From Angry Arab chief correspondent in Bahrain: "This quote by Saddam lover Sameera Rajab (who is related to Nabeel Rajab by the way and who's uncle is languishing in prison) is hilarious. The government is now banning the legal opposition rallies. They seem to think this is a smart idea. This will only push the movement more underground and force the opposition to take a stance that is closer to February 14. Anyways here she is arguing that banning the rallies will set the mood for a dialogue later on. You'd think the government is taking us out to a candlelight dinner or something.
Also, I love Andrew Hammound, I really do. But I am sick of reuters, AFP, AP and others injecting the royal family's sect every time they are mentioned. If sect was the issue, then why aren't the protestors (which should not be defined by their sect) attacking sunnis? Why was there no retaliation against the destruction of shia mosques by destroying sunni mosques? None of the protestors demands have anything to do with sect. Also as I have said countless times, mentioning sect emphasizes one aspect of identity over others that are equally important. Tribal loyalties amongst the royal family and their supporters are extremely important and explain a lot of what is happening - yet somehow tribal loyalties are ignored by analysts. Other aspects of identity that play a role are ethnic origin (najdi vs. bahrani vs. persian), and whether you come from a rural or urban background. By using sect as the primary identifier, they are not simplifying the truth, they are distorting it."
