Bahraini activist jailed for tweet against prime minister

cyberhog

Amnesty International has called for the 'immediate release' of Nabeel Rajab who was jailed for 3 months over a critical twitter message.

It’s clear that repression of freedom of expression is continuing with impunity in Bahrain.

“Like many others in Bahrain, Nabeel Rajab is a prisoner of conscience, jailed solely for peacefully exercising his right to freedom of expression. He should be released immediately and all other charges or convictions against him dropped or overturned.”

http://www.amnesty.org.uk/news_details.asp?NewsID=20223

The US hasn't joined the calls for Rajab's release and yet the Obama administration wants us to believe they stand up for online freedom of expression for people everywhere.

Originally Posted by Hillary Clinton
...Together, the freedoms of expression, assembly, and association online comprise what I’ve called the freedom to connect. The United States supports this freedom for people everywhere, and we have called on other nations to do the same.

...

Our commitment to internet freedom is a commitment to the rights of people, and we are matching that with our actions. Monitoring and responding to threats to internet freedom has become part of the daily work of our diplomats and development experts. They are working to advance internet freedom on the ground at our embassies and missions around the world. The United States continues to help people in oppressive internet environments get around filters, stay one step ahead of the censors, the hackers, and the thugs who beat them up or imprison them for what they say online.

Nabeel Rajab was imprisoned for what he said online but the US has done nothing to help him. It seems the Obama administration would rather sell
arms to Bahrain's dictatorial regime instead of help the activicts that are genuinely working for a freer, more democratic country.



In other news: A US documentary filmmaker recently expelled from Bahrain told RT that the crackdown on peaceful protestors is intensifying, however Marlowe also said she did not see any sign of the people giving up on their struggle for democracy.

http://www.rt.com/news/bahrain-activist-crackdown-interview-296/

JustinDee

Its ironic that Russia's media megaphone has the temerity to bleat about freedom and freedom of the press given what has happened there over the Putin years.
I don't any single country is going to risk diplomatic relations over one singular citizen getting banged up.

cyberhog

JustinDee wrote: »

I don't any single country is going to risk diplomatic relations over one singular citizen getting banged up.

Rajab is a key figure in the opposition and has thousands of supporters, if the Obama administration cared about the struggle for democracy in Bahrain they would call for his release.

JustinDee

cyberhog wrote: »

Rajab is a key figure in the opposition and has thousands of supporters, if the Obama administration cared about the struggle for democracy in Bahrain they would call for his release.

No government cares about the "struggle for democracy in Bahrain". Not the States, not Bahrain's neighbours and most certainly not Russia.
Bread is buttered and if it ever suits, foreign governments will take a bite. It is a pivot in the Middle East given its location so has been courted by the Europeans, Americans, Saudis, Russians, Chinese and Iranians (via Russia) and that is the only reason anyone ever self-servingly gave two stuffs about the place.

Laminations

So the US should butt in when you think it's appropriate but otherwise butt out of foreign domestic affairs?

wes

Well, this just goes to show the general hypocrisy in the world by various parties. Oprression in Bahrain is ok, and is essentially ignored. Very sad to this kind of thing happen.

Also, another poster seemed to suggest that this is an isolated incident, but other have been jailed for spearking out against the Bahraini regime, as well as other acts of violence against the regime.

JustinDee

wes wrote: »

Well, this just goes to show the general hypocrisy in the world by various parties. Oprression in Bahrain is ok, and is essentially ignored. Very sad to this kind of thing happen

Yes, its sad but what to be done? Do you want interference from other nations such as the States or not?? How about in Damascus? Teheran? Tripoli? Beirut? Where's the difference?

Make your minds up.

karma_

JustinDee wrote: »

Yes, its sad but what to be done? Do you want interference from other nations such as the States or not?? How about in Damascus? Teheran? Tripoli? Beirut? Where's the difference?

Make your minds up.

Maybe something like stopping giving them military aid? Wouldn't that be a decent start?

JustinDee

karma_ wrote: »

Maybe something like stopping giving them military aid? Wouldn't that be a decent start?

Could happen if all other proxies (eg. China, Russia, Iran, Syria, Hizbullah etc) also did that in region.
They won't, so it won't.
Thus it continues thus . . .

wes

JustinDee wrote: »

Yes, its sad but what to be done? Do you want interference from other nations such as the States or not?? How about in Damascus? Teheran? Tripoli? Beirut? Where's the difference?

How about some consistency? As it stands, morality is often invoked if and when it suits, which tells me its not really about that.

Also, interference is happening all the time in the ME. So why not interfere on the side of those who want democracy?

Surely, there are options to help pro-democracy activists, beyond bombing the place. Pressure can be put on the Bahrani government in other ways. Also, I find it odd that Bahrain is basically ignored, while a lot of attention is given to Assad. Now, I am not saying what is going in is the same in both cases, Syria is in fairness far worse, and will get most of the attention, but I feel that places like Bahrain are ignored, as they are Western allies.

JustinDee

wes wrote: »

How about some consistency? As it stands, morality is often invoked if and when it suits, which tells me its not really about that.

Also, interference is happening all the time in the ME. So why not interfere on the side of those who want democracy?

Surely, there are options to help pro-democracy activists, beyond bombing the place. Pressure can be put on the Bahrani government in other ways. Also, I find it odd that Bahrain is basically ignored, while a lot of attention is given to Assad. Now, I am not saying what is going in is the same in both cases, Syria is in fairness far worse, and will get most of the attention, but I feel that places like Bahrain are ignored, as they are Western allies.

There is plenty of consistency: No nation bothers unless it suits them. Thats the way it always has been and the way it always will be. There's no difference between the big bad west and the opposing bloc composed of mainly China and Russia.

News on the Syrian regime is widespread given the slaughter there. The Ba'athist govt have always locked dissidents away there. If there is widespread bloodshed, you'll find Bahrain on the news, as there was already the beginning of the protest marches.

Eggy Baby!

JustinDee wrote: »

Its ironic that Russia's media megaphone has the temerity to bleat about freedom and freedom of the press given what has happened there over the Putin years.
I don't any single country is going to risk diplomatic relations over one singular citizen getting banged up.

As per the usual, JustinDee uses every available opportunity to take digs at Putin and his domestic policies, even if they have no relevance to the thread whatsoever.

(I could go on about how Russia is far freer today than it ever was during its long history but I keep those things for other threads)

Nothing surprising here. Captain Obvious informed me years ago that the Americans do and say as they please, even if it involves grave hypocrisy.

JustinDee

Eggy Baby! wrote: »

As per the usual, JustinDee uses every available opportunity to take digs at Putin and his domestic policies, even if they have no relevance to the thread whatsoever.

(I could go on about how Russia is far freer today than it ever was during its long history but I keep those things for other threads)

Nothing surprising here. Captain Obvious informed me years ago that the Americans do and say as they please, even if it involves grave hypocrisy.

Less on the poster, fella.

Russia is relevant because it is a government owned media outlet that is being ironically quoted here. I don't know where Russia's foreign policies seem to be tickable as okay in your book, but they're not much different to those you repeatedly post about ie. those of the 'big bad west'. As for "freedom" today in that country, you're comparing with the communist regimes of up until 1989. Akin to comparing 'terrible' with 'worse'.

nacho libre

Eggy Baby! wrote: »

Nothing surprising here. Captain Obvious informed me years ago that the Americans do and say as they please, even if it involves grave hypocrisy.

The apologists don't see it that way- the defense of it is two fold: either there is always an extenuating circumstance for the huge chasm between the lofty, self-righteous rhetoric of American governments and their subsequent miscreant actions, or they try to deflect criticism, by immediately pointing out the wrong doing of others- a child would be scolded for doing this in the playground.

Eggy Baby!

As for "freedom" today in that country, you're comparing with the communist regimes of up until 1989. Akin to comparing 'terrible' with 'worse'.

There is great freedom today in Russia. Not just compared to the Soviet Union/Tsarist Russia. There are far, far worse democracies out there. I said it is significantly more free today than it ever was (including the Yeltsin era) and has taken massive strides in effective government and rule of law.

I can talk to a Russian today who voted for A Just Russia in the recent elections and who dislikes Putin (and not just because of the usual "he is a corrupt oligarch dictator" stuff either). Of course, there are problems with the Russian democracy, as it has only had 10 years to set itself up properly, and its genesis was disrupted by two severe wars in Chechnya (engineered by Yeltsin) which required a balance between civil rights and crackdowns.

I could spend the next zillion lines explaining the situation regarding the press and civil rights in Russia but I know it would all just bounce off you so i won't bother. Plus I don't want to clog up a thread about Bahrain with stuff about Russia.

Russia is relevant because it is a government owned media outlet that is being ironically quoted here.

Its not really logical to randomly attack Putinhitler's domestic policies in a thread about Bahrain just because the OP quoted a state-owned Russian broadcasting institution as a source. Again, you are using this as an excuse to deflect attention from Bahrain and enforce your opinions of Russia/RT.

Occasionally people may quote RTE- does that mean we have to go on tangental rants about Ireland's domestic situation?

Jonny7

Yeah this guy was arrested earlier in the year. Three months is a bit stiff for a tweet - apparently the max for this type of "libel" is a fine. Most people who were taken in during the uprising last year were tortured, I don't fancy his chances, although they might hold off considering his relatively high profile.

Eggy Baby!

Jonny7 wrote: »

Yeah this guy was arrested earlier in the year. Three months is a bit stiff for a tweet - apparently the max for this type of "libel" is a fine. Most people who were taken in during the uprising last year were tortured, I don't fancy his chances, although they might hold off considering his relatively high profile.

Is Rajab a well-known activist in Bahrain?

Jonny7

Eggy Baby! wrote: »

Is Rajab a well-known activist in Bahrain?

Yup should be, head of a few human rights organisations over there

cyberhog

JustinDee wrote: »

There is plenty of consistency: No nation bothers unless it suits them.

That is true. I think what galls people most about the US is how it feigns concern and outrage at human rights violations in places like Syria or Iran when we can clearly see from places like Bahrain and Azerbaijan that the US couldn't care less about people's human rights.

JustinDee wrote: »

News on the Syrian regime is widespread given the slaughter there. The Ba'athist govt have always locked dissidents away there. If there is widespread bloodshed, you'll find Bahrain on the news, as there was already the beginning of the protest marches.

I don't agree that only widespread bloodshed can make the revolt newsworthy. Nonviolent protesters are being brutally put down in Bahrain and that merits coverage.

Last November a report by the Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry (BICI), set up by the king, Shaikh Hamad bin ‘Issa Al Khalifa, concluded that the authorities had committed gross human rights violations with impunity, including excessive use of force against protesters, widespread torture and other ill-treatment of protesters, unfair trials and unlawful killings.

http://www.amnesty.org.uk/news_details.asp?NewsID=20223

It seems the Western media follows US behaviour by only covering deadly crackdowns on peaceful protestors when it suits them.

JustinDee

cyberhog wrote: »

That is true. I think what galls people most about the US is how it feigns concern and outrage at human rights violations in places like Syria or Iran when we can clearly see from places like Bahrain and Azerbaijan that the US couldn't care less about people's human rights

It isn't the only nation who pontificate on this subject or exercise vetoes now, is it? Not by a long shot. Latest (in)action by Russia and China on the regime in Syria is indicative of this.

cyberhog wrote: »

I don't agree that only widespread bloodshed can make the revolt newsworthy. Nonviolent protesters are being brutally put down in Bahrain and that merits coverage

I'm not saying what should or can make the news. I'm saying what does. There is a difference and it applies to news media across the board.

cyberhog wrote: »

It seems the Western media follows US behaviour by only covering deadly crackdowns on peaceful protestors when it suits them.

Russia Today showed very little on the Syrian mess at the beginning. The jokeshop, Press TV, showed nothing on it on their TV news. Not an iota.

Jonny7

cyberhog wrote: »

That is true. I think what galls people most about the US is how it feigns concern and outrage at human rights violations in places like Syria or Iran when we can clearly see from places like Bahrain and Azerbaijan that the US couldn't care less about people's human rights.

Virtually Every post you start here is a veiled attack on the West or particular Western countries, this thread is no different.

I don't agree that only widespread bloodshed can make the revolt newsworthy. Nonviolent protesters are being brutally put down in Bahrain and that merits coverage.

The initial protests escalated quickly and around 78 or so protesters died over the course, many through police force and several in detention (certainly under torture). Since then has been some sort of "reconciliation" process with both sides trying to facilitate a peaceful understanding, another large protest took place; about 100K or more I believe, which is a significant portion of the Bahraini population it managed to pass off peacefully. Obviously the Bahraini regime is not going to fall, but for the moment there is a "tense peace" so to speak.

Now, your agenda aside..

The Bahraini uprising took place at the same time as over a dozen uprisings and protests across the ME and N Africa, and was overshadowed by the larger situations in Egypt and Libya. The world media covered the situation and certain events were fairly high profile, esp. the trial and detention of the medics.

It seems the Western media follows US behaviour by only covering deadly crackdowns on peaceful protestors when it suits them.

Really, you're speaking for Der Spiegl? El Pais? the Observer? The Irish Times? Le Monde? Euronews? France 24? and thousands of other publications and outlets?

Must contract sharply with what was reporting in several hundred/thousand Middle Eastern, Asian, Latin American, etc outlets then?

johnnyskeleton

What did he say exactly?

Don't forget that in even in the US, that pillar of free speech, someone could be jailed for making racial or threatening criticisms of Obamer.

Maybe I'm just jaded and cynical, but the fact that amnesty haven't repeated what exactly he said suggests that it might have been more than "I am not 100% convinced by the current administrations fiscal policy" or the like.

cyberhog

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

What did he say exactly?

This is what he tweeted

“Khalifa: Leave the al-Muharraq alley ways, their sheikhs and their elderly, everyone knows that you have no popularity there; and if it was not for their need for money they would not have come out to welcome you - when will you bow out?”

http://www.amnesty.org/en/news/bahrain-urged-free-imprisoned-activist-2012-07-11


And here's an interview with Nabeel Rajab just before he was taken to jail.

https://witnessbahrain.org/2012/07/the-last-tweets-before-prison-interview-with-nabeel-rajab/

Rajab states: "I will not stop and I’m teaching people not to stop. If everybody will keep quiet after putting them in jail, then it’s a disaster. We should challenge that. We should be willing to pay the price for the struggle for the freedom that we fight for. And this is the price."

SamHarris

I'm kind of curious as to who people are comparing the US to when expressing horror in it's choice not to throw itself behind every movement agitating for politcal change. Ireland does not, why do you insist on holding others to a standard they fail to hold ourselves to? And yes, Ireland does claim democracy and human rights are vital parts of foreign policy so please dont start with the BS about the US being the only ones who claim to adhere to those ideals.

Why, further, are states that NEVER support these various movements not worthy of the criticism leveled at the US for only doing it on occasion? Indeed there is a hypocrisy inherent in evoking human rights as the sole motivation for doing this, its clear to anyone with an iota of common sense that if that were the case there would be many other states and groups far more of a threat to these ideals. If you as an individual cannot apply your standard (the vast majority) across the globe, why would you even begin to think an institution that represents the interests and ideals of hundrerds of millions of people could or should not practice it?

Its been mentioned here, and elsewhere, that because the US does not support every democracy movement -regardless of size, representation
and severity of represion - to the same degree, and then evokes human rights and democracy as a reason for change elsewhere that these values do not have anything to do with their motivations. This is a very clear failure in logic. 10 points to whoever can name it. Perhaps, and this might be very difficult for some, it DOES have an effect on policy, along with national security, economic concerns, geographical location and any number of other factors.

This personification of a state and its behaviour is always just childish reductionism. It's not clever, it's not an incisive look at the workings of foreign policy and seems only to be applied when it suits the ideology of those evoking it.

Jonny7

SamHarris wrote: »

I'm kind of curious as to who people are comparing the US to when expressing horror in it's choice not to throw itself behind every movement agitating for politcal change. Ireland does not, why do you insist on holding others to a standard they fail to hold ourselves to? And yes, Ireland does claim democracy and human rights are vital parts of foreign policy so please dont start with the BS about the US being the only ones who claim to adhere to those ideals.

Why, further, are states that NEVER support these various movements not worthy of the criticism leveled at the US for only doing it on occasion? Indeed there is a hypocrisy inherent in evoking human rights as the sole motivation for doing this, its clear to anyone with an iota of common sense that if that were the case there would be many other states and groups far more of a threat to these ideals. If you as an individual cannot apply your standard (the vast majority) across the globe, why would you even begin to think an institution that represents the interests and ideals of hundrerds of millions of people could or should not practice it?

Its been mentioned here, and elsewhere, that because the US does not support every democracy movement -regardless of size, representation
and severity of represion - to the same degree, and then evokes human rights and democracy as a reason for change elsewhere that these values do not have anything to do with their motivations. This is a very clear failure in logic. 10 points to whoever can name it. Perhaps, and this might be very difficult for some, it DOES have an effect on policy, along with national security, economic concerns, geographical location and any number of other factors.

This personification of a state and its behaviour is always just childish reductionism. It's not clever, it's not an incisive look at the workings of foreign policy and seems only to be applied when it suits the ideology of those evoking it.

Very basically

The inconsistency of US policy toward oppressive regimes generates a lot of frustration - hence a lot these posts (this can be applied to other Western powers)

e.g. if the secretary of state is stepping up to the podium decrying human rights abuses in Syria why are they not doing the same about Uzbekistan, etc, etc.

If we could somehow get it all into some sticky post maybe we would have less threads clogged up with it. Also, I realise the irony that I am now clogging up the thread with it

SamHarris

Jonny7 wrote: »

Very basically

The inconsistency of US policy toward oppressive regimes generates a lot of frustration - hence a lot these posts (this can be applied to other Western powers)

e.g. if the secretary of state is stepping up to the podium decrying human rights abuses in Syria why are they not doing the same about Uzbekistan, etc, etc.

If we could somehow get it all into some sticky post maybe we would have less threads clogged up with it. Also, I realise the irony that I am now clogging up the thread with it

That doesnt really deal with what I said at all tbh. It can be applied to every country, by the way, Western or not, that even hints at having an ideology in their makeup.

Jonny7

SamHarris wrote: »

That doesnt really deal with what I said at all tbh. It can be applied to every country, by the way, Western or not, that even hints at having an ideology in their makeup.

Yup I agree, I'm just addressing a very basic and fundamental reason why this issue exists in the first place and why this discussion persists.

Bahraini security forces have very recently arrested more protesters and as is typical has labelled them "terrorists". This clever loophole functions well because on a domestic level - if a state can "push" it's citizens to use any violence in protests then it can be very crudely justified in incarcerating them as "violent terrorists" and on an international level major powers have used roughly the same techniques - generally under different conditions for different reasons but the details don't matter - its a functional bit of false moral high-ground. Ghandi really had it right with the whole peaceful protest - but most shrewd leaders in the region are light years ahead of that kind of thinking/modus operandi in the whole "how to be an unelected king in the 21st century" department.

It's not exactly the Daily Mail comment section, gross over-simplification and personification are generally always going to exist due to this medium.

Eggy Baby!

I'm kind of curious as to who people are comparing the US to when expressing horror in it's choice not to throw itself behind every movement agitating for politcal change. Ireland does not, why do you insist on holding others to a standard they fail to hold ourselves to? And yes, Ireland does claim democracy and human rights are vital parts of foreign policy so please dont start with the BS about the US being the only ones who claim to adhere to those ideals.

But us Irish don't have massive armies to send around in the name of "human rights" and "democracy". That's the difference. Its kind of naive comparing Ireland and the USA in the foreign policy department.

JustinDee

Eggy Baby! wrote: »

But us Irish don't have massive armies to send around in the name of "human rights" and "democracy". That's the difference. Its kind of naive comparing Ireland and the USA in the foreign policy department.

No, it isn't. Complicity in whatever degree tends to get subjectively banged about by the usual posters when it suits.
Foreign policy is determined by what it gains the proponent in question.

SamHarris

Eggy Baby! wrote: »

But us Irish don't have massive armies to send around in the name of "human rights" and "democracy". That's the difference. Its kind of naive comparing Ireland and the USA in the foreign policy department.

Weakness is the shield? Really? Given the context and tenor of the complaints, that really doesnt and shouldnt fly.

SamHarris

Jonny7 wrote: »

Yup I agree, I'm just addressing a very basic and fundamental reason why this issue exists in the first place and why this discussion persists.

Bahraini security forces have very recently arrested more protesters and as is typical has labelled them "terrorists". This clever loophole functions well because on a domestic level - if a state can "push" it's citizens to use any violence in protests then it can be very crudely justified in incarcerating them as "violent terrorists" and on an international level major powers have used roughly the same techniques - generally under different conditions for different reasons but the details don't matter - its a functional bit of false moral high-ground. Ghandi really had it right with the whole peaceful protest - but most shrewd leaders in the region are light years ahead of that kind of thinking/modus operandi in the whole "how to be an unelected king in the 21st century" department.

It's not exactly the Daily Mail comment section, gross over-simplification and personification are generally always going to exist due to this medium.

Ah apologies.

I agree it will always exist to a certain degree, however for people to repeatedly make the same glaring logical errors should be at least frowned upon. An ability to practice what they preach (in regard to not holding double standards/ hypocrisy in a post seeking to vilify a government for doing the same) and an EXTREMELY basic understanding of foreign policy would also be a plus here...

Its funny you should mention the Daily Mail comment section, Ive just gotten back from making myself furious by reading the comments about that recent bombing of an Israeli bus. As per your theory though, I rarely if ever see a well thought out and reasoned comment to a news article, whether on the Daily Mail, The Guardian or even publications like The Economist. I keep reading them though

cyberhog

SamHarris wrote: »

Weakness is the shield? Really? Given the context and tenor of the complaints, that really doesnt and shouldnt fly.

I don't think you have fully grasped the tenor of the complaints. While Ireland may not throw itself behind every movement agitating for politcal change, you could never accuse Ireland of selling arms to a dictatorial regime while it is conducting a brutal crackdown on peaceful protestors.

The same can not be said for the US.

A decision by the Obama administration to resume a large arms deal to Bahrain has incensed opposition activists in the tiny Gulf kingdom who see the deal as a signal that the US supports Bahrain’s repression of opposition protests.

...

“It's a direct message [from the US] that we support the authorities and we don't support democracy in Bahrain, we don't support protesters in Bahrain,” says Mohammed Al Maskati, a Bahraini rights activist, of the arms sale. He said opposition activists called for a week of protests against the US after the announcement on May 11. “Now protesters are starting to be more angry against the USA and this is not good for the USA,” he says by phone from Bahrain.

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2012/0514/US-resumes-arms-sales-to-Bahrain.-Activists-feel-abandoned

JustinDee

cyberhog wrote: »

I don't think you have fully grasped the tenor of the complaints. While Ireland may not throw itself behind every movement agitating for politcal change, you could never accuse Ireland of selling arms to a dictatorial regime while it is conducting a brutal crackdown on peaceful protestors

The same can not be said for the US

Or Russia, Iran, China, Lebanon . . . etc etc

Ireland's complicity with its allies hardly deems it the deliberately subjective shining star you make it out to be.

cyberhog

JustinDee wrote: »

Or Russia, Iran, China, Lebanon . . . etc etc

The US acts as though it's the premier preacher on the topic of human rights but here you are putting the US in the same league as Russia, Iran and China! And then you whine about people criticising the West? It seems you don't feel any obligation to maintain a consistent argument from one post to the next. :rolleyes:

JustinDee

cyberhog wrote: »

The US acts as though it's the premier preacher on the topic of human rights but here you are putting the US in the same league as Russia, Iran and China! And then you whine about people criticising the West? It seems you don't feel any obligation to maintain a consistent argument from one post to the next. :rolleyes:

Of course they're in the same bloody bracket. I mention the other world powers because the blinkered myopic tunnel-vision of some seems to conveniently omit them when discussing geo-political matters.

cyberhog

JustinDee wrote: »

Of course they're in the same bloody bracket.I mention the other world powers because the blinkered myopic tunnel-vision of some seems to conveniently omit them when discussing geo-political matters.

They're all the same you say but I never see you criticise the West. You only see Russia, China and Iran as the evildoers.Well I think before you accuse others of being blinkered you should look at yourself.

JustinDee

cyberhog wrote: »

They're all the same you say but I never see you criticise the West. You only see Russia, China and Iran as the evildoers.Well I think before you accuse others of being blinkered you should look at yourself.

Rubbish. I don't single anyone out for criticism as I don't have an agenda.
Every time the likes of yourself posts yet another reactionary anti-'West' diatribe on foreign policy, its perfectly pertinent to remind you of the bigger picture ie that it is no different to the actions any other so-called superpower.
Has nothing to do with "evildoers" (oh dear, oh dear . . . "evildoers"???) but everything to do with self-serving interactions.

Eggy Baby!

JustinDee wrote: »

Rubbish. I don't single anyone out for criticism as I don't have an agenda.
Every time the likes of yourself posts yet another reactionary anti-'West' diatribe on foreign policy, its perfectly pertinent to remind you of the bigger picture ie that it is no different to the actions any other so-called superpower.
Has nothing to do with "evildoers" (oh dear, oh dear . . . "evildoers"???) but everything to do with self-serving interactions.

Russia and China can't really be criticised when it comes to Bahrain as they have so little influence there.

In other situations however, it is good to have a broader picture.

As this thread was formed with the intention of being a critique of America's foreign policy regarding Bahrain (and its foreign policy in general), it is perfectly okay for it to focus on the USA.

For example, I created a thread about the Russian internet censorship law that was recently passed, and although I wanted to keep it Russo-centric, it got hijacked by a lot of people who compared the Russian law to similar laws in the west, with a mentality similar to "The west does it, so its excusable". As a result, it was impossible for the thread to evolve into a discussion solely based on Russia and I deplored that.

So it's good to have focus in a thread.

Critical sentiment of American foreign policy is extremely high at the moment, and these thread are rather common. But if you want criticism of Russian/Chinese/Turkish/Bolivian foreign policy why don't you make a thread about it...?

In regard to "evildoers", all states are capable of being evildoers to further their own selfish desires. And they often do.

JustinDee

Eggy Baby! wrote: »

Critical sentiment of American foreign policy is extremely high at the moment, and these thread are rather common. But if you want criticism of Russian/Chinese/Turkish/Bolivian foreign policy why don't you make a thread about it...?

No need to. I've never said that one is worse than the other. Merely pointed out that there is more than one provocateur in action around the globe. A country's foreign policy isn't the issue some people might have with certain posters hell bent obssessed on 'the West'. It's the convenient myopism. The subjective criticism. Slamming one country for one thing and excusing another. Calling one media outlet such as the BBC, for example, as "biased" and trying to convey that Russia Today is nothing more than an alternative view or linking other similarly tilted propaganda outlets' content.

That's not even beginning to discuss those who consider themselves experts yet have nothing behind it except cherry-picked google or wikipedia results. Not one jot of education or experience on any of the matters be that in media, on the ground or even having been to a particular region. Just second-hand subjective conveniently suited party-lines, retroactively regurgitated when required.

Eggy Baby!

JustinDee wrote: »

No need to. I've never said that one is worse than the other. Merely pointed out that there is more than one provocateur in action around the globe. A country's foreign policy isn't the issue some people might have with certain posters hell bent obssessed on 'the West'. It's the convenient myopism. The subjective criticism. Slamming one country for one thing and excusing another. Calling one media outlet such as the BBC, for example, as "biased" and trying to convey that Russia Today is nothing more than an alternative view or linking other similarly tilted propaganda outlets' content.

That's not even beginning to discuss those who consider themselves experts yet have nothing behind it except cherry-picked google or wikipedia results. Not one jot of education or experience on any of the matters be that in media, on the ground or even having been to a particular region. Just second-hand subjective conveniently suited party-lines, retroactively regurgitated when required.

So when we are criticising one party, we are meant to criticise all parties?

Nobody is excusing Russia or China's actions here, just focusing on the actions (or lack of actions in this case) of the USA. Its subjective criticism because the thread was created as subjective criticism of US foreign policy.

The bolded quote is so obvious that I'm barely going to address it. You point out every time the USA or NATO is criticised that why don't we criticise Russia/China etc. because they are evil/bad/notgood also. This is contrary to a focused discussion. Although I do agree that threads are often hijacked by people who wish to justify actions by saying "the west does it" as was seen in my thread about the Russian internet legislation.

With regard to the italicised quote, people are inherently biased. My posts contain bias, your posts contain bias and cyberhog's contain bias. Everyone here is trying to seduce people to their point of view, or present evidence which proves their standpoint. The same can be said for media outlets. The BBC tries to further a POV as does RT.

With regard to the underlined quote, I know you have an academic chip on your shoulder about what you call "cherry picking" sources. Do you expect people to know all sources off by heart in real-time or something? Nobody is calling themselves an expert here, just presenting evidence as people would in a logical debate. Instead of arguing your point, you attack how people use sources (or the reliability of the sources themselves). The point is, sources like the BBC etc. wouldn't put out these kinds of stories in a million years, guess why? They are inherently biased. RT put out their own biased POV too, thats plain to see. People quote sources for information, not because they agree with the sources.

As for Wikipedia, I know you quiver with holy academic fury whenever you see a single quote from that site (even with such obvious pieces of information such as "Tartus is a Soviet era military base...") but I don't really care. If it serves to illustrate the point then grand.

As for the "west", I love the way people keep generalising this. All criticism at the "west" is actually aimed at the foreign policy of NATO, the USA or a select few EU states (like the UK). So enough with the "anti-west" stuff.

JustinDee

Eggy Baby! wrote: »

So when we are criticising one party, we are meant to criticise all parties?

Try broadening your criticisms if realpolitik bothers you this much. All you ever post about is the same party . . . ad nauseum.

Eggy Baby! wrote: »

Nobody is excusing Russia or China's actions here, just focusing on the actions (or lack of actions in this case) of the USA. Its subjective criticism because the thread was created as subjective criticism of US foreign policy

Plenty of apologetics before such as attempts to legitamise Russia Today and even Press TV as fair dinkum media outlets.

Eggy Baby! wrote: »

The bolded quote is so obvious that I'm barely going to address it. You point out every time the USA or NATO is criticised that why don't we criticise Russia/China etc. because they are evil/bad/notgood also. This is contrary to a focused discussion. Although I do agree that threads are often hijacked by people who wish to justify actions by saying "the west does it" as was seen in my thread about the Russian internet legislation

Tunnel vision posting needs a reminder that there is no singlular provocateur worse than the other at the very top level of the scale, despite insistance that the US, for example, is the "worst" blah blah . . .

Eggy Baby! wrote: »

With regard to the italicised quote, people are inherently biased. My posts contain bias, your posts contain bias and cyberhog's contain bias. Everyone here is trying to seduce people to their point of view, or present evidence which proves their standpoint. The same can be said for media outlets. The BBC tries to further a POV as does RT

Again, you compare the BBC, a non-government media outlet with Russia Today, a government-owned propagndic megaphone. You don't seem to the flaw in these comparisons.

Eggy Baby! wrote: »

With regard to the underlined quote, I know you have an academic chip on your shoulder about what you call "cherry picking" sources. Do you expect people to know all sources off by heart in real-time or something?

I don't have a chip on anything here. This is just a forum on the web. Its easy to pick out folk who pretend that they knew on a matter already. Thats where the cherry-picking comes into it. The retroactive element makes it even funnier.

Eggy Baby! wrote: »

Nobody is calling themselves an expert here, just presenting evidence as people would in a logical debate.

Eggy Baby! wrote: »

Instead of arguing your point, you attack how people use sources (or the reliability of the sources themselves). The point is, sources like the BBC etc. wouldn't put out these kinds of stories in a million years, guess why? They are inherently biased. RT put out their own biased POV too, thats plain to see. People quote sources for information, not because they agree with the sources

Really? Apply subjectivity driven by convenient selection and you'll be nearer the crux of the matter. It isn't me who focuses on the other poster as you have done on numerous occasions.

Eggy Baby! wrote: »

As for he "west", I love the way people keep generalising this. All criticism at the "west" is actually aimed at the foreign policy of NATO, the USA or a select few EU states (like the UK). So enough with the "anti-west" stuff.

Again, you miss the problem with this pro-agendaic line. If a poster keeps posting threads criticising "the West" for issues that are easily found elsewhere, then that can only mean one thing ie. monocular point of view.
Sorry you don't agree but don't expect not to be pulled up on yet another post about "the big bad west" as it gets posted by the usual folk.

Eggy Baby!

I don't even know why you just can't admit that your argument has no purpose. If we criticised Russia or China you would not tell us to criticise the USA too. All I see here is a deluded pseudo intellectual "diatribe" as you might say.

Again, you compare the BBC, a non-government media outlet with Russia Today, a government-owned propagndic megaphone. You don't seem to the flaw in these comparisons.

I'm guessing you hate RT so much because it disagrees with you. I'm not comparing RT with the BBC. What I said was is that all news stations have a bias.

And where did I attempt to legitimise Press TV?

It's funny how a guy can type so much and yet say so little.

I'll probably not reply to your argument any longer, not because I have been "defeated" but because reading your replies gives me a headache.