Bahraini activist jailed for tweet against prime minister

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.