West accuses Qatar of interfering in Libyan affairs

cyberhog

Uh oh.. it looks like Qatar is no longer playing nice with the Western Imperialists.

When Qatar took a lead in the military campaign to oust Libya's Colonel Gaddafi, Western officials gushed with praise for the tiny Gulf State punching way above its weight. The nation of just 2 million sent six Mirage fighter jets to lend an all-important Arab presence in the air campaign; it cajoled the Arab League into supporting the military campaign, was among the first to recognize the rebel Transitional National Council as Libya's government and helped it to sell oil on world markets; armed the rebels and even sent in its own Special Forces to help them capture Tripoli.

But some Western officials appear to be suffering from something of a Qatar hangover, now that the Qataris are judged to be "intervening" in LIbya's post-Gaddafi politics, by directing funding and support to favored political allies -- you know, behaving as the Western powers have traditionally done when they topple a regime in the Middle East. The Guardian reports on a "concern among Libyans in the National Transitional Council (NTC) and western officials that Qatar, which supplied arms to Libyan revolutionaries, is pursuing its own postwar agenda at the cost of wider efforts to bring political stability to the country."

The substance of their complaint appears to be that Qatar favors the Islamist leader of the Tripoli Military Council, Abdul-Aziz Belhadj, and his ally, the Qatar-based Libyan cleric, Sheikh Ali Salabi. Belhadj and Salabi are fiercely critical of the Western-backed NTC Prime Minister, Mahmoud Jibril, who they accuse of trying to monopolize power and to sideline the Islamists who carried a major part of the military burden of toppling the regime.

http://globalspin.blogs.time.com/2011/10/05/does-qatar-share-the-wests-agenda-in-libya/


So now we have the Western war-mongers trying to portray Qatar as a threat to Libyan sovereignty.

A senior diplomat said: "There is a question now about what foreign players like Qatar are doing in Libya – whether it is being helpful and respectful of Libyan sovereignty. "Qatar is not being respectful, and there is a feeling that it is riding roughshod over the issue of the country's sovereignty."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/oct/04/qatar-interfering-libya?INTCMP=SRCH

It just doesn't get any more surreal than this!

HondaKev

thats rich

JustinDee

cyberhog wrote: »

So now we have the Western war-mongers trying to portray Qatar as a threat to Libyan sovereignty

Oh pass the sick bucket.
The "Western War Mongers" as opposed to what? The Eastern equivalent? Do you think China and Russia don't have their say in what goes? Why no pamphletic outrage about these two superpowers?

There was a reason Qatar got involved in the first place and it wasn't out of the kindness of their dumb old hearts.

FreudianSlippers

Considering the Emirates own half of England, I'd suggest the British approach this with some finesse.

Voodoo_rasher

has the finance (and perhaps will) to install islamo-religious governments if its let. And if that is indeed its agenda in Libya we should be worried. After all, in Iran its the clerics who wield the power, influence policy, not the politicians.

Lastly not all bio-weapons, mustard/nerve gas has been disposed of, and its imperative that they do not fall into the wrong hands..

wes

This gave me a good laugh. The West is being hugely hypocritical as per usual here. How dare Qatar do exactly the same thing the West is doing, and has done in the past. Of course Qatar are acting in there own self interest, the West is doing exactly that as well.

JustinDee

wes wrote: »

This gave me a good laugh. The West is being hugely hypocritical as per usual here. How dare Qatar do exactly the same thing the West is doing, and has done in the past. Of course Qatar are acting in there own self interest, the West is doing exactly that as well.

Whats to laugh at??

And guess what? You're "The West" too.

wes

JustinDee wrote: »

Whats to laugh at??

The blatant hypocrisy of course. It certainly provides a good laugh.....

JustinDee wrote: »

And guess what? You're "The West" too.

In the context of the conversation, the West, would be the US, Britan and France etc who were involved in helping the Libiyan rebels, and specifcally, the countries who are complaining about Qatar doing the exact same things there doing. So, no not the West in the context of what I was talking about.

JustinDee

wes wrote: »

The blatant hypocrisy of course. It certainly provides a good laugh...

Weird funny bone so.

wes wrote: »

In the context of the conversation, the West, would be the US, Britan and France etc who were involved in helping the Libiyan rebels, and specifcally, the countries who are complaining about Qatar doing the exact same things there doing. So, no not the West in the context of what I was talking about.

How subjective. They're allies of Ireland. People from Ireland have been lauded and applauded for helping in Libya.
"The East" would receive similar crackup laughter I suppose when doing a Pilger over their foreign policies too? Of course, because of ... "blatant hypocrisy".

This forum is like a university JCR.
You're part of "The West" whether you like it or not. Thats how you would be seen.
Enjoy.

DrumSteve

If you keep going west you'll end up in the east.

wes

JustinDee wrote: »

Weird funny bone so.

Blatant hypocrisy with any sense of irony is always funny.

JustinDee wrote: »

How subjective. They're allies of Ireland. People from Ireland have been lauded and applauded for helping in Libya.

Context is everything you see. I was clearly responding to the article. Its hardly rocket science as to who I was referring.

JustinDee wrote: »

"The East" would receive similar crackup laughter I suppose when doing a Pilger over their foreign policies too? Of course, because of ... "blatant hypocrisy".

Seeing as this is a thread about the "West" complaining about Qatar, bringing other countries wouldn't make any sense. Also, it make any such criticism along those line similarly without sense.

JustinDee wrote: »

This forum is like a university JCR.
You're part of "The West" whether you like it or not. Thats how you would be seen.
Enjoy.

I could care less personally. It really wasn't hard to figure out who I was talking about. You can harp on about who is and isn't the West to your hearts content.

JustinDee

wes wrote: »

Blatant hypocrisy with any sense of irony is always funny

Context is everything you see. I was clearly responding to the article. Its hardly rocket science as to who I was referring

Given what has happened there, whatever floats your boat. Sh*ts and giggles all round for Russia having the gall to lecture her competitors against 'imperialism' too.

wes wrote: »

Seeing as this is a thread about the "West" complaining about Qatar, bringing other countries wouldn't make any sense. Also, it make any such criticism along those line similarly without sense

As I said, subjective and conveniently so.

wes wrote: »

I could care less personally. It really wasn't hard to figure out who I was talking about. You can harp on about who is and isn't the West to your hearts content.

Thanks. I will.
You are part of the "The West". Your country is allied to the protagonists in more than one singular economic way.

wes

JustinDee wrote: »

Given what has happened there, whatever floats your boat. Sh*ts and giggles all round for Russia having the gall to lecture her competitors against 'imperialism' too.

Except that the thread has nothing to do with Russia. If you want to talk about Russian hypocrisy, then you can start a thread on that topic, and drop the whatboutery. For the record, yes Russia engage in similar laughable hypocrisy as well, but that has nothing to do with the topic, and is simple whatboutery on your part.

The thread title is "West accuses Qatar of interfering in Libyan affairs", I fail to see what Russia of China (which you mentioned earlier) has to do with that, other than as a distraction you are using.

JustinDee wrote: »

As I said, subjective and conveniently so.

No, its a convenient short hand and nothing more. You are reading far to much into things, and are being overly defensive imho.

JustinDee

wes wrote: »

Except that the thread has nothing to do with Russia. If you want to talk about Russian hypocrisy, then you can start a thread on that topic, and drop the whatboutery. For the record, yes Russia engage in similar laughable hypocrisy as well, but that has nothing to do with the topic, and is simple whatboutery on your part.

The thread title is "West accuses Qatar of interfering in Libyan affairs", I fail to see what Russia of China (which you mentioned earlier) has to do with that, other than as a distraction you are using

They were brought up because there is eff-all difference between "The West" and "The East" in terms of foreign policy and particularly, in terms of Qatar, where they are both heavily competing for economic favour. The thing is that "The East" tends to avoid the conveniently tunnel-visioned criticism from the most base of campus pamphletic warriors.

Nothing was used as a "distraction" so you can quit the self-appointed modding.

wes wrote: »

No, its a convenient short hand and nothing more. You are reading far to much into things, and are being overly defensive imho.

I'm not being defensive about anything. Understanding how and why diplomacy works as it does and how foreign relations tick is not exactly high-brow science, no matter how subjective you make it.
Your finding it funny was just strange, thats all. As I said, whatever floats your boat.

wes

JustinDee wrote: »

Nothing was used as a "distraction" so you can quit the self-appointed modding.

Wasn't modding at all as you put. It most certainly is a distraction, and a rather common one at that. Your defense amounts, to "The other boys are doing it". Its a convient way to avoid discussing the topic, while offering a defense. There is nothing stopping you starting a thread to criticise Russia or China.

JustinDee wrote: »

I'm not being defensive about anything. Understanding how and why diplomacy works as it does and how foreign relations tick is not exactly high-brow science, no matter how subjective you make it.

I would disagree. Your focus on other countries smacks of being defensive imho.

JustinDee

wes wrote: »

Wasn't modding at all as you put. It most certainly is a distraction, and a rather common one at that. Your defense amounts, to "The other boys are doing it". Its a convient way to avoid discussing the topic, while offering a defense. There is nothing stopping you starting a thread to criticise Russia or China

No it doesn't. I couldn't give two stuffs who is saying what about Qatar. Its obvious why they're saying it ie. subjectively according to their political leanings. Your reference to "The West" is more than a colloquialism, collective term of certain nations or similar twaddle. What is funny is that you actually consider yourself outside of it.
There isn't a "defence" required. Its just inexperienced internet yap about a subject that folk generally know nothing more about than what they tap into a search engine or selectively read about. Campus/bar stool self-perceived 'expertise', carefully cherry-picked to suit an conveniently hypocritical 'cause du jour'.

Setting parameters to what can and cannot be discussed, dropped into conversation or avoided is nothing new from posters such as yourself and one or two obvious others. This is self-appointed modding.

wes

JustinDee wrote: »

No it doesn't. I couldn't give two stuffs who is saying what about Qatar. Its obvious why they're saying it ie. subjectively according to their political leanings. Your reference to "The West" is more than a colloquialism, collective term of certain nations or similar twaddle. What is funny is that you actually consider yourself outside of it.

No what funny is you inablity to understand context.

Again this is the thread title:

"West accuses Qatar of interfering in Libyan affairs"

Here is the title of the times article:
"Does Qatar Share the West's Agenda in Libya?"

Here is the sub heading on the guardian article:
"Western diplomats say Arab state is bypassing international agreements, to pursue its own agenda"

I am not the only one using the "West" short hand here, and that all it is, as much as you may wish it to be something else.

JustinDee wrote: »

There isn't a "defence" required. Its just inexperienced internet yap about a subject that folk generally know nothing more about than what they tap into a search engine or selectively read about. Campus/bar stool self-perceived 'expertise', carefully cherry-picked to suit an conveniently hypocritical 'cause du jour'.

Coming from someone who was banging on about China and Russia in a fair chunk of your posts, its a bit rich of you to accuse anyone of hypocrisy, when you are doing your best to not discuss the topic, and instead go on about your own cause..... Sorry, but it is a defense, and entirely predictable one at that. Avoid discussing the topic at all costs. Pretty typical on the ol Internet.

JustinDee wrote: »

Setting parameters to what can and cannot be discussed, dropped into conversation or avoided is nothing new from posters such as yourself and one or two obvious others. This is self-appointed modding.

No, all I am doing is pointing out that fact you refuse to discuss the topic, and this is a very common tactic by poster like yourself, who instead of starting a thread of your own, would rather derail a thread for you own pet obsessions. Its not modding to point out to a poster who quoted me, that they are not actually discussing the topic. You quoted me, and I see no reason why I shouldn't point out that your replies are completely irrelevant, as you are not discussing the topic at all, but rather banging on about China or Russia for some reason instead.

Son Of A Vidic

wes wrote: »

In the context of the conversation

Context, it represents such an important concept. Yet many seem to miss its meaning, or perhaps have no understanding of it whatsoever.

cyberhog

David Roberts at CFR does an interesting analysis of Qatar's rationale for supporting the Islamists.

Qatar hopes to insert itself as the key mediator between the Muslim world and the West. Qatar sees its role as a highly specialized interlocutor between the two worlds, making -- from the West's point of view -- unpalatable but necessary friendships and alliances with anti-Western leaders, including the Hamas chief Khaled Meshaal, Hezbollah's spiritual leader, Hassan Nasrallah, and the Iraqi cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, to name but a few recent visitors to Doha.


...

Qatar recognizes that Islamists are an indelible part of the political landscape in Libya and a potentially combustible one, given that, per capita, eastern Libya alone provided twice as many would-be jihadists as any other Arabic-speaking country to the Iraqi resistance in 2007 and 2008. Ignoring or marginalizing this demographic would not be prudent; but from the West's perspective, engaging with even reformed Islamist fighters is difficult. This is the niche that Qatar is trying to fill in Libya and elsewhere.

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/68302/david-roberts/behind-qatars-intervention-in-libya?page=show

czx

wes wrote: »

No what funny is you inablity to understand context.

Again this is the thread title:

"West accuses Qatar of interfering in Libyan affairs"

Here is the title of the times article:
"Does Qatar Share the West's Agenda in Libya?"

Here is the sub heading on the guardian article:
"Western diplomats say Arab state is bypassing international agreements, to pursue its own agenda"

I am not the only one using the "West" short hand here, and that all it is, as much as you may wish it to be something else.



Coming from someone who was banging on about China and Russia in a fair chunk of your posts, its a bit rich of you to accuse anyone of hypocrisy, when you are doing your best to not discuss the topic, and instead go on about your own cause..... Sorry, but it is a defense, and entirely predictable one at that. Avoid discussing the topic at all costs. Pretty typical on the ol Internet.



No, all I am doing is pointing out that fact you refuse to discuss the topic, and this is a very common tactic by poster like yourself, who instead of starting a thread of your own, would rather derail a thread for you own pet obsessions. Its not modding to point out to a poster who quoted me, that they are not actually discussing the topic. You quoted me, and I see no reason why I shouldn't point out that your replies are completely irrelevant, as you are not discussing the topic at all, but rather banging on about China or Russia for some reason instead.

because you're a raging hypocrite

JustinDee

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

Context, it represents such an important concept. Yet many seem to miss its meaning, or perhaps have no understanding of it whatsoever.

As relevant to all anonymous posts on the internet by the typical housebound keyboard warrior as 'pamphletic', 'pro-agendaic', monocular', presumptous', 'misguided', 'ill-informed', 'cause du jour' or 'har ikke noe jævlig peiling'.

wes

czx wrote: »

because you're a raging hypocrite

And you seem unable to articulate any kind of point, to respond to anything I have said. So onto the ignore list you go then.

czx

wes wrote: »

And you seem unable to articulate any kind of point, to respond to anything I have said. So onto the ignore list you go then.

*agree with anything you said

AlekSmart

cyberhog wrote: »

David Roberts at CFR does an interesting analysis of Qatar's rationale for supporting the Islamists.



http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/68302/david-roberts/behind-qatars-intervention-in-libya?page=show

Perhaps the UN really needed to do a bit more investigating before it sought NATO,s assistance.

I'm not so certain that offering UN assistance to the Gadaffi administration in maintaining order in Libya would have turned out as madcap as it sounds !! :eek: