UK training Saudi forces used to crush Arab spring

page: 1
9

log in

join

posted on May, 29 2011 @ 01:45 AM
link   

UK training Saudi forces used to crush Arab spring


truthdive.com

London, May 29 (ANI): Britain is training Saudi Arabia’s national guard – the elite security force deployed during the recent protests in Bahrain – in public order enforcement measures and the use of sniper rifles.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on May, 29 2011 @ 01:45 AM
link   
This is interesting, this could explain the weak response towards Bahrain brutal crack down on peaceful protesters.

Let's opinionize this, I believe the UK and US is helping the crack down against those uprisings which might end their influence in the region, specially Bahrain because of its strategic importance.

This indicates that US and UK is not concerned about Democracy, rather their own interests. This is not a surprise because every nation is concerned about its own interests, it is just the lies which is degrading.

"Defence minister Nick Harvey confirmed to parliament last week that the UK’s armed forces provided training to the Saudi National Guard."
(same source as above)

truthdive.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 02:16 AM
link   
reply to post by confreak
 


If you believe that the US and the UK are actually in the middle east to uphold democracy you'll believe just about anything. It's obvious why the US is there...they need to secure the pipelines. Look...the US...is an oil guzzling monstrosity. Oil consumption goes up every year, but oil production has not kept up.
You'll see it soon enough.



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 03:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by laiguana
reply to post by confreak
 


If you believe that the US and the UK are actually in the middle east to uphold democracy you'll believe just about anything. It's obvious why the US is there...they need to secure the pipelines. Look...the US...is an oil guzzling monstrosity. Oil consumption goes up every year, but oil production has not kept up.
You'll see it soon enough.



Like i said before so many times all manufactured revolutions are controlled by the elites, those in east libya aren't real libyans


Why would you think a war monger like John McCain would support the rebels? because McCain is backed by oil companies, thats why he supports them and knows on really they are.
edit on 29-5-2011 by Agent_USA_Supporter because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 04:04 AM
link   
I thouht they were keeping bahrain of the news a bit. i can see why now...

kx



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 04:38 AM
link   
This does not surprise me condemning one crackdown while helping one crackdown typical of the west of it double standards the weapons will more than likely come from america and the uk the media blackout in bahrain is because of the close links to uk and america 'OIL' and the biggest arms deal in history. arming another dictator
Total corruption when the west is involved mainly america and britain



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 05:47 AM
link   
I call it shelf hanging polotics: You support with one hand whilst screwing with the other.

At we know they are getting trained by the best. So we can look forwards to some really bloody battles to televise and philosophise over and get upset about. Cool!



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 06:49 AM
link   
I think they do support the Arab Spring but only where it is of benefit to them or their allies. If the Spring was to move the Saudi they would have massive problems, worse case: oil prices sore and it tips the fragile western economies in to a real 1930’s depression then violent Islamic extremists possibly even a Al’Qa’ida fridge group take control of the Saudi state. Before you know it Israel is getting twitchy, and we have another 1967 war only with nukes.

Like I say that is the worst case as I see, stability in Saudi is essential for stability in the Middle East. I know that the regime there is far from ideal and change is needed however it cannot be the same change that we saw in Tunisia, Egypt, or the extremes of Libya and Yemen. It would be an event with truly global consequences and not good ones.

For that reason I support any actions taken by the international community to ensure that the current Saudi state remains stable and in control. This should be of no surprise to anyone, states will always do what is in their best interests, this might be a very Machiavellian view to hold but I support it. This is not about brining democracy to the Middle East or freedom to the oppressed this is about the west’s national security interests and their wider economic ambitions.



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by kevinunknown
then violent Islamic extremists possibly even a Al’Qa’ida fridge group take control of the Saudi state.


And violent Islamic extremists are not currently in control of Saudi? It is the most oppressive and barbaric Islamic regime in the world. They are friendly to the West - for obvious reasons - we provide all their wealth and power. People like George Bush even kiss the Saudi royal's hands to curry favor. We've all seen the pictures. That does not change who or what they are. It is more profitable for them, by far, to let that continue rather than fight us. Covertly though, they are big supporters and financiers of Islamic terror, Hamas, and fundamentalist groups in the UK (huge sums of Saudi government money is regularly given to Islamic groups in the UK).

The Saudi people want liberalization, they aren't protesting for an Islamist theocracy - they already have it. The anti-west Islamic militant type of revolution you are suspecting is far more likely to occur in Pakistan. Not that the Pakistani establishment isn't - again covertly - hostile to the west anyway.



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 10:31 AM
link   
reply to post by laiguana
 


There is more to it than just oil and pipe lines although it is important. Anyone hear of the Club of Rome or the committee of 300. If not then maybe you acquaint yourselves. Or the 10 regions of the world? I believe region 7 includes the middle east and northern countries of Africa. You know where all of this is going on. Those governments have to topple in order to have a unified Region under central rule. North American Union is region 1.



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 10:54 AM
link   
reply to post by SteveR
 


I do not deny that the current regime is barbaric, like I said in my first post they are far from ideal. However the status quo right now is beneficial to the west’s own selfish interests, my interests therefore I condone western military training them on how to best put a end to any uprising that may lead to the ousting of the current government. As soon as they cease to become a integral part in our economic and national security interests then we can withdraw support.



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by kevinunknown
 


I thought about what you said, then thought what if the current policy is not beneficial in the long run? I was wondering if you could elaborate on that area a little more.

It is understandable that due to greed (self interest), and some might even argue power, the US policy has been shaped in this way, but what about the long run?
edit on 29-5-2011 by confreak because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 11:27 AM
link   
reply to post by confreak
 


Interesting question.

The current policy of supporting Saudi has been in place now for almost two decades, since the first gulf war. It has been a mutually beneficial partnership and one that both sides would like to maintain oil for security. However your question asks what if in the long run this does not work? Well hindsight is a wonderful thing, I struggle to recall any comparable policy however I do think that could be possible to look at what happened after operation claymore although the two are very different. After operation claymore there was a state of effective anarchy then the Taliban rolled into town and no so long after we had Al’Qa’ida blowing up towers with planes.

Currently we need to focus on economic and strategic security, a safe Saudi provides both even if the ruling regime is not what we in the west would call acceptable. Everything is about the black gold, we need it and the Saudi’s have lots of it and will take our money for it oil is the driving force behind western economies. We have think for the now, if the Saudi state were to collapse the oil markets would collapse and with it most western economies. When the choice is between a collapsed economy now and future national security threats, the logical conclusion is that the state must ensure its economic prowess.



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by kevinunknown
reply to post by SteveR
 


I do not deny that the current regime is barbaric, like I said in my first post they are far from ideal. However the status quo right now is beneficial to the west’s own selfish interests, my interests therefore I condone western military training them on how to best put a end to any uprising that may lead to the ousting of the current government. As soon as they cease to become a integral part in our economic and national security interests then we can withdraw support.


I hope one day, your government does something so atrocious to you, then proceeds to lock you up without trial, bail or a release date, then to top it (call it the cherry on top) they waterboard and torture you. That's what the citizens of Bahrain are going through, and if you 'condone' it, I pray and wish it happens to you. Just so you can experience 'democracy' at its best.


We cannot embrace the Arab spring, and at the same time help quell it.
edit on 29-5-2011 by BiGGz because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 06:33 PM
link   
You are all wrong, sure its a bold statement to make but check this out:

Gulf council reaches out to jordan and morocco

this is more about Iran.

This reminds me of ww2, when the allies were recruiting members to counter germany. now its the saudis recruiting to counter iran.



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 07:52 PM
link   
reply to post by confreak
 


Going after Gaddafi was always about the oil. There are plenty of other countries currently doing far worse to their people in far greater numbers than Libya, yet it is Libya that we are going to "help". People are too stupid to ask why we don't help the other countries, and why we don't condemn Bahrain or Saudi.

People really to look at the oil, and the pipelines, then it will become clear as to why we are where we are.



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 09:33 PM
link   
reply to post by kevinunknown
 


Considering the long term benefits, there isn't truly any, we have seen extreme resentment against USA and its allies by the population of Saudi Arabia and other oil rich nations.

Although US has the capability to help those regimes crack down on their protesters, this is not good for US future at all (from my perspective at least). Currently US is in depth and using borrowed money to fight that resentment in Afghanistan (for example), and trying to control Iraq because of the resentment of the Shiah Iran allied population.

How much is the cost? Trillions of dollars. Although the US naturally has the world's highest defense budget, it has been increased recently to cope with the 'resentment' wars it is involved in, while the American population is also showing more and more signs of resentment against the US regime, and its long term goals.

For example Americans are losing Jobs through cuts on Education and other vital budgets, instead of any defense budget cuts. This resentment has caused many to join outlawed groups such as Sovereign Citizen, whose members have reached over 300,000. More dangerous than any Islamic group, because it is internal.

The situation seems to be spiraling out of control, hence the more resentment, the more loss of freedom, the more loss of freedom, the more resentment.

For example the patriot act which fornicates on the Fourth Amendment, then you have the self proclaimed right of the president to target any American Citizen (Assassination), without any 'charges' and forget about 'conviction'. This fornicates on another section of the US constitution which I'm sure you are aware of, which leads to more resentment.

So the future is very bleak, at least from my perspective.

I see what you're saying though, that the stability of Middle East relies on Saudi Arabia, I would kinda disagree to that, because I believe the stability of Middle East relies on every individual state in the Middle East. That's a complete different story though, so I won't drag this any longer.

Great to hear your perspective on things, hope you read mine



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 04:59 AM
link   
I think that what it comes down to is that Britain has arms and military contracts with many of these tin-pot dictators that keeps thousands of our people in jobs and provide billions in revenue to the treasury. I think it stinks, but in the minds of our masters in Westminster, quaint little human rights are all well and good, but they mustn't be allowed to get in the way when there's a lot of money involved. Realpolitik I think they call it. Morally bankrupt I call it.






top topics



 
9

log in

join