Libyan massacres condemned -- Saudi Arabian, Bahraini & Yemeni ignored.

[JackRiddler]

Given that these events are all happening at the same time in the same region as part of the same wave of uprisings, I think we're seeing a kind of controlled experiment in assessing how the interests of Western realpolitik play out.

What's the difference?

Not just in the willingness to intervene militarily, but also in the attention paid and the willingness to take sides at all, to condemn the state conducting repression against its own people?

.

ON EDIT: Post #6 by MedleyMisty speaks for me, so please read that before you post on reflex. Thanks.

HERE: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=691986&mesg_id=692053

.

[joshcryer]

1. 332 deaths in 3 days in Libya, Bahrain 20 in a month, Yemen, 15 in a month then 40 on March 18.

Yemen just barely escalated to what Libya was over a month ago.

Welcome to pathetic attempts at false equivalency

[LAGC]

4. That's funny, I don't know too many anarchists are that pro-government-waged war.

Are you sure you don't want to change your avatar?

[joshcryer]

8. I only wish anarchists had the might to help them. I know that anarchists have helped before.

Modern "anarchism" completely ignores things like the Spanish Revolution where anarchists fought for freedom. We'd be fighting with the Libyans if we had any sort of real presence anymore. Right now modern anarchists are nanny state liberals.

[jefferson_dem]

20. Fascinating.

Thanks. Seriously.

[joshcryer]

37. Cuba may look differently had not a large faction of the militant Cuban anarchists not gone to Spain

The Spanish anarchists needed their help and hundreds of them went to Spain, this created a vacuum in Cuba whereby the rest of the anarchists could be suppressed.

[reggie the dog]

29. nanny state liberals?

welfare state perhaps, ask the anarchists in greece

[joshcryer]

35. Sorry, I was more referring to anarchists I know in the United States.

To be fair they aren't vocally for a "nanny state" and they do hold anarchist ideals, but the results of their ideology resembles nanny state liberalism.

[reggie the dog]

55. nanny state is reagan and thatcher doublespeak, social welfare state

is what it is, a strong social welfare state provides a safety net, a nanny state provides no safety net yet tells you to wear a helmet, not to smoke pot etc.

[Distant Observer]

9. Please cite independent SOURCES. BTY, how many died in US civil war.

The MSM has determinedly avoided analysis of the real roots of factional conflict in Libya.

If they did it would expose how Western Interests have orchestrating regional and tribal
anti-Gaddafi activity since he overthrew their appointed King Idris. The MSM became part
of that engineering of death and war as they because used by the extremely savvy anti-Gaddafi groups.

[joshcryer]

12. Here you go:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_2011_Libyan_uprising

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Bahraini_protests

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Yemeni_protests

And the MSM talk is bullshit, the MSM drank tea in Tripoli as Gaddafi razed Ras Lanuf. Al Jazeera and Sky News and to a smaller extent BBC and perhaps one or two CNN reporters were the only ones who covered what was really happened. And the CNN reporters reports were mostly ignored.

[bobbolink]

49. Gaddafi talking points.

:crazy:

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sabrina 1]

11. Libya has oil, and all those who were worried about this situation

have turned out to right. The revolution has been hi-jacked it seems, signs of that began to surface a while ago.

Should have known the West would never abandon their 'interests' in a rich, oil-producing country.

Lives will be saved initially, which is a good thing. But when the Libyan people are faced with foreign troops on their soil, and the British PM has already said that 'boots on the ground may be necessary', they can expect them to stay forever, as they are in Afghanistan and Iraq and everywhere they get their boots in the door. And any of the now beloved revolutionaries who demand that they leave, will find themselves on the wrong side once again, in their own country. Same recipe always, it never changes.

Bahrain is brutalizing its people with the help of Saudi Arabia, as is the dictator in Yemen, and the Iraqi puppet government, mowing down 29 peaceful protesters last week, and the U.S. attempts to excuse it.

Sure, we care about the Libyan people, same way we 'cared' about the Iraqi people.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DURHAM D]

2. Has the UN taken up the SA, Bahrain and Yemen question? nt

[EFerrari]

5. Too bad we don't have any influence at the UN. n/t

[Distant Observer]

3. Notice how differently they have been covered by the MSM. But we love being manipulated.

[FrenchieCat]

7. What is it about facts don't you want to understand?

This part? 332 deaths in 3 days in Libya, Bahrain 20 in a month, Yemen, 15 in a month then 40 on March 18.

[sabrina 1]

22. The government of Bahrain is brutally cracking down on

the protesters, shooting several of them point blank in video released yesterday and destroying their peaceful symbol of Bahrain's history this week, and slaughtering their own people.

The U.S. is not ignoring Bahrain, they are depending on their dictator friends in the region to suppress the revolution in Bahrain, which is what is happening, both the Saudis and the Kuwaitis are helping the oppressive government of Bahrain to quash the peaceful demonstrations there.

The U.S. did not want to see their dictator allies all over the region toppled, it's not good for business. They supported Mubarak, Ben Ali, Qadaffi, until the people there finally said 'enough' and there was no way to go on supporting them.

But they are hoping to save a few of their other dictator friends, in Bharain and in Yemen and elsewhere and put a stop to this demand for democracy everywhere in the region. Democracy never serves U.S. interests, which is why we back coups against them, as in Haitti, in Venezuela, in Honduras and elsewhere.

Please show me a democratic leader in N.Africa or the ME that the U.S. has ever supported?

Try to accept reality. The U.S. supports dictators. We are doing it all over the world wherever we can.

Egypt and Tunisia was a shock to the Global Capitalists. The brutal oppression of so many people for so long backed by Western powers, finally exploded and the U.S. and their Western allies tried to keep Mubarak in power in the beginning, but the PEOPLE were not having any of it.

Amazing the ignorance of history in this country and especially of America's brutal and disgraceful and ongoing support for the worst people on this planet even as they see them brutalizing their own people.

And nothing has changed, because we the people have not forced a change. Instead we cheer it all on depending on which team is in power. We are responsible for the millions of deaths that have occurred, that continue to occur while we play high-school games with politics.

[joshcryer]

39. This happened in Libya a month ago. Where were you then? Do you support intervention in Yemen?

[sabrina 1]

52. Since I was one of the first people on this board to start threads

covering the Yemen and Egyptian revolutions, along with Turborama, your question made me laugh. Also one of the first to link to Twitter way back when, when even the MSM was not covering them.

Check my journal, Catherina was in my threads before starting her own which were excellent. I don't remember seeing you there though back then.

What I support is consistency. If saving lives is why we are in Libya, then we would be everywhere else where people are being slaughtered. But Libya has OIL.

The people of Yemen have been protesting for a long time, this week they were mowed down, 45 of them, by snipers. Why are their lives not so important? IF you had been following these events as long as I and a few others here, you would know that from the start, the U.S. was supporting Ben Ali and Mubarak. It was only because of the millions of people around the world, LIKE ME, Turborama and Catherina, who helped to spread the word about what was going on, when the MSM was not reporting these events at all, that the stories finally got attention.

We are in Libya, as everyone feared was going to happen, because of our huge 'interests' there. Try reading some of the Wikileaks docs on libya and maybe you'll understand why people feared for that country from the start.

Keep dreaming that the U.S. which supported and propped up every dictator in the Arab World and Latin America has had a sudden change of heart.

This is exactly like Latin America 10 years ago. When all of our dictator friends there began to fall, the U.S. was sending in special forces to undermine the emerging democracies, backing coups against their elected leaders. The Empire doesn't like it when their dictator friends are toppled, but sometimes, as in Latin America, and Egypt and Tunisia, the people have just had enough and they succeed. However, the Global Powers never give up, as can be seen in Latin AMerica and they won't give up in Egypt or Tunisia or Libya either. The people will have to be vigilant to hold on otheir hard earned democracies.

Next time you decide to ask a question, make sure you have some idea of what you are talking about. As for intervention in Yemen or anywhere else, only if the intervention doesn't turn out to be worse than what they are currently dealing with. And definitely not by the Western Powers who invaded Iraq. And THEY don't want that either.

Why would wish on them what they themselves DO NOT WANT? They have said they do NOT want to be another Iraq, brutalized and abused and raided of its resources.

[patrick t. cakes]

57. this should be post as a thread....

enlightening.

[MedleyMisty]

6. What does this say about DU?

My first instinct was to say something like I care about all of them and I'm not ignoring them, but then I reread and realized you were talking about the actions of Western governments, rather than accusing those of us who aren't 100% against the UN's actions in Libya of not caring about the other situations.

I will have to read and research and think some more before being able to really add to this discussion. Also I don't feel very well today.

But I hope that this thread will be actual discussion and not just throwing around insults and strawmen.

[JackRiddler]

14. Thank you MedleyMisty. You said it! Note the revision I made to the OP.

[joshcryer]

15. Western governments have condemed Yemen and Bahrain just as they did Libya a month ago.

[snappyturtle]

17. I think you've bought up an important point. Frankly, I think these

uprisings ought to be collectively handled by the Middle Eastern governments.

[CJCRANE]

21. Handled in what way? Repressed? nt

[sad sally]

18. These three Countries have sophisticated military equipment,

and in the case of Yemen, a large army. If what we know is true about Libya's military, Qaddafi hasn't spent enough to keep them as up to date and it's said he's even been fearful his own military would turn on him, so they're an easier target. Also, he's a bad man who kills his people, the Sheik's are good.

[tabatha]

19. deleted.

[Lint Head]

23. How ironic. Libya harbored the Lockerbie bomber.

Saudi Arabian, Bahrain & Yemeni should be treated as Libya if the rebels need the worlds intervention.
Apparently the world let a piece of excrement, who is no better than the cancer eating him up,live after he killing 270 innocent human beings.

"I have proof that Qaddafi gave the order about Lockerbie," Mustafa Abdel-Jalil told the Swedish tabloid Expressen.
Qaddafi personally ordered the Lockerbie bombing that killed 270 people in 1988, according to his recently resigned justice minister.

And we are not even going into Libya for very this reason. How ironic.

[Rex]

24. Who started this idea that America fights for values and morals?

That ended after WWII. We don't fight wars based on noble or chivalrous reasons...you are off by quite a few centuries.

[reggie the dog]

28. this is not a US unilateral decision

this is the UN security council voting to take action. this is quite different.

[reggie the dog]

the un did nothing in tunisia

and the killing stopped, they did nothing in egypt and the killing stopped, the killing got worse in libya so they are doing something, we must wait and see in the other countries. perhaps the un is going to libya and not iran because they think the iranian leaders have perhaps more probablity of fighting a long bloody war against un troops and that the un troops would be disliked by a majority of the population and perhaps they think ghadafi has been destabalized enough that we can actually help the freedom fighters win. remember that what is happening in libya really did begin as a popular uprising and protest movement.

[reggie the dog]

25. the un did nothing in tunisia

and the killing stopped, they did nothing in egypt and the killing stopped, the killing got worse in libya so they are doing something, we must wait and see in the other countries. perhaps the un is going to libya and not iran because they think the iranian leaders have perhaps more probablity of fighting a long bloody war against un troops and that the un troops would be disliked by a majority of the population and perhaps they think ghadafi has been destabalized enough that we can actually help the freedom fighters win. remember that what is happening in libya really did begin as a popular uprising and protest movement.

[joshcryer]

27. Exacrtly! And if the killing escalates in Yemen and Bahrain, then they should intervene!

[reggie the dog]

30. i would hope so, BUT

is the army of saudi arabia more loyal to its leaders than the army in libya? (i say saudi arabia because it is their army that protects bahrain,) we need also ask the same question about yemen. perhaps the idea of how well organized the resistance will be plays into UN votes too. in principle i would think that the people deserve help to not be massacred for having demonstrations.

[joshcryer]

41. They're using, by in large, protester tactics in those countries.

Tear gas, rubber bullets, and so on. The killings were done by pro-government forces and were in large part denounced in both places. Gaddafi didn't denounce the police killings, instead he called the protesters who were killed 'terrorists.'

[JackRiddler]

33. That's funny.

[joshcryer]

40. There's *nothing* funny about tens of hundreds of people being massacred.

But derision is commonplace so I'll come to expect it.

[JackRiddler]

45. Funny is how blind you are to the reality of what the US is already doing in Yemen.

Thus your idea that the US "would" intervene in the future, when in fact it HAS BEEN intervening all along.

Please leave your moralistic outrage out of this, as reality clearly has nothing to do with your position.

[joshcryer]

47. Reading fail. Read the thread. I was responding to a comment about the *UN*.

They, whom I was referring to, are the UN, not the United States.

[JackRiddler]

54. I can imagine back in 1951 you would have been talking about "the UN forces" in Korea.

[JackRiddler]

34. (dupe, delete)

[JackRiddler]

44. What? The US has been conducting a bloody intervention in Yemen for several years now...

on the government's behalf, and against the very people who are now protesting.

That's not going to change.

[joshcryer]

48. UN is not the US. Please read.

[JackRiddler]

51. How true. In this case the "UN" is France and UK in the lead, plus US.

US alone would have been vetoed, of course.

[meow mix]

26. here we go with the "all brown skin nations are the same" thread again

they may as well be differnt freaking planets. for christs sake in yemen its iran/shiites making a push for power... you saying we should get involved in that? lol

[ClarkUSA]

31. There's sectarian violence in Bahrain, Saudi Arabia & Yemen w/Iran supporting the Shia uprisings.

There's no way the US or Europe is going to enable Iran's sphere of influence. The US made that mistake via BushCo in Iraq already. Ditto with Israel in their war against Hezbollah in Lebanon.

BTW, the Shia opposition has already agreed to talks with the Bahrain gov't. Also, unlike the other countries you've named, Quaddafi promised to visit a Rwanda-style genocide on his opposition.

Do you really think the international community is going to let that happen? It is to Bill Clinton's everlasting shame that he declined to act to stop the Rwanda massacre when he had the chance.

Bravo for the UN. Kudos to all nations who pushed for this, especially France, who is taking the lead in attacking Libya via its flight crews (of course, the US is assisting by providing protection for all NATO flight missions by knocking out Libyan air defenses via its warships).

[joshcryer]

42. That's the really twisted thing about Libyan rhetoric, people say the tribes will go secretarian.

And that ultimately the tribes will fight each other and that Gaddafi kept them in check etc. :puke:

The reality is that for a generation Gaddafi kept the tribes united and that his actions have only united them further.

[ClarkUSA]

46. I hadn't heard that but some "people" will say anything to justify keeping Quaddafi in power.

[JackRiddler]

53. At least you remembered to change "Saddam" to "Quaddafi" before recycling this tired old thing.

[JackRiddler]

50. ClarkUSA: Read yourself again and see your admission that it's about realpolitik, not humanity.

My question was:

Why is Libya condemned (and now bombed) but S.A., Yemen and Bahrain ignored?

You state:

"There's no way the US or Europe is going to enable Iran's sphere of influence."

Therefore, realpolitik is the determinant. You're saying it won't matter how many people Bahrain or Saudi Arabia or Yemen massacre.

Whether or not it's truly humanitarian is secondary. (I said this below in Post #32, by the way, which I ask that you read before responding to me. Thanks.)

Western powers never conduct interventions for the humanitarian reasons. Never. Any occasional positive effects for the intervened-upon are incidental.

As for Rwanda, maybe you should go back and learn the history.

The United States did intervene in Rwanda. It had armed and trained the RFP since the late 1980s (Kagame was in Kansas when he heard the prior RFP leader was killed, and he went back to assume command).

France intervened in Rwanda by supporting the regime there as a client state.

France further intervened at the height of the genocide by deploying at least 500 special forces and perhaps thousands to rescue the retreating government that had presided over the genocide. They had an effect far beyond their numbers, being French troops, by stopping the advance of the RFP and allowing the government forces to set up on the other side of the border, in then-Zaire. France withdrew these troops in large part due to protests from Germany. Incredibly, this well-documented action is completely ignored in the accounts that say the problem in Rwanda was a lack of Western intervention!

In other words, at that time Rwanda and neighboring countries were the site of proxy conflicts by the two traditional imperialist powers in the region, France and the United States.

The real history of Western interventions puts the lie to the frequent but entirely false claim that the West did not intervene in Rwanda. In fact, the Rwandan situation was in part the result of long-standing Western interventions. They may not have created the conflicts in the area, but they made them worse.

.

[JackRiddler]

32. It should go without saying that imperialist powers never intervene except for interest.

This thread is not about opinions at DU.

This thread is about the states now intervening in Libya.

This is not addressed to those who think the Pentagon, the State Department, the UK and French military ever launch hostilities in any country for any reason other than that they perceive self-interests that are material (political and economic) or geopolitical (i.e., based in one of their quasi-mystical theories of power, face and strategy).

They never do such a thing simply because they think it's right, and to be caught thinking so behind the scenes would be an embarrassment to most of the policy makers involved.

They never do such a thing simply because it's requested by one of the sides, good or bad. They never do so because international organizations like the Arab League ask for it (funny idea, given the history of Palestine!). They never do so because humanitarian interventionists think it's a good idea.

The intervention may or may not be justified in moral terms. This is almost never the case, if ever, and in any case is never used except as the pretext.

The intervention may or may not achieve the truly intended purpose. There is much debate whether the US-led illegal aggressive war on Iraq did so, for example, now that Iran is the local hegemon and China has the best oil contracts.

In the case of Libya, many interests are involved. Various EU countries called for intervention. The UK and France are clearly in the lead of the push and of the military operations. The US is following them to underline its status as first among equals (and unload a few hundred cruise missiles that will need to be replaced at however many million dollars).

I'll be truthful, I wouldn't have expected it this quickly, because Gaddafi's fall will produce new hope for the other Middle East uprisings, which I think is the last thing the powers conducting the intervention actually want.


So given all that, what's the difference between Libya and Saudi Arabia's massacre of domestic protesters as well as its intervention in Bahrain, where the kingdom is massacring its own people? Or Yemen's repeated massacres of protesters?

I would guess some mix of the following:

- Unlike genocide in Central Africa, turmoil in Libya will produce refugees to the EU.

- Libyan uprising made much better use of global media tools in gaining Western interest in their plight.

- Gaddafi is a loose cannon and has become dangerous to the interests of two other high-level bastards who until last month were very close friends and cronies: Sarko and Berlusconi.

- Egypt has apparently shipped arms to Libyan uprising, thus threatens to gain hegemonic position if they win without Western help. (I am aware the latter is now unlikely.)

- In general, we like oil kingdoms a lot better than quasi-secular Arab states. They just look more stable as clients, based on the track record so far.

- The US is already conducting a bloody war in Yemen and murdering civilians by drone bombings regularly, and doing so on behalf of the government that is killing the protesters! Hello?!

- Gaddafi was a back-and-forth case, only recently accepted fully into the bosom of the Empire. Not comparable in importance to the Saudi monarchy.

- Alliance with the Saudi monarchy has been a main pillar of the US empire since the establishment of the world order in the mid-1940s. They've played a key role in the global oil economy, obviously, but also as a recycler of petrodollars and as a partner in covert operations globally.

- Unlike Libya, the Arabian peninsula will not produce many refugees for Europe to absorb. Unlike the Libyan rebels, leaders of the peninsular uprisings apparently do not possess the same skills and position or status to influence the global media.


The arguments here about the relative numbers killed (FrenchieCat, JoshCryer) are laughable, by the way. As though things would be different if the Saudis had killed a few hundred more, or Gaddafi a few hundred less. All of which is as documented in the Anglophone media, by the way. I would think the Yemeni casualty figures especially are easily suppressed. (Cities are not as big and modern, reporters not present, protesters not "sexy" to the cynical measures of the Western media, war situation already for several years, action spread around a desert and outside cities.)

Or compare to the situation in so many other places that don't prompt interventions -- places that are far from Europe and less central to US-EU interests.

It won't matter what the Saudi monarchs do to their people: excuses will always be found, both for them and for the kingdoms and dictatorships ringing their place on the Arabian peninsula. If there is finally an intervention, don't be surprised if it's FOR the monarchy and cast as a "defense" against "al-Qaeda."

.

[Distant Observer]

38. SHOCKINGLY a thoughful post. THANK YOU

[inna]

43. thank you

[inna]

36. kr

[Ignis]

56. Hell, I'm still waiting for us to invade (and free) Tibet.

It's a real shame (for the Tibetans) that they aren't one of the top-10 oil-producing nations, isn't it?

[JackRiddler]

59. North Korea, Burma, Congo, oh dear Colombia...

The problem with many nations is actually that "we" have invaded them, usually by covert operation, "aid" or proxy army. As is the case with Colombia. But that's not true in all cases, of course.

The US due to its history right up to this day in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq and YEMEN (where "we" are bombing FOR the Arab dictatorship) lacks any moral standing to play enforcer, anywhere.

[Ignis]

60. "Oh, but that's DIFFERENT," we'll hear ad nauseam.

Yet it's not so different to the targets of these regimes, is it?

[JackRiddler]

61. Also, that we want to see the Libyans die...

and never mind that this logic would mean war opponents want to see die the Congolese and everyone in every war the US is not openly intervening in for "humanitarian" reasons.

[patrick t. cakes]

58. up you go.....nt

[JackRiddler]

62. kick

[JackRiddler]

63. Yemen is going down soon. What an opportunity to join in the liberation!

The US troops are already there, in fact. All they have to do is switch sides, and target the drones in the other direction.