Here is a link I found which happens to be the latest news that relates to the United States' position on Bahrain:
presstv.com...
Don't misjudge the headline. When it says that the US gave a green light for invasion, it really meant it supported Saudi, UAE and Kuwaiti
intervention, otherwise known as the GCC Peninsula Shield in Bahrain. Notice also the date to be March 19, 2011. SInce then we continue to hear about
the constant turmoil and many have speculated that Bahrain is one of many targets in the middle east on the US's hit list to incite social unrest and
revolution and consequently order invasion as a resolution.
First let me ask this: Does anyone know if US troops have been deployed to Bahrain?
My searches have produced no information that would suggest that there may be US forces deployed in Bahrain. By US forces I mean actual battalions and
regiments etc., and not crazy subversive delta 69 uber mega squads and platoons. I am talking actual occupation.
Well literally minutes ago I had received a message from a good friend and former band member now in the military that his unit was supposed to be
deployed to Bahrain two weeks ago, then it got cancelled, then moved to Nov. 1, then cancelled again.
THis is the first part of the message that relates to what I'm talking about. The other half has to do with me hookiing up with a milf
like word is never offical, its always changing, we were suposed to leave for bahrian 2 weeks ago then it changed to nov 1st, and now i hear were not
going... its dumb like the blind leading the blind cause our higher ups, our officers dont know wats going on, even all the way up to our generals, i
seriously just get paid to work out all day... its a big waste of tax payers money...
I think this is a serious matter. Our government has the intention to invade Bahrain very soon. We all knew this for a while, but it is now not a
matter of speculation. But why Bahrain? I don't really know. First take a look at Bahrain:
www.state.gov... (link support
not working for some reason here)
Above is a US Dept. Of State analysis of the Kingdom of Bahrain. I encourage you to ctrl-F the page and search for government and political
conditions. What you find is that Bahrain is a constitutional monarchy and has been for almost a decade. The country has an established justice
system:
Quote from: un.int/bahrain/government (links not working sorry) :
"Bahrain’s legal system draws upon Islamic religious law (the Sharia), tribal law, English common law, and other sources. All residents are subject
to the jurisdiction of Bahraini courts, which guarantee equality to all before the law. The court system consists of civil and Sharia courts, both of
which have courts of appeal. The country’s highest court is the Supreme Court of Appeal. The 2002 constitution established a Higher Judicial Council
to supervise the functioning of the court system. The king chairs the council and appoints judges proposed by the council."
So in short the justice systems functions to protect civil liberties in accordance to British common law but still enforces Sharia Law sort of as a
framework for civil conduct.
Also, the government since 2002 has itself been pushing for democratic reforms, promoting the notion of involvement in the processes of government as
a civil duty open for all of the Kingdom's Citizen to freely participate. So then why, if the Kingdom already had an agenda of equality, freedom and
democracy, did the Bahraini's revolt? Well it seems sectarian discrimination is, as always, the source of the current struggle.
(Source :
www.guardian.co.uk...)
Quoted from above article: (caps are my doing)
"The Arab spring reached Bahrain on Valentine's Day; protesters – both Sunni and Shia – arrived in Manama's Pearl Square on 14 February to demand
political freedoms, democratic reforms and greater equality for the SHIA MAJORITY. They were met with rubber bullets and teargas; three days later
security forces switched to live ammunition. Within a few weeks some 2,000 Sunni soldiers from Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates had arrived
in Bahrain, at the invitation of the Khalifas, to impose martial law – and, in doing so, poured oil on the fire of sectarian tensions...
...(victims) almost all of them Shia. According to an investigation by al-Jazeera, 28 Shia mosques and religious institutions have been destroyed by
the authorities..."
What this suggests is that the increased tensions between Shia populations and the government are the real root for uprising, at least in Bahrain. For
whatever reason, Shia's feel discriminated against, yet I can't find anything that supports such an accusation, except for the media reports that were
birthed during the conflict up until now claiming the same prejudice yet not showing any evidence. I feel as though the increased tensions may have
been aroused and instigated by international media and the like in order to create the right atmoshere of discord for the US to claim "the people's
right to form a democracy" as the excuse to capitalize on the exaggerated and artificial divisions
I found this.
www.ft.com...
html#axzz1XaBAS966
From above article: (caps of my doing)
The US and Bahrain secretly extended their defence co-operation agreement in 2002, it has emerged. The pact, which governs the home port of the US
navy’s fifth fleet, was extended by five years and now runs until 2016. The extension means Washington will avoid having to renegotiate the deal,
which was set to expire next month, while the Middle Eastern kingdom is still cracking down on mainly SHIA pro-democracy activists.
The 10-year defence agreement, inked in 1991 following the first Gulf war, was renewed in October 2001 for 10 years. It was supposed to be due for
renewal next month but the Financial Times has learnt that the Bush administration secretly extended the agreement for another five years in 2002,
pushing it out until 2016.
The Pentagon said the agreement was classified and declined to confirm any details.
Former officials and analysts expressed surprise, both that the agreement had been extended by five years when it still had nine years to run and that
the extension was secret, given that the fact and duration of other defence pacts is public, even if the substance is not.
Vice-Admiral Charles Moore, who was head of the fifth fleet and the navy’s central command in Bahrain until 2002, said the extension was
“strange”.
“After we got into 9/11, there was a lot of talk about the long war – there was probably a set of actions to extend our presence at the foreign
bases that we had,” he said. “It was probably one of these bureaucratic things – extend the [defence agreements] for as long as you can get
them.”
Because it is not a full defence treaty, the agreement did not require approval from Congress, and is therefore not on the public record.
Could this extension have been made simply as a
legal foundation for future grounds on which to justify the legality of invasion or war in
Bahrain? What are the provision in this secret treaty? Next post. >>>>
edit on 10-9-2011 by asperetty because: (no reason given)
