Bahraini activist jailed for tweet against prime minister

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.