Bahrain: The West's dirty secret

[Central Asian Qaghan]

Or alternatively "How Shi'a lives aren't as valuable as Sunni Oil Producing lives"

The Bahrain rebellion had started during the "Arab Spring" seeking to over throw a Saudi Monarchy established by the Saudi Family. They are the 15% of the population ruling over 85% or so of the population who is Shi'a. There was a media blackout when Saudi forces invaded and crushed the rebellion with loss of life. As a result, doctors, students, men and women were rounded up and put through Kangaroo court to be sentenced for anywhere between 5 and 20 years for trying to fight for their rights.

This thread seeks to highlight not only the hypocrisy of the West where there was no calls to "help" the Bahraini population due to two factors, in my opinion, one that is that a US base is there and if the population decide to kick them out the Americans can't do anything about it. Its better to have an oppressive regime than have a free one. The second is because the Saudi's are Allies and hey they can do anything if it allows unrestricted oil supplies. Besides that the rebellion is not backed by Wahhabis or Al-Quidea then the West doesn't support it.

Here is a wiki of the incident:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bahrain...2%80%93present)

Recent News:

31 people have been "revoked" from their citizens because they express their freedom of rights.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middle...126137537.html

[hellheaven1987]

Not a secret be honest.

[Emperor Arcturus Mengsk]

Please don't ruin the idea the media have imprinted on my head about the champions of human rights.

[Blaze86420]

I was not aware that Syrians are producing oil. THE MOAR YOU KNOW.

It's always precious when people throw the Wahhabi label to invoke sympathy, like hey, Sunni extremism is an enemy we both share! And then these same people will claim that the West doesn't combat Sunni extremism, but in fact supports it. Like the War on Terror doesn't exist or something.

Also, the Khalifa royal family isn't Saudi. That's just more zealous propaganda from CAQ like always.

[Central Asian Qaghan]

I was not aware that Syrians are producing oil. THE MOAR YOU KNOW.

No Syrians don't have oil. Unlike the protesters in Bahrain they are not backed by the Arab teat of oil and thus France and others don't claim to support it. Instead they remain quite because their Saudi and Arab masters are opposed to the Shi'a gaining freedoms.

[Blaze86420]

No Syrians don't have oil. Unlike the protesters in Bahrain they are not backed by the Arab teat of oil and thus France and others don't claim to support it. Instead they remain quite because their Saudi and Arab masters are opposed to the Shi'a gaining freedoms.

This post does not make any sense, who does France not support? The Bahrainis or Syrians?

[Manuel I Komnenos]

Did a quick search, found out that the vast majority of their military equipment is American while there's no Russian one. So, don't really expect support over this case, as saddening as it may sound.

[Prosaic Visitant]

Here we go again.

So, because I'm some filthy degenerate living in 'the West', I therefore have my thoughts read by some random guy from Canada (the implication of the OP is that I neither know or care about these things). Said chap from Canada proceeds to moan about the lack of 'help' from the pink peoples. The thing I can't work out is this, the thread creator doesn't even like non-Muslims and makes his contempt for the Western world well known (a favored epithet is 'filth'). Now he is upset that infidels didn't rush to the aid of the protestors of Bahrain. So, are we in 'the West' an inferior collection of tribes who have no business in Dar al-Islam (you frequently tell us that infidels should either convert to the True Faith or leave and that Americans should not involve themselves in 'Islamic lands'), or should we be involved in the politics of Islamic countries in whatever form you so please?

[s.rwitt]

Is this the secret that the US publicly condemned?

[Emperor Arcturus Mengsk]

condemned, wow, so important!

: }

"I condemn you evil man!, and now that I condemned you and I have my moral castle secure, I can proceed to the rest of the stuff I'm doing which look awfuly similar to your situation but for some damn reason all I can do with you is condemn you!"

[Prosaic Visitant]

condemned, wow, so important!

: }

"I condemn you evil man!, and now that I condemned you and I have my moral castle secure, I can proceed to the rest of the stuff I'm doing which look awfuly similar to your situation but for some damn reason all I can do with you is condemn you!"

Believe me when I say I ask the following out of genuine interest and not snarling partisanship.

What would you do, assuming you were President of the US and had the luxury of both a fully compliant Congress and Senate? what would your preferred course of action be?

[Emperor Arcturus Mengsk]

Believe me when I say I ask the following out of genuine interest and not snarling partisanship.

What would you do, assuming you were President of the US and had the luxury of both a fully compliant Congress and Senate? what would your preferred course of action be?

Hmm, assuming that my current life philosophy wouldn't be totaly overcome by my newfound presidential powers, I would refrain from using any US funds to maintain 3464646 army bases, and invasions, before assuring that all US citizens at least have a house, free high tier education etc. etc.

You might say : "but the US needs to maintain this huge military because of the terrorist threats etc."

My answer to that is : If the US didn't want to have their hand all over the world, no terrorist would give a damn to bomb you.

Look at my country, Greece. We are supposedly infidels too, and we are much closer to them than you guys are, yet I didn't see any planes crashing anywhere yet. . . .

The only reason you guys are a target for extremists is because US foreign policy is asking for it.

No pain, no gain right?

[Plan C]

Believe me when I say I ask the following out of genuine interest and not snarling partisanship.

What would you do, assuming you were President of the US and had the luxury of both a fully compliant Congress and Senate? what would your preferred course of action be?

I would get off that ing high horse once in a while to salvage at least some credibility. The more USG blows the trumpet of being a human rights champion the more it looks like a chump when chicken come home to roost.

We're no stranger to the rigours of realpolitik and I think we all get the game - we all wring hands about Gaza and civ deaths in Afghan from our comfy Western homes and would happily keep our cosseted lives I'm sure even at the expense of this poor masses across the globe. I get that we have to be bad sometimes to have it good. Just don't try to make me feel great about it. Keep it real.

American take on world events is unbearably ignorant and 2 dimentional sometimes which is what drives people like me around the bend. We know the world ain't pretty and tough choices must be made, just don't try to be the ing knight in shiny armour all the time cos it makes you look retarded.

[Prosaic Visitant]

I would get off that ing high horse once in a while to salvage at least some credibility. The more USG blows the trumpet of being a human rights champion the more it looks like a chump when chicken come home to roost.

We're no stranger to the rigours of realpolitik and I think we all get the game - we all wring hands about Gaza and civ deaths in Afghan from our comfy Western homes and would happily keep our cosseted lives I'm sure even at the expense of this poor masses across the globe. I get that we have to be bad sometimes to have it good. Just don't try to make me feel great about it. Keep it real.

American take on world events is unbearably ignorant and 2 dimentional sometimes which is what drives people like me around the bend. We know the world ain't pretty and tough choices must be made, just don't try to be the ing knight in shiny armour all the time cos it makes you look retarded.

Holy , what the hell did I do to get such a reaction?

1) Get of my ing high horse? I haven't even given my opinion, I'm merely asking what other people want to happen instead of what actually did, and some English chap comes along and starts frothing at the mouth. I'm actually a little surprised by the aggression to a question.

2) Have I defended US actions in regards to Bahrain? have I said I like the current global setup? or did we just make an assumption? I'll wait for your back-peddling.

3) I'm not sure if the last part of your revelatory soliloquy was directed at me, but if it was I would like to inform you that I'm not American. I would like to ask you to show me where I've displayed Manichean thinking in this thread but I doubt I would get an answer.

[Plan C]

Holy , what the hell did I do to get such a reaction?

1) Get of my ing high horse? I haven't even given my opinion, I'm merely asking what other people want to happen instead of what actually did, and some English chap comes along and starts frothing at the mouth. I'm actually a little surprised by the aggression to a question.

2) Have I defended US actions in regards to Bahrain? have I said I like the current global setup? or did we just make an assumption? I'll wait for your back-peddling.

3) I'm not sure if the last part of your revelatory soliloquy was directed at me, but if it was I would like to inform you that I'm not American. I would like to ask you to show me where I've displayed Manichean thinking in this thread but I doubt I would get an answer.

I think you got the wrong end of the stick here mate - none of my post was directed at you. You asked for recommendations on solving the presidential dilemma.

[s.rwitt]

condemned, wow, so important!

: }

"I condemn you evil man!, and now that I condemned you and I have my moral castle secure, I can proceed to the rest of the stuff I'm doing which look awfuly similar to your situation but for some damn reason all I can do with you is condemn you!"

You're really going to make me explain the fairly obvious point of what I said, aren't you?

And hellheaven is using "hypocrite" in an IR discussion. Lol.

[hellheaven1987]

And hellheaven is using "hypocrite" in an IR discussion. Lol.

You mad your government is playing hypocrisy, or may be you want it to?

[s.rwitt]

You mad your government is playing hypocrisy, or may be you want it to?

Uh, yeah, I do. Any nation's policy makers that ran a foreign policy centered around avoiding hypocrisy would be an absolute failure. Welcome to international relations.

[hellheaven1987]

Uh, yeah, I do. Any nation's policy makers that ran a foreign policy centered around avoiding hypocrisy would be an absolute failure. Welcome to international relations.

No wonder CIA is murdering innocents in Pakistan using drones now...

[boofhead]

Uh, yeah, I do. Any nation's policy makers that ran a foreign policy centered around avoiding hypocrisy would be an absolute failure. Welcome to international relations.

I take that as an admission that US foreign policy is all about the immediate interests of the exceptional US, and everyone else can go to hell.