What's new

Libya And Bahrain: A Tale Of Western Hypocrisy

back to the topic-you cannot compare the situation in libya to bharain......
Bahrain is rightly said to be the most westernised and free of all the gulf states, unemployment is lowest there(somewhere around 5%), the king is not a dictator as could be clearly seen if any of you had bothered to read about all he has done since he came to power, even in the so called violent crackdowns only tear gas and rubber bullets have been used(no live ammunition).....we get worse crackdowns in kashmir. And saudi troops are not invading, they have been invited by the govt to protect them under a defence pact of the gcc.
The protests are sectarian in nature, backed by iran

Spare us the propaganda about Bahrain.
Video and newsreports clearly show the brutality of this 'well loved' regime towards the protestors.

The Shia majority are protesting because the Sunni Wahhabi despots are flooding the country with Sunni immigrants to change the country's demographics. There is widespread discrimination against the indigenous Shia, but they have made it clear their protest is not sectarian and does not target the native Sunnis of Bahrain.
 
.
This is clearly not a humanitarian mission--it is a war of regime change.

True.

Although Indian government expressed its discomfort, some Indians don't realize that a lot of what they see in the media is propaganda.

But then what is to be done? Gaddhafi is not a saint, and Gulf Arab leaders are strongly opposing him. China and Russia were OK with letting the Europeans and the Americans attack. Nothing India can do about it.
 
.
Video and newsreports clearly show the brutality of this 'well loved' regime towards the protestors.

The Shia majority are protesting because the Sunni Wahhabi despots are flooding the country with Sunni immigrants to change the country's demographics. There is widespread discrimination against the indigenous Shia, but they have made it clear their protest is not sectarian and does not target the native Sunnis of Bahrain.

bull if that was the case i would have bahraini nationality, if they made it clear the protests were not secretarian then why did they attack an imam of a sunni mosque and why did they beat up sunni students in the University of Bahrain. 'peaceful protesters' my when did throwing molotov coctails , mowing down policemen with cars and killing poor labourers become the defination of peaceful protesters

maybe some of the protesters were not secretarian but look at the hate being preached to the kids
 
Last edited by a moderator:
.
Sunni Wahhabi despots are flooding the country with Sunni immigrants to change the country's demographics.

this really annoys me ... why do shia business men then hire pakistanis and other immigrants.
 
.
WASHINGTON—The Obama administration and its support for democratic change in the Middle East has been on a collision course with Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and other traditional monarchies of the Persian Gulf. The crunch finally came this week with a sharp break over how to deal with protest in Bahrain.

The stakes in this latest crisis are high, even by Middle East standards, for it contains all the region’s volatile ingredients: tension between Saudis and Iranians, between Sunni Muslims and Shiites, and between democratic reformers and status-quo powers. Underlying this combustible mixture is the world’s most important strategic commodity, Persian Gulf oil. How’s that for a witch’s brew?

U.S. officials have been arguing that Bahrain’s Sunni monarchy must make political compromises to give more power to the Shiite majority there. The most emphatic statement came last weekend from Defence Secretary Bob Gates, who said during a visit to Bahrain that its “baby steps” toward reform weren’t enough and that the kingdom should step up its negotiations with the opposition.

This American enthusiasm for change has been anathema to the conservative regimes of the Gulf, and on Monday they backed Bahrain’s ruling Khalifa family with military force, marching about 2,000 troops up the causeway that links Bahrain to Saudi Arabia. A senior Saudi official told me the intervention was needed to protect Bahrain’s financial district and other key facilities from violent demonstrations. He warned that radical, Iranian-backed leaders were becoming more active in the protests.

“We don’t want Iran 14 miles off our coast, and that’s not going to happen,” said the Saudi official. U.S. officials counter that Iran, so far, has been only a minor player in the protests, and that Saudi military intervention could backfire by strengthening Iran’s hand.

“There is a serious breach” between the Gulf countries and Washington over the issue, warned a second Saudi official. “We’re not going in (to Bahrain) to shoot people, we’re going in to keep a system in place,” he said.

The Bahrain issue is the most important U.S.-Saudi disagreement in decades, and it could signal a fundamental change in policy. The Obama administration, in effect, is altering America’s long-standing commitment to the status quo in the Gulf, believing that change in Bahrain — as in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya — is inevitable and desirable.

The split reflects fundamental differences in strategic outlook. The Gulf regimes have come to mistrust Obama, seeing him as a weak president who will sacrifice traditional allies in his eagerness to be “on the right side of history.” They liken Obama’s rejection of Hosni Mubarak in Egypt to Jimmy Carter’s 1979 abandonment of the shah of Iran.

The crack-up was predicted by a top U.A.E. sheik in a February meeting with two visiting former U.S. officials. According to notes made during the conversation, the U.A.E. official said: “We and the Saudis will not accept a Shiite government in Bahrain. And if your president says to the Khalifas what he said to Mubarak (to leave office), it will cause a break in our relationship with the U.S.” The U.A.E. official warned that Gulf nations were “looking east” — to China, India and Turkey — for alternative security assistance.

The Obama White House hasn’t yielded to such pleas and threats from the Gulf. U.S. officials believe the Saudis and others have no good option to the U.S. as a guarantor of security. They note that military and intelligence contacts are continuing, despite the sharp disagreement over Bahrain.

In the end, this is a classic liberal-conservative argument about how best to achieve stability. The White House believes that security crackdowns won’t work any better in Bahrain than they did in Egypt or Tunisia — and that it’s time to embrace a process of democratic transition across the region. The Gulf monarchies and sheikdoms counter that concessions will only empower more radicalism — and that the big beneficiaries, in the end, will be Islamic radicals in Iran and Al Qaeda.

The trick is finding a formula for transition that doesn’t destabilize the Gulf and the global economy. White House officials talk as if this is an evolutionary process, but they should know better: As they saw in Egypt, change comes as a sudden shock — a non-linear event that, in the case of the Gulf, will affect global energy and financial markets. Obama’s watchword should be “progressive pragmatism,” with an emphasis on both those words.

David Ignatius writes on international affairs for the Washington Post. davidignatius@washpost.com.
 
.
bull if that was the case i would have bahraini nationality, if they made it clear the protests were not secretarian then why did they attack an imam of a sunni mosque and why did they beat up sunni students in the University of Bahrain. 'peaceful protesters' my when did throwing molotov coctails , mowing down policemen with cars and killing poor labourers become the defination of peaceful protesters

maybe some of the protesters were not secretarian but look at the hate being preached to the kids

Where is sunni girl attacked by shia girl in video? How do you know who is shia and who is sunni in video,(obviously not from color of their headgear)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
.
163108126.jpg
 
.
Double standard on Libya’s no-fly zone

I note with some irony the hosannas greeting the UN Security Council resolution establishing a no-fly zone over Libya.

The rationale for this resolution is that the dictator Moammar Gadhafi is shooting his own people and refusing democratic reforms. Granted, he is.

But so is Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa, the emir of Bahrain. The emir, who like Napoleon crowned himself “king,” has just imported Saudi troops. They have brutally put down the popular uprising there in an invasion that resembles the Soviet suppression of the Hungarian uprising of 1956, or the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979. Each invasion was at the invitation of the government of the day.

But we’re not asking for a no-fly zone over Bahrain. We’re not demanding that the absolute monarch respect the democratic aspirations of his people. We’re not demanding the withdrawal of Saudi forces. We’re not taking action because the emir is using nerve gas on demonstrators.

It’s not just the whole of the Arab or Muslim world that can see clear through the double standard of western governments. This seventh generation Scots Canadian sees it clear as day. The West wants both Libya’s oil fields and Bahrain’s U.S. Fifth Fleet naval port. To secure one, we love “democracy.” To secure the other, we prefer dictatorship.

I can’t wait for Egypt-style protests here at home. No doubt we’ll all be arrested.

Stephen Kerr, Toronto

Double standard on Libya
 
.
China pays 280K people to boost its Web image on forums and social websites! Researcher: China pays 280K people to boost its Web image - CNN - still is a classic while Banning youtube etc... the level of your countries propaganda is unheralded and can't be beat!

Dude, if China had 2,000,000 million children died of hunger every year and vast illiteracy, it doesn't matter how many people are hired to boost its image. Trust me.
 
. .
No No No- you can't get a way with that. Yes you guys abstained - but your country feed the coffers of Qaddafi and ran away when the slaughter began. You guys don't care about anything other making a buck. ...

You make people feel you are talking about India that "feed the coffers of Qaddafi and ran away when the slaughter began. You guys don't care about anything other making a buck." :lol:

India abstained and:


There were thousands of Indian workers in Libya too, genius.

LOL!

He is few of the biggest jokers, oh no, sorry! the biggest "treasure" on this forum. He suddenly forgot his own country and his fellow working Indians in Libya when "condemning". :rofl:
 
. .
Back to TigerShark's topic.

First, forget about the morality. When the western powers colonized India, exploited China, spread Orange Agent in Vietnam..., anyone talked about morality? ANYONE? None, zero!

In front of national interest, morality doesn't worth a penny. Morality only has some worthiness when you can't budge the opponent with military force but have to use it as secondary means.

Why the west treat Libya and Bahrain differently?

1) US fifth fleet is homed at Bahrain. If Bahrain were toppled by the democracy supporters, what would happen to the fifth fleet? Not only China needs stability, US also needs stability. Democracy in Asia can't guarantee stability. So hushhh.. to democracy and to human rights in Bahrain.

2) Libya is the most oil rich country in the Africa, but it is also very hostile to the west. If Gaddafi can be over thrown, maybe oil-based western economy can get a push. So the west must chat louder and clear democracy and human rights in Libya.

Why China abstained? Since Gaddafi is no friend of China, also Arab League's attitude is an important factor. In fact, could somebody tell who is Gaddafi's friend? Gaddafi flirted with Taiwan, and angered China. It is well-known. The relationship between Libya and China is only oil based. I believe the west will take care of China's oil interest in Libya...
 
.
LOL!

He is few of the biggest jokers, oh no, sorry! the biggest "treasure" on this forum. He suddenly forgot his own country and his fellow working Indians in Libya when "condemning". :rofl:

No need to :rofl:

1. My point was to highlight how some posters conveniently forget the truth when accusing other countries of milking Libya and running away when the crap hits the fan, when their countries have been doing the same.

2. Your accusation that I have "suddenly forget my own country and my fellow working Indians in Libya" is nonsense because My country is Britain, not India.
 
.
Why the west treat Libya and Bahrain differently?

1) US fifth fleet is homed at Bahrain. If Bahrain were toppled by the democracy supporters, what would happen to the fifth fleet? Not only China needs stability, US also needs stability. Democracy in Asia can't guarantee stability. So hushhh.. to democracy and to human rights in Bahrain.

Bahrain has Shia majority.
US is afraid of influence from their Shia bretheren in Iran.
 
.

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom