egafd.com

"So anyone heard from our great leader, Cameron demanding a no-fly zone? No?"

Nobody is being bombed so why would anyone call for a no fly zone?

"How about demands that the Bahraini royal family should go now? No? Really?"

The protests in Bahrain are more to do with Shi'ite/Sunni tribal rivalries than political reform, and even then the vast majority of Bahrainis are not protesting or calling for change, so not sure why the UK getting involved would be useful.

"How about any accusations from Cameron that Saudi Arabia is a pariah state for getting involved in another country's internal politics and helping to quell demands for political reform? No?"

Would not make much sense as the UK spent 12 years under Labour getting involved in lots of other countries internal quarrels.

""So anyone heard from our great leader, Cameron demanding a no-fly zone? No?"
Nobody is being bombed so why would anyone call for a no fly zone?"

I know. Fair comment.

"The protests in Bahrain are more to do with Shi'ite/Sunni tribal rivalries than political reform"

Tthis is not an either or, is it? The troubles are clearly about both.
The opposition would probably prefer to see the end of torture
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/se ... ia-arrests.
and political reforms which give them a fair chance
http://www.cfr.org/middle-east/guardian ... ety/p24297


"and even then the vast majority of Bahrainis are not protesting or calling for change."

Well I dont know about you, but the risk of being gassed, shot or tortured might put a few people off! And the Shiites represent 70% of the population. It is from the Shiite majority that the protests are coming. The protests must be worrying for the Bahraini royal family in terms of their seriousness, otherwise they wouldn't have countenanced the humiliation of getting in a foreign country's troops i.e. Saudi Arabia to crush the protestors.


, so not sure why the UK getting involved would be useful."

This is what we call a "non-sequitur" in Blackpool.

""How about any accusations from Cameron that Saudi Arabia is a pariah state for getting involved in another country's internal politics and helping to quell demands for political reform? No?"

Would not make much sense as the UK spent 12 years under Labour getting involved in lots of other countries internal quarrels."

This appears totally illogical to me. What is Cameron doing in Libya other than get involved in "another country's internal quarrels".

Cheers
D

"This appears totally illogical to me. What is Cameron doing in Libya other than get involved in "another country's internal quarrels"

Quite ridiculous of this thread to make deliberate comparisons between what are admittedly brutal measures to control protests in Bahrain with a civil war in Libya where anti aircraft weponry, air to ground missiles and tanks are being used. If it was up to me then the UK would stay out of that too, what I meant was your thread, which I presume purports to expose Camerons bias, does not hold up as a criticism of Cameron alone, as Labours actions in Govt were exactly the same - humanitarian interventionism - this has been the policy of the Anglo Saxon West since the closing stages of the Yugoslavian war - I have no doubt if Saudi or Bahrain also descend into civil war with heavy weapons used on both sides then some kind of intervention would be proposed there too.

"This is not an either or, is it? The troubles are clearly about both.
The opposition would probably prefer to see the end of torture
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/se ... ia-arrests.
and political reforms which give them a fair chance
http://www.cfr.org/middle-east/guardian ... ety/p24297"

Sorry, perhaps I am cynical, but I think if the Shi'ites were able to take control of Bahrain the only change would be which side would be doing the toruring, Iran and Saudi are fighting a cold war across the Middle East and Bahrain is just another piece.

"Quite ridiculous of this thread to make deliberate comparisons between what are admittedly brutal measures to control protests in Bahrain with a civil war in Libya where anti aircraft weponry, air to ground missiles and tanks are being used."

I am not comparing the amount of force being used. What I am comparing is the fact that an oppressed group who wants political reform is being attacked and their oppostion crushed. That is the point about Cameron's hypocrisy which I accept is no different from many British leaders' hypocrisy.

"Sorry, perhaps I am cynical, but I think if the Shi'ites were able to take control of Bahrain the only change would be which side would be doing the toruring, Iran and Saudi are fighting a cold war across the Middle East and Bahrain is just another piece."

You are wandering off the point again. In Libya, Gaddafi is a member of a particular tribe and has support from that tribe. That isnt the case in the east of the country. In Bahrain, the Shiite majority are relatively low paid and discriminated against. In Northern Ireland, the Catholics were politically discriminated against which was one of the causes of the Troubles. Having different religious groups involved in a demand for political reform does not negate or invalidate their claims.

Cheers
D

"Having different religious groups involved in a demand for political reform does not negate or invalidate their claims."

You do not appear to understand the political situation in the Middle East which is very similar to the Soviet/Nato Stand off in Europe.

Iran (shi'ite) uses its money to spread shi'ite revolts within Sunni states, Saudi Arabia (sunni) uses its money to spread Wahabi Sunni influence within areas surrounding Iran (Pakistan, Afghanistan)

The events in Bahrain, just like the Shi'ite insurrection in Iraq, and the virtual takeover of Lebanon by Iranian backed militants are all part of a struggle between the Saudis and the Iranians to dominate the Middle East and Islam, it really is not about freedom.

Just like Hamas in Gaza who also wanted freedom, and then used it to throw opposition politicians off the top of buildings, the freedom the shi'ites in Bahrain want is to subjugate the Sunnis, that unfortunately is the way of the Arab world, as can be seen by the largely unreported attacks on Christian Coptic churches in Egypt following the 'freedom protests' there, during which unreported by the BBC the million strong crowds chanted 'we are going to kill the Jews'.

Like I say, we should keep well out of it, but oil keeps us in I suppose.

"You do not appear to understand the political situation in the Middle East which is very similar to the Soviet/Nato Stand off in Europe."

What? Different countries trying to gain influence in satellite states as part of wider political objectives? Knock me down with a feather.

Let me see if I can think of other examples. Afghanistan with the Russians and Americans. Iraq with the West and Iran etc etc.

Since your post has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject of this thread which in case you have forgotten is about British government's nauseating hypocrisy, I will leave you to impress yourself with the extent of your knowledge of foreign policy.

Cheers
D

Bahrain is stuck in the middle of a tussle between Sunnis(Saudi,Bahrain etc) and Shias(led by Iran).In Bahrain the majority is ruled by the minority.The uprising on the Island is not just,or even mainly,about local political preferences.Also HMG seems to be more defferential with countries ruled by 'Royal' Families.

"What? Different countries trying to gain influence in satellite states as part of wider political objectives? Knock me down with a feather."

If you do understand it why are you simplistically complaining about Cameron not helping the 'freedom protestors' who are in effect trying to start a Shia uprising and a wider war.

Wading into these situations means effectively helping Iran or Saudi Arabia, and like it or not Saudi Arabia are our allies, thats why you are not paying ?5 for a litre of petrol.

"If you do understand it why are you simplistically complaining about Cameron not helping the 'freedom protestors' who are in effect trying to start a Shia uprising and a wider war."

First "freedom protestors" is your expression not mine.

Second you appear to have absolutely no evidence for the view that the protestors in Bahrain are trying to start a "wider war".

The view repeatedly aired across the media is that the Shia feel they are losing out in the country's economic boom. So while the Bahraini government spends huge amounts on, for example the F1 grand prix track, the Shias find themselves in relative poverty amongst this wealth.

For example,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... ed-society

Or in a prescient article written in Oct 2010

"Bahrain has the potential to turn really nasty," Christopher Davidson, a professor at the University of Durham in Britain, said.
Davidson, who has written extensively about the region, said "there is a widening wealth gap between rich and poor and it just so happens that the rich are the Sunni leaders and the poor are the Shias".

The parliament has only limited powers and can be overruled by King Hamad bin Isa Al-Khalifa and his inner circle. For many Shias, however, gaining more seats - and possibly even taking a majority - is seen as a message not to ignore their demands for a greater say in how the country is run.

The authorities have launched a wave of arrests and clampdowns in recent months against suspected Shia dissidents. Twenty-three Shia activists are due to go on trial next week accused of plotting a coup. Pro-government crews have canvassed Bahrain trying to paint over graffiti condemning the crackdown or showing stencilled images of leading opposition figures.

So to summarise, according to you, the above who are independent analysts, are extremely simplistic in their views. On the other hand you provide zero evidence to support your view.

Not convincing at all!

Cheers
D

The 'independant analysts' you quote do not contradict the view Iran is influencing the protests and that the events in Bahrain are part of a wider co-ordinated conflict, they merely list what the grievances of the shi'ites are.

Quite a pointless post.

"Second you appear to have absolutely no evidence for the view that the protestors in Bahrain are trying to start a "wider war"."

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/Analysis/Ou ... 285236720/

The following story that unfolded in recent days in the kingdom of Bahrain could well serve as the foundation for a John LeCarre novel, with one exception: it was very real and very frightening. It involved foreign powers, intelligence gathering, counterespionage and terrorist plots.

Or as the country's major English language paper, the Gulf Daily News put it: "A web of lies, deceit and maliciously false information to fuel terrorism in Bahrain was revealed."

What is known is that the government of Bahrain has arrested 23 men whom they accuse of plotting to overthrow the government and of resorting to terrorist activities. The government is hinting that "outside forces" are behind the plotters.

While Bahrain refrained from naming these outside plotters a quick look at the region's map will leave no doubt in anyone's mind that the accusing finger ends up pointing at Iran, with which Bahrain has had a series of diplomatic rows in the past. Most Persian Gulf countries refrain from openly naming Iran even when it's obvious.