Re: Bahrain protests
latest
Re: Bahrain protests
Re: Bahrain protests
Whats the latest from Bahrain...?
bro, the cronies and the agents of the imperialists are going down, Insha Allah.
Re: Bahrain protests
bro, the cronies and the agents of the imperialists are going down, Insha Allah.
LOLz I was more worried for the protesters on both sides... I heard the crackdown was savage.
Re: Bahrain protests
LOLz I was more worried for the protesters on both sides... I heard the crackdown was savage.
That was 5 days back. See post #30 on this thread.
Royal family has told their imported brigade of security forces to use force no more as it shows their imperial masters in a bad light.
Re: Bahrain protests
Re: Bahrain protests
Hmmm so the protesters are completley unmolested? 
Thats good to hear, however is there any effect on the status quo? Insha Allah it will end soon.
Re: Bahrain protests
The status quo remains the same, tens of thousands are at the Pearl Roundabout at all times of the day. In Egypt, the Mubarak regime fell because the protests essentially halted Egypt’s economy, the same is going to have to happen in Bahrain for anything significant to happen. Getting rid of the royals will be far tougher though, a military coup is pretty much impossible, and it would probably take nothing less than a civilian takeover of the royal palace and the deportation of the royal family to get rid of them, and that could get really bloody really quick.
Re: Bahrain protests
You guys are just seeing one side of the picture, and all of you siding with the media that is showing the distorted view of the shiny SUVs should come and see what the demonstrators are coming in. These ppl have the lions share if jobs in education, medicine and the electricity and telecommunications industries not to forget the support services industry. Obama who is standing up to speak against oppression and violence what had America been doing all over the world. It is not that America doesn't have ghettos and if the drug addicts, petty thieves and thugs got to Washington and held a demonstration, would you side with them as you are with these 'peaceful' protestors.
Re: Bahrain protests
Re: Bahrain protests
I would not like to say this, but from what I read and hear, what I can see is genocide of non Bahrainis in Bahrain, if not today then in not so distance future. Anyhow, from non Bahraini I do not mean those who do not have Bahraini Nationality of Citizenship, but I mean all who are not considered as indigenously Bahrainis.
There are reasons for my conclusions in determining who I mean are Bahrainis and who are not, and the reason why there is good chance of genocide/massacre.
Who are Bahrainis and who are not ... that applies to people settled anywhere in the world, even people settled within a country but in regions different from their own ... for instance, Pakistanis settled in UK, non-Baluchs settled in Baluchistan, etc, etc, etc.
Status of people settled at a place: They are typically of three types (regardless of they hold nationality or not).
Type 1 settlers: Those who recently moved from their home regions but still have strong link/ties to place they came from ... normally first and second generation.
Type 2 settlers: Those who moved from their home regions couple of generation ago and have link/ties to place of their origin, though that link/ties are weak, normally third and fourth generation born and brought up at new place.
Type 3 settlers: Those who moved from their home regions several generations ago, like over 100 years ago (or moved due to religious/ethnic reasons) and have absolutely no ties with their home regions (they are just like indigenous people). These people can be considered as indigenous people.
[Among Type 3 settlers there are also people who might have settled generations ago still live in danger just because they have different culture, religion, ethnicity, and way of life such that they can get distinguished separately (have separate identity) from indigenous people in majority. For instance Jews in Germany, Muslims in Serbia, Muslims in India, Chinese in Malaysia, Christians in Egypt, Whites in Rhodesia and South Africa, and so on].
Now, if riot starts at a place against any of above community and that community finds themselves at receiving end (get weak):
Type 1 settlers leave the place and move to their place of origin at first opportunity, or could move to completely new place where they get accepted. They can easily get massacred too, without much resistance.
Type 2 settlers give a fight but still, eventually leave the place and move to their place of origin or completely new place where they get accepted. They can get massacred, but might put up some resistance.
Type 3 has no choice of leaving the place. For them, it is death, living under occupation, or take over. Thus they fight to the end (till death). Since they fight to the end, they normally get upper hand whenever real fight (or riot) starts.
I believe, most non-Bahrainis in Bahrain are of type 1 settlers or type 2 settlers ... and most would not like to sacrifice their lives to live in Bahrain. Few might, but since they would be few, they would get massacred in no time.
Now, why there would be massacre in Bahrain?
Reason is simple. Those who always have upper hand in any area are those belonging to type 3 group, unless they are too few and too weak (Aborigines in Australia, Red Indians in USA). In a situation if Type 3 settlers feel they are threatened by Type 1 and Type 2 settlers, riot eventually starts. In any such riot, it is Type 3 settlers who eventually eliminate new settlers (Even if Type 3 settlers are comparatively weak and may get beating for a while, eventually they succeed in eliminating new settlers, or in some rare cases they get eliminated if new settlers are too strong ... though when that happens it become historical event).
Type 1 and Type 2 could live with Type 3 if they become part of Type 3 (adopt culture and way of life of Type 3 settlers, such that it becomes difficult to distinguish them from Type 3), but if Type 1 and Type 2 stay aloof and do not assimilate with Type 3 settlers (or indigenous people), then in situation of any economical or political upheaval, they get massacred.
Worse case with Type 1 and Type 2 settlers is when they are implanted (or perceived to be implanted) in an area by ruling class to suppress Type 3 settlers. Because in such situation, riots against Type 1 and Type 2 settlers can be considered as waiting to happen. Reason is that, Type 3 settlers develop hate and feeling of revenge against Type 1 and Type 2 settlers, waiting for an opportunity to massacre (something that may have been happening in Bahrain). If that happens, then life of Type 1 and Type 2 settlers always stays in danger and eventually if any upheaval starts, they are certain to get massacred.
Re: Bahrain protests
^^^
Worse about Bahrain case is that, new settlers (type 1 and type 2) are busy doing their best to make type 3 settlers their worst enemy, rather even killing old settlers for king, so when old settlers (type 3) would get their day, it is obvious that new settlers would have no place to put their feet on ground.
Re: Bahrain protests
Sa1eem,
If the king and his minority Sunni led government fall, don't you think that Pakistani/Indian and other Sunnis would try to escape before hand to their respective countries before the impending massacre? Do you think that these Pakistani Sunnis if they were allowed back into Pakistan would join up with terrorist groups and start attacking Shias in Pakistan?
Re: Bahrain protests
Sa1eem,
If the king and his minority Sunni led government fall, don't you think that Pakistani/Indian and other Sunnis would try to escape before hand to their respective countries before the impending massacre? Do you think that these Pakistani Sunnis if they were allowed back into Pakistan would join up with terrorist groups and start attacking Shias in Pakistan?
Did I write anywhere that new settlers in Bahrain are necessarily Sunnis? No doubt, new settlers might be mostly Sunnis and there is some problem in this respect too, but I do not think that main problem in Bahrain is Shia/Sunni, something Bahraini King might try to portray.
In my opinion, main problem is that Bahraini King is worried about indigenous Bahrainis and thus he imported new immigrants. To make his position more secure, he imported mostly Sunnis as new comers, and is using Shia/Sunni divide so that he buy loyalty of new comers effectively (money plus ethnic divide, instead of just money) to suppress indigenous population on Shia/Sunni divide pretext, just to prolong his rule.
Nevertheless, same fact is true with other middle-eastern Kingdoms, that Kings are worried about indigenous population and in one pretext or another suppress them, using foreign hired hands. Only difference with Bahrain is that, other middle-eastern Kingdoms are using money (in form of jobs) to buy loyalty of foreigners.
Now coming to your question:
[quote]
If the king and his minority Sunni led government fall, don't you think that Pakistani/Indian and other Sunnis would try to escape before hand to their respective countries before the impending massacre?
[/quote]
I do not think that King would fall without a fight, and in that fight soldiers of King (foreign mercenaries) would be new settlers. Anyhow, you are right that when these mercenaries would see imminent downfall coming to reality, they would try to jump off the ship by escaping to their respective countries (regardless of them holding Bahraini Nationality or not). Some might get caught and may suffer persecution/massacre.
[quote]
Do you think that these Pakistani Sunnis if they were allowed back into Pakistan would join up with terrorist groups and start attacking Shias in Pakistan?
[/quote]
I do not think so. Pakistan is not Shia or Sunni country that anyone could use such divide to kill each other. Actually, even if Pakistan was Shia country or Sunni country, killing in the name of Shia/Sunni divide could not happen in such country. On pretext of Shia/Sunni divide, no Shia in his right mind would kill or persecute Sunni, and no Sunni in his right mind would kill or persecute Shia. Whenever these killings happened in history of Islam on Shia/Sunni divide, it happened when a Kharjee gets into power, and those who take part in such sectarian killings, they are Kharjees, who kill both Shia and Sunni using one pretext or another, doing takfeer on both of them ... as without doing takfeer, it is impossible that a Muslim would kill another Muslim on religious or sect basis.
Few terrorist groups are there in Pakistan who got created in early 80s with the backing of especially Saudi Arabia and help of Zia-ul-Haq, to avert Iranian revolution moving to Middle Eastern Kingdom, as Middle Eastern Kingdoms felt threatened that Iranian revolution does not turn into Islamic revolution, wiping their existence as that revolution did to Shah of Iran (most powerful of Kings at that time).
With these terrorist outfits (in Muslim world, especially Pakistan) and initiation of Iraq-Iran war, Arab Kings managed to change perception of Iranian revolution from Islamic revolution to Shia based revolution, and thus succeeded in averting danger to them at that time, though their position may become perilous again if Egyptian revolution succeeds (though it seems it has, but in reality it has not, and would only succeed when military give up the power).
Further, the outfits Saudi Arabia and other Middle East Kingdoms created in Pakistan, they were not Sunni outfits (regardless of what they claim) or anti-Shia outfits, but they were Kharjee outfits targeting both Shia and Sunni in Pakistan (initially, they were targeting only Shias). Today, both Shia and Sunni in Pakistan hate these outfits, except a minority few.
So, even though I do not believe all Bahraini mercenaries are Kharjees, many may have become one and thus these returning Bahraini Kharjee mercenaries may join Kharjee terrorist outfits, but to do that, they would have to put their lives in peril too, as these outfits are getting hunted all over Pakistan (and their life is becoming more difficult with time). I do not think that many of those escaping mercenaries (even if they are Kharjees) would have guts to join Kharjee terrorist outfits and get hunted and killed in Pakistan themselves. Those with guts would get massacre in Bahrain itself.
I do not know about Indian situation that I could comment what may happen to them there, but maybe same applies to India.
Re: Bahrain protests
Is any Pakistani from Bahrain on this Forum ? I think Libya is getting lot of attention which is important but Barhain is more strategically important for America because of Iran influence . Also Shias of Saudi Arabia are also concentrated in east part of country , and Bahrainis are mostly Shia . Plus the oil from ARAMCO goes from the gulf near Bahrain . We need more coverage of Bahrain .
Re: Bahrain protests
Another great article by Pepe Escober in Asia Times
http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MB25Ak01.html
The Gulf’s terror of democracy
By *Pepe Escobar *
There’s a specter haunting the Persian Gulf: democracy.
This Tuesday, no less than 20% of the population of Bahrain poured into the Lulu (Pearl) roundabout in Manama in its biggest anti-feudal monarchy demonstration intimately connected to the great 2011 Arab revolt. A whole cross-section of Bahraini society - teachers, lawyers, engineers, their wives and children - rolled along in a wide, unbroken column of red and white, the colors of the national flag.
This Wednesday, there were reasons to believe the revolt was finally hitting the holy grail, ie, the House of Saud, as 100 youngsters hit the streets of Hafar al-Batin, in northeast Saudi Arabia, calling for the end of its drenched-in-oil feudal monarchy. What’s extraordinary is that this happened as “Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques” Saudi King Abdullah, 85, was returning home after three months following surgery in the US and convalescence in Morocco - amid massive regime propaganda, complete with Orientalist touches such as men in white robes doing traditional Bedouin sword dances on special carpets.
For the House of Saud, the revolt is the ultimate nightmare; as the whole world knows by now, tiny Shi’ite-majority Bahrain borders the large Shi’ite majority oil-producing parts of Saudi Arabia. So no wonder King Abdullah had barely set foot on his carpets when he went pre-emptive to quell any possible democracy-yearning moves, launching a US$35 billion program that includes one year of unemployment benefits for jobless young people, and adding into a national development fund which helps people to buy homes, set up businesses and get married.
In theory, Saudi Arabia has pledged no less than a massive $400 billion until the end of 2014 to improve education, healthcare and infrastructure. Chief economist at Banq Saudi Fransi, John Sfakianakis, euphemistically puts it as "the king trying to create wider trickle down of wealth in the shape of social welfare’'.
Invariably, euphemism stops at politics; there’s no sign the king will invest in the political aspirations of his subjects - as political parties, labor unions and protests remain absolutely banned. And there’s no evidence he’s inclined to address the huge social problems - from government repression to religious intolerance - which have forced him to announce this multibillion “trickle down” gambit.
And guess who was there to greet King Abdullah and discuss the “crisis”- code for The Great 2011 Arab Revolt? That’s right – his Sunni neighbor feudal monarch, King Hamad al-Khalifa of Bahrain.
Killing them softly with our song
The Western-concocted Disneyworld narrative that King Hamad was “reform-minded”, interested in “advancing democracy” and “preserving stability”, was totally shattered by his mercenary army firing live ammo from anti-aircraft guns from APCs at protesters who were carrying flowers, or American Bell helicopters overhead chasing people and shooting at them.
A Twitter posting last week by Bahraini journalist Amira al-Husseini summed it all up; “I too love Bahrain. I am Bahraini. My blood is Bahraini - and I witnessed my country die in the eyes of its children today.”
The Shi’ite rebellion against the over-200-year-old al-Khalifa dynasty - invaders from the mainland, by the way - has in fact been going on for decades, and includes hundreds of political prisoners tortured in four prisons in and around Manama by Jordanian “advisers”, and a regime whose army is mostly composed by Punjabi and Pakistani Baloch soldiers.
It took quite a while - but then that strategic phone call from Washington made sure to the al-Khalifa to at least manage the killing with a little more savvy.
The record of how US foreign policy has nimbly adapted to the great 2011 Arab revolt yields a few lessons. Egypt’s ousted president Hosni Mubarak and Bahrain’s King Hamad are “moderate” and certainly not “evil”; after all they were and are, respectively, pillars of “stability” in MENA (Middle East-Northern Africa).
On the other hand, Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi and Syria’s Bashar al-Assad are really bad, because they are not submissive to Washington’s diktats. The moral scale conditioning the US response is directly determined by the degree the dictator/feudal monarch in question is a US satrap.
This explains the instant US revulsion (by the State Department, and only this Wednesday by President Barack Obama himself) at Gaddafi’s bombing of his own people, while US corporate media and scores of think-tank analysts scramble to see who comes up with the most elaborate adjectives crucifying Gaddafi. Nothing beats denouncing a dictator who doesn’t fit the Washington lackey model.
Meanwhile, on the other side of MENA, there was hardly a peep when Hamad’s repression apparatus - partly imported from Saudi Arabia - killed his own citizens at the Pearl roundabout. Well, rehabilitated terrorist Gaddafi has always been a lunatic, while for Bahrain a long mantra applies; Bahrain as “close ally” of the US, “small but strategically valuable nation”, home of the 5th Fleet, essential to ensure the flow of oil through the Strait of Hormuz, bulwark against Iran, etc.
Anyway, even after the massacre, Sheikh Ali Salman, leader of the largest, opposition Shi’ite party al-Wefaq, as well as Ebrahim Sharif, leader of the secular party Wa’ad, and Mohammed Mahfood from the Islamic Action Society, have agreed to meet Crown Prince Salman bin Hamad al-Khalifa for a monarchy-proposed dialogue.
Husain Abdullah, director of Americans for Democracy and Human Rights in Bahrain, is not convinced; “I am not sure if the ruling family themselves are serious about any serious dialogue because when you watch the Bahrain TV, you see nothing but sectarian attacks on those who are staying in the Lulu roundabout-square.”
For Abdullah, what’s in fact happening is “more people openly calling for the regime to be toppled, through peaceful means, and Bahrain to be ruled by the people of Bahrain. In addition, there is a serious call for complete (not partial, which is the case now) civil disobedience in the country to force the ruling family to leave the country in the same manner that took place in Tunisia and Egypt.” No wonder the House of Saud is freaking out.
The uprising of Bahrain’s 70% Shi’ites, plus quite a few Sunnis - the protest mantra is “No Shi’ite, no Sunni, only Bahraini” - started as a civil rights movement. But the crown prince would better deliver quickly - otherwise this will become a full-blown revolution. For the moment there’s a lot of rhetoric about “stability”, “calm”, “security”, “national cohesion” and nothing about serious electoral and constitutional reform.
There are reasons to believe Salman - following Saudi advice - may be trying to pull a Mubarak and make vague promises for a distant future. We all know how it ended up on Tahrir Square.
The protesters started asking for an elected prime minister, a constitutional monarchy, and an end to discrimination against Shi’ites. Now Matar Ibrahim, one of 18 Shi’ite members of parliament, says the gap between the demonstrators at the Pearl roundabout and the official political opposition talking to the crown prince has become an abyss. The top rallying call around the Pearl roundabout has become “Down, Down Khalifa.”
Thousands of workers at the huge Alba aluminum plant have already made sure that a very powerful industrial and trade union movement backs the mostly Shi’ite protesters. The head of the Alba trade union, Ali Bin Ali - who happens to be a Sunni - has already warned that they could go on strike at any moment.
We want our social rights
Were peaceful, democratic regime change happen in Bahrain, the mega-losers would be Saudi Arabia and the US.
Bahrain is a classic case of the US empire of bases colluding with an unsavory feudal monarchy/dictatorship. Naturally the US Joint Chiefs of Staff favors dictatorship-dictated “order and stability” - as well as old colonial power Britain; the massacres of civilians in Bahrain - and Libya - have been brought to you by the Sandhurst military academy and BAE systems.
King Hamad graduated from the US Army Command and General Staff School at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, and “takes a leading role in directing Bahrain’s security policy”, according to a 2009 WikiLeaks cable. He was defense minister from 1971 to 1988 and is a big fan of US heavy weaponry.
The “very Western in his approach” crown prince for his part is a graduate of a US Defense Department high school in Bahrain and the American University in Washington. Translation; two Pentagon-minded vassals are in charge of delivering democratic reforms to Bahrain.
International banking center Bahrain - with a gross domestic product per capita just under $20,000 - is also very high, alongside Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, in the scale of wealthy oligarchies based on slave labor, the proverbial “large pool of migrant workers providing cheap labor”. It has spent a fortune promoting itself as “Business Friendly Bahrain”. Last week it was more like “Bullet-friendly Bahrain”.
The great 2011 Arab revolt, for all its specific reasons in different countries, is definitely not about religion (as Mubarak, Gaddafi and Hamad have claimed) - but essentially working class unrest directly provoked by the global crisis of capitalism.
Clash of civilizations, end of history, Islamophobia and other silly concepts are dead and buried. People want their social rights, and to navigate the waters of political democracy and social democracy. In this sense the Arab street is now the vanguard of the whole world. If the al-Khalifa don’t get it, they are bound to go down.
Pepe Escobar is the author of Globalistan: How the Globalized World is Dissolving into Liquid War (Nimble Books, 2007) and Red Zone Blues: a snapshot of Baghdad during the surge. His new book, just out, is Obama does Globalistan (Nimble Books, 2009).
Re: Bahrain protests
lethal kamakazee and armughal: these two guys have completely lost it. As a 3rd party viewing this unrest, and viewing this thread, i am actually appalled that some folks here are so blind to the facts. Simply denying that nothing is happening, and the world is brewing up a pro iran/shia conspiracy to show that the protesters are dying and that they are a couple of hundred in numbers.
unbelievable. I wish for the monarchy to be overthrown, for bahrain. these arrogant fools make me extremely sick.
Re: Bahrain protests
These days ANY protester good or bad will get media and world support in ME.
Re: Bahrain protests
Dr. Lulworth! where do u live?
Re: Bahrain protests
Diwana you are absolutely right. Most of previous posts are just copied and pated from media. How pathetic 