Bahrain

Sorry I see there is no need for the Royal Canadian airforce to bomb them since our good allies have secured the monarchs rule over his subjects and the nasty dissidents are under control.

Quote:

In February and March 2011, Bahrain experienced a period of civil unrest inspired in part by recent revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia and in part by local dissatisfaction with government policies. Bahraini security forces moved quickly to restore order. Bahrain hosted military forces from Saudi Arabia, U.A.E., and Kuwait under the aegis of the GCC Peninsula Shield Force to secure critical infrastructure while Bahraini security forces contained unrest. An ongoing National Dialogue seeks to address political grievances between political societies, civil society groups, and the government to prevent further instances of unrest.

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/26414.htm

The Independent
By Patrick Cockburn
Friday, 30 September 2011

Quote:

Bahrain regime jails doctors who dared to treat protesters

Medics say they were tortured after arrest as they receive sentences of up to 15 years

Bahrain's military court has sentenced 20 doctors, nurses and paramedics who treated protesters injured during pro-democracy rallies earlier in the year to up to 15 years in prison. The defendants say they were tortured during interrogation to extract false confessions.

The harsh sentences, handed down by a military judge, are likely to anger Bahrain's Shia Muslim majority and torpedo hopes of dialogue between them and the reigning Sunni al-Khalifa dynasty. The court's action may be a sign that hardliners within the royal family have taken control, since King Hamad bin Isa al-Khalifa has made a number of conciliatory statements which have been followed by intensified repression....

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/bahrain-regime-jails-doctors-who-dared-to-treat-protesters-2363331.html
====
Canada's, proactive, new All-Party Coalition Humantarian Government:

Government of Canada site:

Quote:

Canada-Bahrain Relations

Canada is represented by the Embassy of Canada in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Bahrain is represented in Canada by the Embassy in Washington, D.C., U.S.A.
Canada maintains cordial and growing relations with Bahrain....

http://www.canadainternational.gc.ca/saudi_arabia-arabie_saoudite/bilateral_relations_bilaterales/canada-bahrain-bahrein.aspx?lang=eng&view=d

I can see no difference between the civilians in Sirte and the ones in Bahrain.  Can you tell the difference and if you can please explain why the RCAF is morally superior for the humanitarian bombing of Sirte but bombing Bahrain would be unacceptable?

It is those that believe in the humanitarian right to bomb cities that seem to me to have the biggest problem with logic.  Why one and not the other? Why not start bombing Burma and Saudi Arabia and Honduras since their governments all actively engage in murdering their citizens for their political beliefs.  Why were Libyans so special?   

Gaian wrote:

Thanks to Contrarianna's links I can now see the shia/sunni challenge is central to yet another violent situation:  

Unarmed people are being murdered in the streets of Bahrain by an totalitarian ally of NATO and you call it a religious based violent situation.  Your unfrocking yourself.

Have you see the images of the Saudi troops invading the country driving Canadian made Stryker civilian control tanks?  Is that your idea of good Canadian foreign policy? Its not mine.  

 

Gaian wrote:

Well, I'm not being accused of calling for bombing of the Bahrainian populace, at least.

Please, Gaian, pay attention. Northern Shoveler's use of irony should have been obvious.

If for some reason it wasn't, he was explicit  in his following post on the inconsistencies of "humanitarian" hawks.

Quote:

Abrams and Hartman:

    Verbal irony is a statement in which the meaning that a speaker employs is sharply different from the meaning that is ostensibly expressed. The ironic statement usually involves the explicit expression of one attitude or evaluation, but with indications in the overall speech-situation that the speaker intends a very different, and often opposite, attitude or evaluation.

Gaian wrote:

  Now that could be some folks' idea of verbal irony, but I suspect that was not the intention. And NS cannot charge that I was "stalking" him in this thread. :) But it would be SOOOOO nice just to be able to make a statement without any suspicion of personal attack. This kind of exchange is becoming troubling, but I'm damned if I will cash in my freedom to ask questions or make statements of fact on babble.

I answered your question with irony and sarcasm that was not directed in anyway at you personally. Believe it or not I have been speaking out against imperialist intervention long before you arrived on this board.  I will continue to argue against militarism not matter whether you like or not.

You made no statement in your opening post you instead asked for comments. In relation to complex issues there are often many different points of view.  If you want to ask a question that will illicit a pre-determined response then make them less open ended next time.  If you want to make a statement so that we can debate something you are stating then do that.  

Yes it is clear but it is not a statement merely an open ended invitation to comment.  I commented and you didn't like my comment.  

Gaian wrote:

Gaian wrote:

Any comments on the possible internal political effect of the jailing of doctors and nurses in that benighted medieval land?

You must have missed the "internal" in internal political effect that Contrarianna spotted. But what's in a word, eh?

You must of missed my retraction in post #3 where I apologized and spoke directly to the internal effect. 

Calling the events in Bahrain religious based violence is as insightful as saying the Quebec issue in Canada is a Catholic versus Protestant battle over religion.  Like most protest movements there are many grievances.  if you read what they are demanding you will find their demands have very little to do with religion and everything to do with living under a totalitarian government backed by the US and NATO.  

The MSM media much prefers the religious angle  to talking about the military bases that are one of the main foci of dissent and the brutal Saudi occupation that has been suppressing protest and murdering civilians for months. So I understand the source of your confusion and urge you to read more than US MSM reports of world events to broaden your knowledge base.

Sorry for my soppy (sic) attempt at debate.  Why is it that you are trying to shout me down instead of debating the issues?  From reading your posts, as far as I can tell, you are not an expert on anything.  Having lived a long time does not make you right about foreign affairs. So please stop attacking me and debate the issues.

There is no doubt that the rulers and their cronies are from the minority religion but that does not make this primarily about religion.  It is about the repression by the ruling elite of its population to ensure the security of their corrupt system build around the western military bases.  The protestors are not calling for freedom to worship they are calling for an end to discrimination in employment and an end to the corrupt regime run by cronies who themselves are religious in name only.

The corrupt authoritarian "royal" family is being aided and abetted by western powers and our Saudi allies.  Why do we have a duty to protect the people of Libya against their dictator but we don't with the people of Bahrain?I personally cannot see the difference from one totalitarian dictator to another.  Why are royal dictators better than quasi-socialist dictators is a question I have not had answered to my satisfaction.  

Maybe you can explain to me what makes the middle eastern monarchs better than other regimes in the area.  Why is there no duty to protect the Bahraini people or the Saudis or the Jordanians. What makes Iraq, Libya Syria and Iran different?  The main difference seems to me to be the oldest one of all; "they may be bastards but they are our bastards." 

IMO The only possible internal political effect will be more murdering of citizens until the people are too frightened to speak out.  Hundreds have been murdered by the state and thousands have been arrested and many tortured and the streets are patrolled by Saudi troops driving Canadian made Stryker.  That is the "political" reality as far as I can tell. 

The reason I mention things like the Styker is because during the last campaign Harper was directly promoting the arms industry as the kind of industry that is Canada's future.  I don't support that Harper agenda of turning our manufacturing sector into a branch plant of the american military industrial complex. 

Quote:

A number of subcontractors are used to produce the different LAV configurations and equipment. The prime contractor - GM General Dynamics Land Systems Defense Group LLC -- conducts work in four primary locations. Structure, fabrication and final assembly of the LAVs takes place in both Anniston, Ala., and London, Ontario in Canada. Engineering takes place in Sterling Heights, Mich., and upper hull structures are produced at a plant in Lima, Ohio.

The contract provides the Interim Brigade Combat Team with two vehicle variants that are deployable anywhere in the world in combat-ready configurations. The two variations of the LAV III that are produced for the Interim Armored Vehicle program are the Infantry Carrier Vehicle and the Mobile Gun System. The Stryker has eight configurations besides the basic infantry carrier model - mortar carrier, reconnaissance vehicle, anti-tank guided missile vehicle, fire-support vehicle, engineer support vehicle, command-and-control vehicle, medical-evacuation vehicle and the NBC reconnaissance vehicle. The Strykers are not a replacement for the M1 Abrams tank or the M3 Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicle. The Strykers are used in places, such as urban areas, where the heavy armored vehicles are not suitable for the mission.

Gaian wrote:

That is a soppy attempt at a simile, NS. Why in the name of the Great Gaia would you talk about religion in Quebec. I was there when the social democrats walked away from the church, tabernoosh. That has nothing to do with the situation in Bahrain, the antagonism between shia and sunni. We can only wish that folks there will sometime in this century also choose a rational worldview, free of a demanding God. Get a grip.

The situatrion in Bahrain has nothing to do with antagonism between shia and sunnis. There are sunnis as well as Shias among the arrested opposition leaders. This is a movement of oridinary people against a tyrannical tribal rule. Instead, the Saudis try to frame this as a Shia-vs-Sunni and Arabs-vs-Iran conflict to justify their military presence in Bahrain.

Gaian wrote:

Thank you. I stand corrected. Better late than never. It's probably my homegrown, anti-clerical bias that sees everything there determined by that blessed book and its author. I'll assume that Bahrain, alone, among all the states in that part of the world, is free of that fundamental schism determining social and political events. Or are there others you can name? Just caught the last bit of a CBC Radio 1 interview with a lawyer representing the doctors. The military court would not even admit evidence of torture of the doctors. Wish I had tuned in earlier to hear whether she had more confidence in the appeal court's outcome.

of course it is not free of it, however religion is only one factor among many in the whole equation. Reducing the whole issue to a sectarian conflict is incorrect.

I would expect that this appeal court is an instituion of the totalitarian monarchy. Given that there are people risking their lives in the streets because they feel they live in a dictatorship I doubt if it means a whole lot.