Saudi Arabia sends troops into Bahrain to put down protests

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/bahrain/8388082/Bahrain-police-carry-out-drive-by-shooting.html
http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/news/8864775.Blackburn_man_witnesses_bloodshed_on_stree ts_on_Bahrain/

Saudi Arabia sends troops into striken neighbour, Bahrain



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwpJXpKVFwE
Pro-western Saudi Arabian troops enter pro-western Bahrain to put down protests



In total a convoy of eleven police 4x4s can be seen making their way through what appears to be a backstreet of the capital. Two people at the side of the road are then apparently shot by police gunmen standing up in the second and third vehicles. The footage was posted on the video-sharing site LiveLeak on March 16 and claims that the incident occurred the same day. This comes after what was described as a day of "annihilation" in Bahrain, when at least three protesters were killed after police, backed by tanks and helicopters, used tear gas, rubber bullets and live ammunition to clear crowds of anti-government protesters from Pearl Square in Manama.

The government said two police officers were also killed, and a third later died from injuries received. Abdel Jalil Khalil, the head of Wefaq, the Shia opposition bloc, said: "This is a war of annihilation. This does not happen even in wars and this is not acceptable. I saw them fire live rounds in front of my own eyes."

Where are the western powers now? what have the interventionalists got to say on this? turning a blind eye while our 'friends' in Saudi Arabia and Bahrain both shoot their own people and lockdown their cities against any form of protesting. Why have Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Oman not been given no fly zones. Interestingly enough, the Saudi government (which is in the pocket of the United States) is also helping to enforce the no fly zone over Libya.. to stop Gaddafi shooting at his own people with his almost non-existent airforce. Democracy is a one way street when it comes to America and the western world.

Here's a list of some previous friends of the west who we armed; (it all went well didn't it?)

Osama Bin Laden, Afghanistan.
Saddam Hussein, Iraq.
Hosni Mubarak, Egypt.
Ben Ali, Tunisia.
Gaddafi, Libya.

[B]Here's a sample of the friends we currently arm/do close deals with;

King Abdullah, Saudi Arabia.
King Khalifa, Bahrain.

Thoughts? can anybody defend this hypocrisy? does anybody want to?

[Conservative,]

Hypocrisy at it's finest. I can't defend this to be honest. Disgusting to think they're supporting "democracy" in one country but not another.

In my opinion support democracy in ALL (which I personally favour) or don't intervene in any. Don't pick and choose.

[StefanWolves]

Ye because we should get involved in Iraq, Afghan, Tunisia, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Syria, Iran and Bahrain all at the same time and possibly trigger WW3? good logic.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Ye because we should get involved in Iraq, Afghan, Tunisia, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Syria, Iran and Bahrain all at the same time and possibly trigger WW3? good logic.

Well we're already involved in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya.. along with having military bases in the following countries; http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/ff/US_military_bases_in_the_world.svg (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/ff/US_military_bases_in_the_world.svg)We might need more soldiers perhaps, but yourself and others seem willing for some overseas action so you could contribute to the war effort i'm sure?

Still, even if the time for military action is not yet ripe which is the best excuse you could come up with to hide the hypocrisy of the west - why not simply cut off all links with these regimes in the name of human rights, freedom, safety and democracy?

[Jordy]

Well they're not using planes to attack citizens, so what use would a no-fly zone be?

The middle east can be a complicated issue, this however is not.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Well they're not using planes to attack citizens, so what use would a no-fly zone be?

The middle east can be a complicated issue, this however is not.

The 'no fly zone' in Libya isn't really a no fly zone, its strategic bombing - something that could be done in Saudi Arabia and Bahrain.

[The Don]

Dan, what the hell do you expect from us? Were aren't exactly going to invade every country where theres injustice. 100's of people are getting killed in libya, sorry but that seems like a more important cause than the three fatalities that have occured here. You can't expect us to be everywhere at once.

---------- Post added 21-03-2011 at 01:24 AM ----------


The 'no fly zone' in Libya isn't really a no fly zone, its strategic bombing - something that could be done in Saudi Arabia and Bahrain.

No, it's a no fly zone, dan.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Dan, what the hell do you expect from us? Were aren't exactly going to invade every country where theres injustice. 100's of people are getting killed in libya, sorry but that seems like a more important cause than the three fatalities that have occured here. You can't expect us to be everywhere at once.

I expect nothing from ourselves, mainly because I don't view it as any of our business but also because we do not have the moral authority to enforce any of this considering that at the very same time, our 'friend' Saudi Arabia is entering Bahrain to help shoot protestors - whilst at the same time helping the west enforce the 'no fly zone' which is supposed to protect the people - save the Libyan people, but stuff the Saudis and Bahrainians?

We can't be everywhere at once is something i'd like to see, but we are (see map).


No, it's a no fly zone, dan.

..and a strategic aerial bombardment.

http://www.voanews.com/english/news/Russia-and-China-Lead-Opposition-to-Air-Assault-on-Libya----118324124.html

[The Don]

I expect nothing from ourselves, mainly because I don't view it as any of our business but also because we do not have the moral authority to enforce any of this considering that at the very same time, our 'friend' Saudi Arabia is entering Bahrain to help shoot protestors - whilst at the same time helping the west enforce the 'no fly zone' which is supposed to protect the people - save the Libyan people, but stuff the Saudis and Bahrainians?

We can't be everywhere at once is something i'd like to see, but we are (see map).



..and a strategic aerial bombardment.

http://www.voanews.com/english/news/Russia-and-China-Lead-Opposition-to-Air-Assault-on-Libya----118324124.html

'And' theres the key word. so, it is a no fly zone.


Stop latching onto the Saudi Arabia card, Face facts, we can't afford to go everywhere, and wheter anyone likes it or not, there are more benefits for us in helping libya. I will admit that. but the fact that we are helping them is good and well deserved.

[-:Undertaker:-]

'And' theres the key word. so, it is a no fly zone.

Well technically any military campaign involves a no fly zone, but as 'no fly zone' sounds nice and harmless thats why we're using it, to avoid discussing the fact that we are strategically bombarding Libya and thus becoming involved in yet another war.


Stop latching onto the Saudi Arabia card, Face facts, we can't afford to go everywhere, and wheter anyone likes it or not, there are more benefits for us in helping libya. I will admit that. but the fact that we are helping them is good and well deserved.

We can't afford to go anywhere, have you seen the debts?

I don't see the benefits of involving ourselves in Libya; more soldiers could end up in body bags, loss of oil contracts if we don't now take ground action, more hatred stirred up in the middle east against us, a failed state and unstable region just below Europe, reconstruction aid would be needed.

[The Don]

Well technically any military campaign involves a no fly zone, but as 'no fly zone' sounds nice and harmless thats why we're using it, to avoid discussing the fact that we are strategically bombarding Libya and thus becoming involved in yet another war.



We can't afford to go anywhere, have you seen the debts?

I don't see the benefits of involving ourselves in Libya; more soldiers could end up in body bags, loss of oil contracts if we don't now take ground action, more hatred stirred up in the middle east against us, a failed state and unstable region just below Europe, reconstruction aid would be needed.

You are thinking negatively, also, amusingly, not thinking about the benefits for any of the people in libya. It seems you only care about people in England. Quite a selfish attitude to have actually.

[-:Undertaker:-]

You are thinking negatively, also, amusingly, not thinking about the benefits for any of the people in libya. It seems you only care about people in England. Quite a selfish attitude to have actually.

A selfish but realistic attitude, historically our overseas adventures have only returned to bite us from the behind.

The 'blowback' theory; Cambodia, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq to list a few.

[The Don]

A selfish but realistic attitude, historically our overseas adventures have only returned to bite us from the behind.

The 'blowback' theory; Cambodia, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq to list a few.

I don't really see how this debate can carry on from this, if I'm honest.

[StefanWolves]

The 'no fly zone' in Libya isn't really a no fly zone, its strategic bombing - something that could be done in Saudi Arabia and Bahrain.
Firstly you are saying 'we cant afford what were doing in Libya!!!' now youre saying we should potentially trigger WW3 and spend billions of pounds 'attacking' other countries with considerably better armed forces than Libya. Come on make your mind up.

That and the fact the Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Etc arent involved in a civil war as Libya was. (that doesnt mean that they wont be in a few months/years time however)

[-:Undertaker:-]

Firstly you are saying 'we cant afford what were doing in Libya!!!' now youre saying we should potentially trigger WW3 and spend billions of pounds 'attacking' other countries with considerably better armed forces than Libya. Come on make your mind up.

I'm not advocating that at all, thats your own logic i'm handing to you.


That and the fact the Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Etc arent involved in a civil war as Libya was. (that doesnt mean that they wont be in a few months/years time however)

Bahrain has had to call on Saudi troops to come in and work alongside its armed forces in actually gunning down protestors of the rebellion, the same is now occuring in Yemen - where is their help? why is it that because one brutal regime is friends with America and another is not, they are treated differently. The hypocrisy from the west is disgusting and the fact you cannot see through it is rather scary.

[StefanWolves]

Whilst quoting my post you seem to somehow dodge me whole post, cool
I'm not advocating that at all, thats your own logic i'm handing to you.



Bahrain has had to call on Saudi troops to come in and work alongside its armed forces in actually gunning down protestors of the rebellion, the same is now occuring in Yemen - where is their help? why is it that because one brutal regime is friends with America and another is not, they are treated differently. The hypocrisy from the west is disgusting and the fact you cannot see through it is rather scary.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Whilst quoting my post you seem to somehow dodge me whole post, cool

What have I dodged? point out a point you want me to address and i'll address it.

I'll make it more simple for you though, if you need more elaboration on it you can see the post above for it, here goes;


That and the fact the Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Etc arent involved in a civil war as Libya was.

Wrong, pro-western Bahrain is in a state of civil war backed by pro-western Saudi Arabia.


Firstly you are saying 'we cant afford what were doing in Libya!!!' now youre saying we should potentially trigger WW3 and spend billions of pounds 'attacking' other countries with considerably better armed forces than Libya. Come on make your mind up.

Wrong, i'm pointing out your own logic - i'm not advocating any action what-so-ever.

[StefanWolves]

Orle??
What have I dodged? point out a point you want me to address and i'll address it.

I'll make it more simple for you though, if you need more elaboration on it you can see the post above for it, here goes;



Wrong, pro-western Bahrain is in a state of civil war backed by pro-western Saudi Arabia.



Wrong, i'm pointing out your own logic - i'm not advocating any action what-so-ever.

[GommeInc]

'And' theres the key word. so, it is a no fly zone.
Technically we're breaking the no fly zone rule with the bombardment. The idea is to literally stop them from flying, not bombarding the area and adding to the total number of people dead, including innocent people. Reuters is covering a lot of the news revolving around the US killing civilians. I'm shocked that we're not really helping, we're just adding another faction to a war which is getting out of hand. If we want to support democracy, take out Gaddafi, not bombard places that contain innocent people.

[StefanWolves]

Thats what a no fly zone is. If they country you are implenting a no fly zone in a country that has Air Defenses you must take them out because they will take you out. Its mandatory.

In terms of other attacks e.g the French attacking tanks, the UN resolution stated that ALL means should be taken to protect the Libyan people from attack.


Technically we're breaking the no fly zone rule with the bombardment. The idea is to literally stop them from flying, not bombarding the area and adding to the total number of people dead, including innocent people. Reuters is covering a lot of the news revolving around the US killing civilians. I'm shocked that we're not really helping, we're just adding another faction to a war which is getting out of hand. If we want to support democracy, take out Gaddafi, not bombard places that contain innocent people.

[-:Undertaker:-]

In terms of other attacks e.g the French attacking tanks, the UN resolution stated that ALL means should be taken to protect the Libyan people from attack.


Thats what a no fly zone is.

..so as myself and Ryan said, its not just a no fly zone - its military bombardment, hence why the Arab League and Russia are now angry.

So anyway as you avoided a real reply to my last post, do you support action against pro-western Bahrain?

[StefanWolves]

Its completely different as i just described in the other thread. So much water has gone under the bridge regarding Libya that this were the only alternative. Theres history. And we would never take Bahrain cause the West ate **** scared of Iran, to be honest.
..so as myself and Ryan said, its not just a no fly zone - its military bombardment, hence why the Arab League and Russia are now angry.

So anyway as you avoided a real reply to my last post, do you support action against pro-western Bahrain?

[-:Undertaker:-]

Its completely different as i just described in the other thread. So much water has gone under the bridge regarding Libya that this were the only alternative. Theres history. And we would never take Bahrain cause the West ate **** scared of Iran, to be honest.

Water has gone under the bridge because our politicians have been caught out, they thought a few weeks ago that their friend Gaddafi was toast as their other friends Mubarak and Ben Ali were, so they swapped sides when they thought they knew the outcome (as they did with Egypt and Tunisia). Gaddafi then proved them wrong by advancing rapidly back towards the East, whilst at the same time dropping the 'friends' of the west who had betrayed him by backing the rebels.

And as all weak, anti-western regimes with oil end up - Libya has now had war declared on it by the west. They would do the same with Iran if they could you are quite rights, they could - but frankly Iran would deliever us a bloody nose in the process and like the playground bullies, thats not a risk we'll take.

Mr Galloway sums up basically what i've been saying;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTcc--fIHUQ&feature=player_embedded

[StefanWolves]

Again I won't read most of that reply as after reading the first line I know you've totally dodged what I was saying.

And to say that you agree with anything Galloway says, says it all...

---------- Post added 22-03-2011 at 08:19 PM ----------

After scanning your post you mention 'war', this is not war. stop making things up, stop plucking random statements out of the air which simply aren't true.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Again I won't read most of that reply as after reading the first line I know you've totally dodged what I was saying.

And to say that you agree with anything Galloway says, says it all...

WHAT have I missed out??

All you keep doing it saying things like 'water under the bridge', I explain what that water under the bridge is and you say i'm not addressing the point.


After scanning your post you mention 'war', this is not war. stop making things up, stop plucking random statements out of the air which simply aren't true.

Invading a sovereign nations airspace and bombing a sovereign country is an act of war.

If Russia and China did the same to ourselves, it would be considered an act of war - this is exactly the same, although for propaganda purposes we're not supposed to see this as a war given past experiences but a 'no fly zone' when a no fly zone + bombardment is an act of war.

[StefanWolves]

an act of war is different from declaring 'WAR', therefore you should stop saying were 'at war' with Libya because we are not.
WHAT have I missed out??

All you keep doing it saying things like 'water under the bridge', I explain what that water under the bridge is and you say i'm not addressing the point.



Invading a sovereign nations airspace and bombing a sovereign country is an act of war.

If Russia and China did the same to ourselves, it would be considered an act of war - this is exactly the same, although for propaganda purposes we're not supposed to see this as a war given past experiences but a 'no fly zone' when a no fly zone + bombardment is an act of war.

[-:Undertaker:-]

an act of war is different from declaring 'WAR', therefore you should stop saying were 'at war' with Libya because we are not.

Oh come off it, so in other words - if a leader of the side you support doesn't use the word 'war' it isn't a war? Mr Gaddafi has already declared it a war, so I guess thats your 'point' now shot down; http://www.sundaytimes.lk/index.php/analysis/5749-gaddafi-bets-on-long-war-seeks-outside-sympathy // http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12798568. The reason why Obama/Cameron and so forth don't want to use the words war is for propaganda purposes, because they know fully well that the people of both the United States and Great Britain have already had two unpopular wars in 9 years.

Call it whatever you like, 'a armed rebellion', a 'conflict', a 'no fly zone' (which is more than a no fly zone) - it remains an act of war. Again I ask you, if China and Russia shut down British airspace, imposed a no fly zone, aerial bombarded military units and bombed Downing Street - would that be a war or not?

If you want to argue over technicalities we can do so, but you still haven't addressed what to do with Bahrain and Yemen.

[StefanWolves]

Technically. E.g. The Falklands 'WAR' was never a war because neither side declared war. It was a battle of an Island.
Oh come off it, so in other words - if a leader of the side you support doesn't use the word 'war' it isn't a war? Mr Gaddafi has already declared it a war, so I guess thats your 'point' now shot down; http://www.sundaytimes.lk/index.php/analysis/5749-gaddafi-bets-on-long-war-seeks-outside-sympathy // http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12798568. The reason why Obama/Cameron and so forth don't want to use the words war is for propaganda purposes, because they know fully well that the people of both the United States and Great Britain have already had two unpopular wars in 9 years.

Call it whatever you like, 'a armed rebellion', a 'conflict', a 'no fly zone' (which is more than a no fly zone) - it remains an act of war. Again I ask you, if China and Russia shut down British airspace, imposed a no fly zone, aerial bombarded military units and bombed Downing Street - would that be a war or not?

If you want to argue over technicalities we can do so, but you still haven't addressed what to do with Bahrain and Yemen.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Technically. E.g. The Falklands 'WAR' was never a war because neither side declared war. It was a battle of an Island.

But we all know it was a war.

[Eoin247]

I believe that the true reason why you're hearing some rumbles now in the arab league is due to Ghadafis contacts.

[GommeInc]

Technically. E.g. The Falklands 'WAR' was never a war because neither side declared war. It was a battle of an Island.
Declaring war means a war is official, not declaring war but going into battle is practically going to war unofficially. War doesn't necessarily mean both sides have to declare it, loads of wars have been made - the key word being made. It's like saying punching someone in the face and claiming it's not an attack because no-one said anything. It's grossly inaccurate to assume war has to be declared, when war can be unofficial if the "acts of war" become obvious.

Gaddafi seems to be calling this a war in some respects, but the West would never admit to such a thing. Our actions in Libya seem useless - Gaddafi will only fight back, we're barely delaying the inevitable and would probably end up declaring war if he doesn't back down, and considering he's only churning out more troops it seems more likely that we'll get more and more involved, the rebels aren't doing as much as can be expected. It would be better if the West just gave them weapons to fight their own war so we don't end up killing more innocent people like we've already done in the last few days :P

[StefanWolves]

One thing i do find so funny is that Cameron has slated Labour for year for going to war in Iraq etc, now the Conservatives themselves have potentially dragged us into another war and how more or less set a precident to other countries such as Syria etc.

[-:Undertaker:-]

There's actually a reason why they are not keen on calling it a war, not only for propaganda purposes but it also involves U.S. internal politics;



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVtFglhUAvw


There you have it America, you got your 'change' - the question is, will all the Obama fanatics now hate Obama in the same way they did with George W Bush.. hmm. The political system in the United States is just as warped as it is over here with the party monopolies.


One thing i do find so funny is that Cameron has slated Labour for year for going to war in Iraq etc, now the Conservatives themselves have potentially dragged us into another war and how more or less set a precident to other countries such as Syria etc.

Mr Cameron and his un-conservative Party supported the Iraq war, Mr Miliband now supports this new war and as do the Liberal Democrats - who opposed the Iraq war and said it was 'illegal' (how things change) but I now suspect purely on electoral grounds in order to serve their purpose as the 'non choice' party.

[xxMATTGxx]

Mr Cameron and his un-conservative Party supported the Iraq war, Mr Miliband now supports this new war and as do the Liberal Democrats - who opposed the Iraq war and said it was 'illegal' (how things change) but I now suspect purely on electoral grounds in order to serve their purpose as the 'non choice' party.

Just wondering (I don't want big long posts, I'm just wondering about this)::

But isn't it different this time because they actually went to the United Nations and the United Nations said it was ok to do what they are doing now. Where as the Iraq war, no one bothered to do so? (I don't think)

Edit: Scrap that, think I may of found the answer to my question looking at wikipedia.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Just wondering (I don't want big long posts, I'm just wondering about this)::

But isn't it different this time because they actually went to the United Nations and the United Nations said it was ok to do what they are doing now. Where as the Iraq war, no one bothered to do so? (I don't think)

Edit: Scrap that, think I may of found the answer to my question looking at wikipedia.

The sovereignty lays with the nation state, not the United Nations. Daniel Hannan explains well in this piece (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100080785/if-un-approval-is-the-supreme-test-of-a-just-war-we-contract-out-our-moral-judgment-to-hu-jintao-and-vladimir-putin/) that treating UN approval as supreme is silly. I never call Iraq and so forth illegal in terms of 'international law' because of the reasons Hannan lists, and that it conflicts with sovereign law.

[xxMATTGxx]

The sovereignty lays with the nation state, not the United Nations. Daniel Hannan explains well in this piece (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100080785/if-un-approval-is-the-supreme-test-of-a-just-war-we-contract-out-our-moral-judgment-to-hu-jintao-and-vladimir-putin/) that treating UN approval as supreme is silly. I never call Iraq and so forth illegal in terms of 'international law' because of the reasons Hannan lists, and that it conflicts with sovereign law.


Thanks, I shall give it a read.

[AgnesIO]

A selfish but realistic attitude, historically our overseas adventures have only returned to bite us from the behind.

The 'blowback' theory; Cambodia, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq to list a few.

Finding American and Australia..

Why not name all the countries we have had 'overseas adventures' to?

[Ajthedragon]

One thing i do find so funny is that Cameron has slated Labour for year for going to war in Iraq etc, now the Conservatives themselves have potentially dragged us into another war and how more or less set a precident to other countries such as Syria etc.

It's not exactly Iraq is it, it's legal and a majority of Libyans are for the action.

No 'weapons of mass-destruction' involved at all.

Yes the Tories did vote for action in Iraq, as have Labour given support for the Libya operation. Kinda invalid argument isn't it.

[StefanWolves]

I know i totally agree with you, was just saying :)
It's not exactly Iraq is it, it's legal and a majority of Libyans are for the action.

No 'weapons of mass-destruction' involved at all.

Yes the Tories did vote for action in Iraq, as have Labour given support for the Libya operation. Kinda invalid argument isn't it.