we are stardust's picture

    It Sucks to be a Protestor in Bahrain or: the MOTU Have Decided Your Fates

    By we are stardust on Mon, 03/21/2011 - 2:38pm |

     

    Ethan Bonner of the (soon to be paywalled) NYT has penned a piece called "Crackdown Was Only Option, Bahrain Sunnis Say".  And the meme is apparently being spread all over the media.  It goes like this:

    Some of us were kinda/sorta with the protesters early on, but now they are threatening us!  Asking for too much!  Banking stability is what matters most, and Bankers are worried about keeping Bahrain stable, meaning the Gulf Coast Council is worried at keeping a Sunni hegemony for their members, all of whom have now sent troops to Bahrain to help quell rebellion.

    What was once not altogether a Shiite rebellion may BE one now, given that regional Sunnis have joined the fight.  Good God. And of course, the Masters of the Universe give the US a pass, as the Fifth Fleet is there, and we ain't gonna do anything to upset the Saudis or challenge them past Obama and Clinton urging 'maximum restraint' and (assumedly) not firing on peaceful protesters.

    So Gates has met with King Al-Kalifah, told him to bend a little, Clinton has spoken with him on the phone; it's all gonna work out fine...or not.

    Swear to God, you have to hear some of this Bonner crap, all cozy with the fashionable  'wealthy folk' in the country.  He quotes the Bankers as authorities!

    But for Sunnis, who make up about a third of the country’s citizenry but hold the main levers of power, it was the only choice of a country facing a rising tide of chaos that imperiled its livelihood and future.

    “How can we have a dialogue when they are threatening us?” Sheik Khalid bin Ahmed al-Khalifa, the foreign minister and a member of the royal family, asked Friday night at a news conference.

    Well, sure; how can you?

    He channels those who conflate this situation with the history in Lebanon, as Beirut used to be the financial capital of the ME:

    Not only did the country tear out its own heart, the financial business there pulled out and never returned. Today, much of that business is here in Bahrain. Downtown Manama has mushroomed. Bahrainis worry that if Sunni-Shiite sectarianism grows out of control, the financial business will again pick up stakes and move to the waiting competitors, Dubai and Qatar.

    Urgent measures were therefore needed, the government’s defenders say, and they are grateful they were taken. The demonstrators, they argue, had allowed their cause to be taken over by hard-liners inspired by — or linked to — Iran.

    No evidence of such links has been presented, and Shiite leaders here deny that they are doing Iran’s bidding. Still, the walls of some Shiite mosques in Bahrain bear portraits of Iranian and Lebanese Hezbollah spiritual figures, and ties to Iran run deep among many Shiites in the country. 

    Of course, now links may be being formed with Iran, or at least a sectarian division,  Shiites in Iraq are pissed, Iran is pissed, lots of folks in Saudi Arabia are demonstrating against their government helping the Bahraini government.  But let's get back to Bonner.  After giving space to folks defending the killing of patients and doctors in the hospitals (they were rebel-held, you see):

    “Bahrain has always been open, and we don’t want to see it turned into another Iran,” Ms. Khalifa said. In the nearby cultural center her foundation runs, philosophers, poets and thinkers from around the world have taken part in a weekly lecture program. But the program and others like it have ground to a halt because of the recent troubles; a large Unesco meeting that Bahrain was planning to host has been suddenly moved to Paris.

    Much of the push for democratic reform here, as elsewhere in the region, has come from economic hard times. Bahraini supporters of the government note that in this country there is free education, free medical care, heavily subsidized housing as well as no taxes. Budgetary troubles meant home construction was delayed, pushing some of the poor to join the demonstrations.

    “The last few years were very difficult because of the financial crisis,” said Mr. Abdulmalik, the banker. “But that crisis was not so bad because we were dealing with facts. In the last month, we have been dealing with emotions. I told the demonstrators, ‘This country is developing, and you will stifle it.’ Something had to be done, and it was.”

    I can't imagine how long and deeply this will all percolate, or when it will boil over, but the MSM have decided how it will be portrayed.  And the King is now insinuating that a plot by the Iranians to assassinate him 'has been thwarted.'

     

    Comments

    Re, your meta: (now pay-walled big-time) NYT

    It's not really "pay walled". It's the same as it always was until March 28. Second, after that people will still be able to look at 20 links per month  before they are asked to pay or subscribe to the see the 21st.

    The reason I'm bringing it up is that not linking to an article you are blogging about, as you have done here, is the wrong response to this. First, there's going to be be readers that haven't used their 20 links for the month and  there's going to be readers that have subscribed. More importantly, quoting in a blog without linking is like quoting in a scholarly paper without footnotes. It could get you or the site you are posting on in trouble with copyright. especially if you are criticizing the article or writer, because the quoted writer wants the reader to have access to the entire context.

    Once the system starts on March 28, I don't imagine the Times will be at all upset about pasted quotes in blogs as long as there is a link to the story. But they might be very upset if you paste quotes without linking, regardless of whether you are criticizing or lauding the article.

    The Financial Times has used this system for quite some time (I believe it's a stingier 10 articles per month there.) Whenever you highlight and copy from one of their articles, you automatically get an announcement that says "please respect our copyright" and the url to the story is automatically attached to whatever you have copied. Those using this system clearly want to see links to their articles and might well pursue legal recourse if they see too much abuse of that.


    by artappraiser on Mon, 03/21/2011 - 5:09pm

    You are off-base a bit on how fair use works. Turns out NYT can feel however they want and it doesn't matter much. Minor excerpting in the creation of original content/discussion is recognized fair use. AP already lost that one. A post that consists ENTIRELY of third-party content is when you get into trouble ...  or quoting an article so extensively it could be considered a reprint.

    Typically if I find an article/excerpt I want to highlight, I try to track down the original author and site it came from. If it's a paywall or registration site, I give the click to the blog/organization where it is freely available or just quote it. If someone doesn't want to participate in the internet, that's their choice. There is no law that bloggers have to drive traffic to a sites where they disagree with policy .... and the 1st Amendment says we can still highlight and discuss their ideas anyhow.


    by kgb999 on Tue, 03/22/2011 - 6:33am

    Iran, Iran, IRAN! Run away!

    It's hard to blame the Khalifas of the world for feeding the West the precise argument we've been priming ourselves to believe.


    by acanuck on Mon, 03/21/2011 - 4:01pm

    That's the thing, canuck.  We demonize when it's convenient, and link them to other groups or nations when it's convenient as a scare tactic.  Long ago, AA and I had a running disagreement about the attempts at conflating Al Qaeda and the Taliban; neither of us retreated much from our initial posisions, lol!

    I was gleeful a few months ago to hear Stanley McCrystal and another top general say they are not the same, and spell out the reasons why. 


    by we are stardust on Mon, 03/21/2011 - 6:33pm

    On topic.

    Re: the MSM have decided how it will be portrayed.

    I disagree that this article is proof of such a plot. The same newspaper that published it also pays Nick Kristof's salary and he was one of the main voices pushing the protestors in Bahrain as a non-sectarian people power movement from day one. One could easily argue that Kristof almost acted as a P.R. agent for them when there wasn't much interest. I noticed a blatant attempt in his reporting from Bahrain to convince everyone he saw not a smidgen of Sunni v. Shia anonymosity, that it was all kumbaya, the people vs. the monarchy.

    Over at Angry Arab News Service,I  have noted  he's been bitching day after day since before the Saudi/Qatari force went in, about Al Jazeera's overall coverage of the Bahrain story specifically. Now you've got to admit there's the look of a blatant conflict of interest there much more than your suggestion of "corporate media powers that be" or whatever you're trying to suggest--given that Al Jazeera is owned by the Qatari government.

    I've been checking Saudi media and Iranian media on it for a couple weeks. You think what you call "MSM" has got problems, hah, you aint seen nothing. Doing that only, you could easily come away with the idea that in Bahrain there's a major proxy war going on between the only two world powers left, Saudia Arabia and Iran, and each feels the other is an evil aggressor and is doing all kinds of nasty things.  Iranian state media especially is treating it as the most important story in the world, virtually ignoring Libyan uprisings and crackdowns and Japanese earthquakes tsunamis and nuclear meltdowns in preference for headlining something like a protest of small number in Tehran over the Bahrain crackdown or the supposed misrepresentation of a supposed ant-Sunni slur by one of its minor ambassadors in the Saudi meda. I've seen plenty of examples in both country's media of both sides just blatantly making their own facts up. I repeat: just really making stuff up. You cannot trust either Saudi or Iranian sources on this story, not even for bits of facts or bits of news. If you want to see war propaganda, that's what it looks like, especially at the Iranian state media where it is very blatant; the Saudi stuff tends to be a little more nuanced and sophisticated.

    But to move to the main question I think this all leads to:

    Do you really want the U.S. to come down more blatantly and publicly on one side or the other in this proxy war?

    Would you like that? What is it that you want them to do? Whatever it is, someone else can come up with twenty reasons til Sunday how dangerous that would be and how it could backfire.

    As far as I am concerned, bitching about the fact that we have a naval base there is bascially crying over spilt milk, all fine and dandy for those who like to write on the theme of our evil empire or over extension of military and how it's all about oil ad nauseum (as if there's someone in the blogosphere who doesn't know the related facts already since 2004) and of no help or consequence regarding this specific problem, especially since Dennis Kucinich is not U.S. president and will not be U.S. president. Same for the fact that the Saudis have long been allies. What would you like us to do when long time allies aren't obedient? Saudi Arabia moved right after a visit by Eec. Gates, and it was widely thought that Saudis slapped his face by what they did.  Again, you can't undo the past, only rail on it as an example of what not to do in the future.

    A final point. Consider the possibility that whether you like it or not, most Sunni citizens of Guf states might feel like this guy, commenting on Arab News' own twisted editorial on the matter :

    DR. JALEES RAZAVI

    Mar 16, 2011 19:53
    Report abuse
    Since the so-called Islamic Revolution, Iran's revolutionary council, played disruptive and antagonizing roles in both the Arab and Muslim worlds. They interfered with the internal politics of sovereign nations backing specific parties for specific agendas, they bullied their neighbors as did Iraq under Saddam Hussain and ironically, chose the Saddamist path of tyrannical rule crushing the moderate majority with vice and fire. Their holy puppeteers chose to crush the great Persian spirit and democracy under the false flag of might is right, and distributing their venom in Lebanon, Syria, Bahrain, and more recently in Iraq. To confront this menace that started more than 25 years ago, the countries of the Arabian Peninsula decided to form a union that will serve the mutual interest, safety and security.
    We, the people of the Arabian peninsula are one and no matter what sect of Islam, what tribe, what accent, we are bound by three things, our land, our sand and our mutual stand. Bahrainis are our brothers and sisters as are the Emaraties, Qataries, Kuwaitis, and Omanis. We lived together for thousands of years, we traded with each other, married from each other and shared our nomadic way of lives way before anyone cared for our existence. Bahrain is us and we are Bahrain, we are the Arabs of the Arabian peninsula, and we should not and will not allow any foreigners interfere in our Arabian Peninsula. I hope that our Syrian and Lebanese brothers will follow suit and cut their ties with the instigator of sectarian divide.

    You want us to blatantly reject right now people who think like that as our allies? You do realize what a hornet's nest that migh play into? You can read further on topic in Osama Bin Laden's treatises or talking with certain Sunni tribal leaders in Iraq. Or perhaps some of the sermons of Muqtada Al Sadr would be helpful, too. Not to mention revisiting the story of Lawrence of Arabia.


    by artappraiser on Mon, 03/21/2011 - 5:18pm

    I'll add the link.  I looked down at one point and realized I was so furious I was typing right in the Blog Now window, and obviously forgot to hyperlink to the Times.  You really are expert at crapping up a blog with too many long, long, box quotes, AA.  I don't like it when you do it to ohers' blogs, either, just for the record.  NOT sorry to step on your favorite newspaper's toes.

    Oh--and by the by: the President DID come down publicly on this proxy war before he was lobbied to walk back his words.  Please see:

    http://dagblog.com/reader-blogs/saudi-pilots-train-idaho-saudis-tanks-roll-crush-protests-bahrain-9476

    "

    When news came that government forces were firing on protestors from helicopters, tear-gassing them, and firing on ambulances deployed to help the injured, the President said while addressing state violence in Bahrain, Libya, and Yemen: "The United States condemns the use of violence by governments against peaceful protesters in those countries, and wherever else it may occur."

    Turse reports that after viewing video of police and security violence, the administration was in the process of deciding whether or not Bahrain had committed human rights abuses that would necessitate cutting of further arms assistance, then backed off.

    “In the weeks since, Washington has markedly softened its tone.  According to a recent report by Julian Barnes and Adam Entous in the Wall Street Journal, this resulted from a lobbying campaign directed at top officials at the Pentagon and the less powerful State Department by emissaries of Bahraini King Hamad bin Isa al-Khalifa and his allies in the Middle East.  In the end, the Arab lobby ensured that, when it came to Bahrain, the White House wouldn’t support “regime change,” as in Egypt or Tunisia, but a strategy of theoretical future reform some diplomats are now calling “regime alteration.”

    The six member states of the Gulf Cooperation Council include (in addition to Bahrain) Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates, all of which have extensive ties to the Pentagon.  The organization reportedly strong-armed the White House by playing on fears that Iran might benefit if Bahrain embraced democracy and that, as a result, the entire region might become destabilized in ways inimical to U.S. power-projection policies.  "Starting with Bahrain, the administration has moved a few notches toward emphasizing stability over majority rule," according to a U.S. official quoted by the Journal. "Everybody realized that Bahrain was just too important to fail."


    by we are stardust on Mon, 03/21/2011 - 5:37pm

    That you as a blogger don't like box quotes of articles in the comments on your blogs (unless you are the one making them, if I am to judge by the above comment) has been duly noted. I only do it when I think people will appreciate it, so thank you for telling me you don't. I'm really not into irritating people, that's not how I'd like to spend my time.

    I on the other hand very much would prefer people do that, instead of starting a new blog post every time they see something applicable to something a lot of people are discussing, to use forum software for interactive sharing of informationand p.o.v. on a topic that it as designed for, as opposed to blogging software which is meant to pose a single p.o.v . and then get reactions to it, encouraging the adversial debate form.


    by artappraiser on Mon, 03/21/2011 - 5:51pm

    I usually DON'T use them; I prefer italics, and iI rarely use so many quotes, but this time I did, and used the stupid boxes.  And I try not to overdo it on someone else's blogs.  I used the box within my own blog that time, so I cut and pasted it.  IMO, your boxes don;'t serve as debate so much as intimations that if you found it in a paper you like, it serves as evidence, which I don't find as true as you seem to.

    As far as coverage like Bonner's, it's either similar to Bonner's:

    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/13614288-53e5-11e0-8bd7-00144feab49a.html#axzz1HH0KXYgL

    I didn't choose many non-US papers, really)

     http://www.cnbc.com/id/42057174

    or non-existent, though it's good to see Yemen in the news finally.  No coverage: CBS, MSNBC, ABC, NBC.


    by we are stardust on Mon, 03/21/2011 - 6:27pm

    so much as intimations that if you found it in a paper you like, it serves as evidence, which I don't find as true as you seem to.

    That's in your head, not mine unless I say so in my own words outside the quote. I'm mostly looking for people to share the best information they can find with each other. Preferably compiled on the same thread, so people can much more easily compare and contrast the info. presented. If I think I've really figured out some "truth," I add it in my own commentary and I have nothing against people arguing why I might be wrong.

    Like a college class, a seminar, a forum.


    by artappraiser on Mon, 03/21/2011 - 7:13pm

    Like Der Prozeß

    You are guilty, now we need a crime to charge you with.


    by Desider on Tue, 03/22/2011 - 6:16am

    Soooo clever, Des.

    Cafe history (approximation):  Des: "Oh, yes, Artie; Seaton and I hold up the sky when it comes to discussions of international news and analysis!"


    by we are stardust on Tue, 03/22/2011 - 9:32am

    Huh? I'm just a smartass punk that knows how to put together a funny retort.

    Most of the time I'm playing Devil's Advocate. Whereas Seaton's really the Devil. (or El Diablo, as his homies call him).

    And then I have this CD, "Holding Up Half the Sky", so I guess I only get a quarter of it now. I'm pissed.


    by Desider on Tue, 03/22/2011 - 3:23pm

    AA, I'll apologize for being so cranky at your mess of quotes and boxes.  I'd just woken up from a nap and found all that there, and plenty of seeming hostility along with it.  I much preferred the shorter quote and hyperlink you put on Seaton's diary. 


    by we are stardust on Mon, 03/21/2011 - 7:02pm

    Thanks for the apology.

    But I don't know a way out of your dislike of boxes. It's simply personal visual preference. In the past I've encountered many people who despise the use of italics for quotes when there is a quotation function available. Your argument as regards this is really with Genghis' design of the site. I don't happen to like the way his blue quote boxes look either, but it doesn't get me all upset.  I use italics in my "In the News" posts only because the quotation function doesn't work there, I use the quotation boxes when adding articles to "In the News" posts in comments because the function is available there. In the end, ugly as they are on this site, the boxes makes it clearer than italics that they are not the content of this site but of another.


    by artappraiser on Mon, 03/21/2011 - 7:10pm

    I preferred the smaller box with the hyperlink, as we could choose to click and read, not have it all in big boxes.  At my.fdl, quotes are in pale blue font that I can barely read, and it gives me a headache.  I don't use them much, instead I use the italics, and sometimes the moderators will change it, as though it's a favor, or a compliance issue.

    I'll avoid talking about what things 'upset' my brain and whassup with my brain; it's obviously my problem.  I've stopped blogging at two other sites for similar font/color/quote confusion.  The brainbleed is rarely worth it.  ;o)


    by we are stardust on Mon, 03/21/2011 - 7:22pm

    I hope you don't quit this site, but FWIW I agree with AA about the boxes. I'm not pedantic about it, but I prefer it when people use them to italics. I also agree that it's a taste thing, and there is no one right answer (although there are clearly several wrong answers).


    by Verified Atheist on Mon, 03/21/2011 - 7:32pm

    Crap; now the boxes are the issue, NOT BAHRAIN AND THE COVERAGE.  Nice job, stardustt!  Arrgghh!  (We can still smack Genghis around about the boxes, though; right?  Cool


    by we are stardust on Mon, 03/21/2011 - 7:46pm

    So, wait. Are you mad we aren't intervening here?


    by kgb999 on Tue, 03/22/2011 - 6:06am

    Nope.  I'm angry at the depraved selectivity involved since Obama recalculated his initial message to al-Kalifah to quit killing protestors; now it's "provide some carrots" and "hey, The Saudis didn't just invade Bahrain, so it's all good" or some equivocating dreck. 

    Let's see:  We sell massive amounts of weapons to Saudi Arabia, and trade Israel some defensive systems to soothe their objections to the deals, love their oil to distraction, so utter nary a peep when they roll into Bahrain to kill Shiites who want some democratic reforms.  Brilliant hypocrisy.


    by we are stardust on Tue, 03/22/2011 - 9:42am

    And here is Kourosh Ziabari making the claim that the Saudis and the UAE never would have gone into Bahrain without the express permission of the US.  I don't know: was the US irrelevant ot complicit?  Both suck, IMO.

    http://edition.presstv.ir/detail/170769.html

     


    by we are stardust on Tue, 03/22/2011 - 10:15am

    Latest Comments