« have a banana | Main | down to the countryside »

March 15, 2011

Comments

Alex

Oh, if there was some way of referring to what they actually published!

Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim bin Jabr Al-Thani, the Qatari prime minister and foreign minister, told Al Jazeera: "There are common responsibilities and obligations within the GCC countries. The arrival of Saudi and UAE troops in Bahrain is in line with a GCC defence agreement that calls for all members to oblige when needed and to fully co-operate. We are committed to adhering to the GCC agreement. At the moment we have peacekeeping troops. We don't have a full force there, but this is up for discussion."

So they only quoted the Qatari prime minister stating explicitly that there were Qatari troops there.

jamie

Quote preamble:

"The United Arab Emirates also sent about 500 police to Bahrain, according to Abdullah bin Zayed Al-Nahyan, the Emirati foreign minister. Qatar, meanwhile, did not rule out the possibility of its troops joining the force."

The quote and the setup is to the effect that the Qatari troops are part of some separate mission unconnected to today's occupation. This isn't true. They came with the Saudis and the rest and for the same purpose.

ejh

This takes us off-topic, but I was wondering what they were thinking about this in Prague and while I was searching, I found this and this. What is going on there?

Richard J

The Czech constitutional courts tend to, in my limited experience, take this sort of procedural thing very seriously. They struck down the whole of the social security contribution legislation a few years back as it hadn't been correctly implemented. (Net impact was nothing, as the government quickly moved to implement retrospectively correct laws properly, but it was an interesting month or two.)

The comments to this entry are closed.

friends blogs

blobs

Blog powered by Typepad

my former home