomatic tact and restraint in the entire mess, but don'tlet that stop the hate speech. I sense another thread closure since some people can't be civil

Why is US backing force in Libya but not Bahrain, Yemen?

By Andrew North

BBC News, Washington

What's the difference between Libya and Yemen or Bahrain?

All three states have been using violence to crush pro-democracy protests.

But only against Libya are the US and its Western allies planning a military response.

Yemen and Bahrain's crackdowns have so far been met only with words, not action.

On one level the answer is obvious.

Bahrain and Yemen are US allies - especially Bahrain with its large US naval base. Libya is not.

...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12792637

Excellent question. There is a big dose of hypocrisy going on in. It is a good lesson for students of politics etc but the sad thing is people are dying in Yemen and Bahrain. No doubt a bunch more unnecessary radicalisation and anti-westernism will stem from this silly and niave foreign policy of doing one thing uif we like the state and another if we dont while going on about demcoracy, human rights and bizarrely considering Saudi is an acceptable government women's rights

Just so I get the players on the right teams, Hammered, do you think the Western democracies should send armed force to aid the people of Libya, Yemen, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia?

That is not my decision. I believe in self determination and support the right of the people of a country to chose a government left, right, christian, islamist, jewish, liberal, conservative etc etc of their own volition and without pressure from another and also without worrying whether I or any other person or government likes or dislikes it. I believe the western deomcracies should support the rights of those protesting whether they like the government protested against or not. If there is a call for Gaddafi to go, there shouldbe a call for XXXXX to go too. If there is a UN resolution against YYYYY there should be against ZZZZZZ too. If the people of YYYYY are being armed by the west to overthrow their dictator then the people of ZZZZZ should be too. That would be standing up for an ideal, democracy, human rights etc.

Actually cutting off all aid to Bahrain, Saudi, Yemen and removing the fleet from Bahrain would probably be more useful in bringing about change than military intervention as the west has influence in these countries, and could be easily done. In other places such as Libya, but also including other countires such as Syria where the west has little influence it is harder to use non-violent pressure although there are those that would argue that engaging with Syria may also act to bring change. This is not true of Libya which has a vicious violent dictatorship that has chosen its path. Anyway for the sake of even handedness use the levers you have and cut all aid immediately to the repressive regimes where that would work, oh and asset seizure stuff. It isnt acceptable to oppress your people with military force, and in Bahrain and Yemen for example it has gone far beyond a police support operation.

So I guess dont count me on any side except the people's. Im happy enough for regime change brought about by the people in Bahrain, Libya, Yemen, Saudi, Syria, Sudan..... The west should use whatever means it has to aide the people, and violence is obviously the last and sometimes unwanted or uneeded resort.

[Steely Dan]

I'm most interested in a written analysis by Steely Dan

LaoPo

Being facetious are we?

Well I will make one observation; The support or lack of it for outside intervention within the middle east seems to split clearly along the schism that is Sunni versus Shia Islam. The farce which is the Iraq intervention as well as Afghanistan/Pakistan has left the U.S resources stretched, furthermore the Obama administration looks to be trying to disengage from the middle east. The trouble is that these two factors have upset the balance of power between Sunni and Shia Muslims and enboldened Ahmedinajad. He has wasted no time in establishing unstable or hostile Countries bordering Israel and is now repeating the trick with Saudi Arabia. I think with U.S backing Israel would have attacked Iran's nuclear plants some time ago, but no backing was forthcoming. There is now a serious fall out between Obama and Abdullah who unlike Israel has decided to act. The Iranian 'rage' at Saudi intervention is in my oppinion manufactured and is part of Ahmedinajad's plan to cause mayhem in the middle east, he may succeed though the showdown may be between Iran and Saudi Arabia (with Israel's covert backing). Providing oil continues to flow this would work in the west's favour just as Iran and Iraq neutralised each other for years, however I'm very pessimistic that this would be possible and I fear a large war is brewing with an oil shock similar to 1974.

[LaoPo]

Bahrain hospitals under siege as soldiers maintain Manama crackdown

Doctors arrested or prevented from working as martial law in tiny Gulf state approaches second week

• Martin Chulov in Manama
• guardian.co.uk, Sunday 20 March 2011 10.36 GMT

• 
  Bahraini protesters near a roadblock set up to prevent riot police entering their village of Malkiya, south of Manama in Bahrain. Photograph: Hamad I Mohammed/Reuters
  

Bahrain's two main hospitals remain surrounded by masked soldiers despite demands from America that the kingdom must ease its violent crackdown on demonstrators and the medical workers treating them.
Soldiers also continue to patrol all main roads in the capital Manama and have cordoned off access to the former hub of the protest movement, Pearl Roundabout, which was destroyed under government orders on Friday, denying the restive demonstrators a focal point.
The tiny Gulf state has the feel of a nation under siege as it approaches a second week of martial law imposed for three months by its besieged rulers. In addition to the troop presence, neighbourhoods remain largely empty; large, glitzy shopping malls have been virtually abandoned and helicopters regularly buzz over the debris-strewn scenes of recent street clashes.
Continues:
http://www.guardian....er-siege-manama

LaoPo