As a Bangladeshi who came to know this son after coming here in US, perhaps I can provide some context.
The original post was about a witness, a Hindu witness, who refused to testify against the Islamist guy (saydee) government is after. His testimony was critical, Sayedee was charged with murdering his brother, but he kept refusing. You know how persuasive our govt can be- he even had to flee to India. But he never changed his position that in this particular case, Sayedee wasn't involved. It's an interesting post, but not enough to change the negative view an average Bangladeshi liberal have about Sayede.
What outraged us was what happened afterwards. The govt was a quite a bit tensed after Sayedee's death recently. There was lots of people coming out to praise this guy. Awami league had to sack hundreds of its own party members, particularly from its student wing, for their sympathetic posts. Rahman was unfortunate in that his post became perhaps the most viral one among so many.
Many members of the ruling party have been pretty open about the fact that they needed to make an example of out of him. Particularly egregious is the timing of her arrest, and the lazy excuse they came up with- this 60 yr old flail woman was a islamic terrorist planning to overthrow the government. It's a charge we've heard so many times over the years- the exactly same words.
Actually it's a genius charge. They know it's going to silence lots of potential western criticism by tying it to Islamic terrorism. And by being so transparently bogus to us, it sends the message govt intended to send all along- shut up or you'll be next.
This is highlighted in the west depending on where the ruling goverment is with or against the west. Relatives of people abroad and out of reach are targeted. Currently 100s of people in Pakistan are in jail or custody as ransom for their outspoken relatives abroad.
South Korea and the KCIA is a great example of this, where the KCIA was doing all kinds of wild stuff to maintain a West-approved military dictatorship. And of course the KCIA was created by and modeled after the US CIA.
[1]
> In July 1973 Kim Dae Jung spoke at [the University of Washington], in a classroom with no more than fifteen people present. A month later he was kidnapped in Tokyo by KCIA agents and nearly murdered. Seven years later when he was indicted for "treason," his criticism of the Park government at the University of Washington was included in the indictment, drawn from a tape of his remarks that one of the fifteen people had given to the KCIA.
[2]
> In mid-1973, amidst charges of KCIA harassment of Lee Jai-hyun, a Korean Embassy officer who refused to be reassigned to Korea, I took the initiative to meet with the FBI and called for an investigation of the KCIA in the U.S. After exploratory meetings, such an investigation began, but for reasons I have never quite understood, it did not get off the ground. When it finally petered out several months later, it had produced little more than mere confirmation of the basic information I had submitted initially. I concluded that the FBI, or those higher in authority, had no inclination to follow through on an investigation that could wind up embarrassing an ally.
was an example of that - South Korea was formerly well known as an example of a US supported autocratic regime, but the fact that your examples are all from the 70s is telling and I do not think this is ongoing in SK
There is a geopolitics angle to this. US has been making noise about upcoming election in Bangladesh being "free and fair". US has even announced some visa policy to promote "democratic elections" in Bangladesh. US has been pursuing a military base in Bangladesh. The current government has been resisting the pressure. According to a report, India has conveyed to US its concerns about what it perceives as US interference in Bangladesh elections.
Here is a reference. The Intercept brought to light US pressure to remove Imran Khan as democratically elected Prime Minister recently, and the way the ruling class has responded is unnerving.
When they introduced extraterritorial jurisdiction for blasphemy for saying anything positive about Ahmadiyyas where was Pakistan populace complaining then? All this stuff was tried out on them first and no one cared because they were “wajib-ul-qatl”. I wasn’t born in Pak and haven’t even been there in a decade and I could have FIR filed against me for saying something on Facebook without setting foot in Pakistan.
Now this routine has been extended to any PTI supporter overseas criticizing what happened to Imran.
Many people living in these countries, know what's going on. They silently support the violent levels of censorship because they think our government is just as bad and often hypocritical (even though the US is objectively better in most reasonable cases)
IMO, the disagreement between the two political parties doesn't just cause domestic polarization, it also delays foreign progress towards democracy. People get jaded internationally from it. I'm hoping we can either have more parties or just help the two parties make up.
I don’t think that’s necessarily true. Democracy follows economic development, of the other way around. America and European countries all became more democratic after they became rich. Some autocratic governments can hinder economic development. Others, like in China and now Bangladesh, can be pretty competent about it.
Democracy _may_ follow economic development. Economic development (as in move past developing country phase) has essentially never followed early democratic development. Poor autocrats has a chance of becoming rich autocratic or rich democratic societies. Poor democratic societies largely stays poor, with historic consistency bordering on certainty. Best thing developing countries can wish for is competent autocrat and favourable geopolitical conditions.
Does it? By economic development do you mean relative to other countries or in absolute terms? The US was pretty democratic way before we were anywhere close to rich my 2023 standards.
This is why I prefer anonymity for my online activities. You never know when or how your online posts will be used against you. Maybe everything I do now is appropriate and "moral" but in 20 years they would not and some nobody would grab those and slander me. You can never be sure.
Back to the article, I guess one good thing coming out of this is that the guy can apply for political asylum green card now...
Makes sense. I can imagine future AI can perform unprecedented detectice work to connect the dots also between anonymous social activity on the internet.
> This is why I prefer anonymity for my online activities.
Thats funny because this is why I think I’m starting to prefer using my real identity.
When you use your real identity you behave in a way that you will stand behind. Anonymity goads you into acting in a way that you might feel embarrassed about or regret. And given that you are a real person posting online, there is always a chance you lose anonymity.
It’s complicated though. Anonymity to bypass authoritarianism is obviously good. More ideally speeking, we just have stronger free speech values across society so people don’t feel like they need to hide and discourse, think, etc in secrecy.
Neither did I. I meant to say that such acts have little to no positive effect in dysfunctional systems. After all, every country has activists.
Gandhi's nonviolent resistance moved the British but did not persuade Hitler, though he tried.
Anyway, these are all good things. I don't mean to dissuade well-meaning activists. Just pointing out that you need to understand the environment you are operating in instead of blindly emulating others.
I think you could say that the US (at least in the South) had a dysfunctional justice system. How many people were beaten or murdered, often by the police, with no consequence or without even a serious investigation? Yet their activism did bring change.
I disagree, because the American justice system quickly corrected itself. I think the bar is not having an unblemished record, but being responsive. When the local cops got out of line JFK and LBJ spoke out against it. The DoJ dispatched the feds and created the Civil Rights Division. Some bad cops were not enough to stymie the civil rights movement. Dysfunctional system just don't make progress due to corruption, concentration of power, etc. Of course there are ongoing racism issues but I am not sure it indicates a systemic flaw.
that's easy to say when it's the US and you'll probably stay in jail a month or two at most, as opposed to having a loved one thrown in prison, tortured, and then executed because of some political statements that you made
>>When you use your real identity you behave in a way that you will stand behind.
5 minutes spent on any Facebook comments thread proves this to be completely false - people are vile, disgusting, racist even when their real names are attached to what they are saying.
> When you use your real identity you behave in a way that you will stand behind. Anonymity goads you into acting in a way that you might feel embarrassed about or regret.
People use/present different 'selves' to different people all the time, even without using pseudonymous identities. It's a core part of navigating life. Online pseudonymous handles help facilitate more separation between contexts but it doesn't (necessarily) mean people change their integrity (I certainly don't).
There's a useful critique[1] of Mark Zuckerberg's 2010 quote that proclaimed there should only be a single identity for everyone. An excerpt that summarizes the piece:
> Individuals are constantly managing and restricting flows of information based on the context they are in, switching between identities and persona. I present myself differently when I’m lecturing in the classroom compared to when I’m have a beer with friends [...] This is how we navigate the multiple and increasingly complex spheres of our lives. It is not that you pretend to be someone that you are not; rather, you turn the volume up on some aspects of your identity, and tone down others, all based on the particular context you find yourself.
Also this cross-linked piece[2] by a teacher which brings up similar points.
I think we need places of both. There should be places that are facilities anonymous interactions. And others that require a real identity.
This allows for more extreme and less politically favorable ideas to be explored in anonymity while providing a public place that moves slower and takes longer for ideas that are less favorable to become more favorable.
We should start with congress. All votes yes or no must be attached to a name. No more of this yay or nay bs.
In the US, many (I think most, now) votes are just voice vote. This makes sense when many votes are simple procedures with overwhelming support.
IIRC, any senator can force a roll call on a vote. I think the House has a similar rule but requires a minimum number of House members to support the motion.
Sure, we could log all these votes. But I think most people make their senate voting decisions on different criteria, or at least I do. Like where they stand on issues and how they voted on bills, or legislation they submitted.
Full anonymity is indeed cancer. But pseudonymity and what I call “train seat conversation” are still different from full disclosure. E.g. I’ve discussed many things on trains and on forums that I wouldn’t discuss elsewhere. And it wasn’t any sort of -ism or matginal topic, just something that opens up a little more about you than your official image at some circle does. Another example is my HN account. It is what I call “absolutely normal”, but tbh I’m a little nervous about showing it to someone I know, because it feels like sharing a diary, even if it isn’t one. The idea that you can just scroll through my written thoughts is very uncomfortable (but strangely okay if HN fellas do it). For that reason I avoid logging in or visiting this site like at work or near people I know.
I’m not disagreeing, just had something to add, basically unrelated to the context.
>When you use your real identity you behave in a way that you will stand behind. Anonymity goads you into acting in a way that you might feel embarrassed about or regret.
And I'm sure he has no regrets regarding his mother's arrest.
This has never been a good strategy vs "evil" states or in resistance like circumstances, which as the poster said could happen unexpectedly in ways never imagined and quickly.
Yet it is a harbinger of total information awareness by any and all authorities in the world. Governments obviously at the national level, but also regional powers, or even local governments (as the saying goes all politics is local) will be able to filter and discriminate against people based on their views.
And then, there are the multinational corporations, the ultra elite, leaders like Putin and MBS that will kill someone out of whim, etc.
As political institutions degrade, as in they become tools of the rich and influential rather than enforce human and constitutional rights and the fundamental rule of law, the world will become dangerous.
> In his Facebook post, Rahman, 30, questioned the 2013 trial and sentencing of Islamic leader Delwar Hossain Sayedee and the disappearance of a key witness for his defense. Sayedee was charged with rape, murder and the persecution of Hindus during the Bangladesh Liberation War in 1971.
I’m NOT justifying anything, but the story seems an opinion piece, or rather one side, purely based on the guys version. We don’t know why the mom was arrested.
Son seems like an Islamist or at least someone who sympathizes with them (see above). So, it is possible that his mother was involved in the protests or at least was arrested for reasons other than simply the son’s post.
That seems like a massive leap and the timing unlikely. I am sympathizing with this poster, does that make it likely that my mother is involved in something that should get her arrested in Bangladesh?
Many posters, including perhaps yourself, are giving the son & mother a benefit of the doubt. My comment above was about giving the other party an equal benefit of the doubt.
In end, no one except the involved parties know the truth. I certainly don’t.
Not sure why you’re bringing in hindutva to the discussion.
> Many posters, including perhaps yourself, are giving the son & mother a benefit of the doubt
This is the basis of fair criminal trials. Also, Bangladesh seems to have a terrible human rights record [1]. So the presumption of innocence for the mother is strengthened absent evidence of a crime (which, in a competent court system, should be public record).
Incredible that pointing out the sympathies of the poster lies with the party responsible for Hindu genocide during the 1971 Bangladesh liberation war makes it Hindutva.
Does pointing out that someone's sympathies lies with banned pro-Hitler speech calling for the Holocaust in Germany makes one a Zionist?
Let's leave aside why being a Hindutva or Zionist is wrong.
Bangladeshi politics still has the scars of their Independence War and the subsequent coups as the families leading both the Awami Party (the ruling party) and the Nationalist Party (the current opposition but formerly in power) have been in a violent struggle with each other since the 80s (eg. The current president Sheikh Hasina literally saw her father shot by the General who's wife is leading the BNP).
This rivalry has been further inflamed by the power struggle between China and India, as the BNP leans closer to China+Pakistan and the BAP leans closer to India. This has incentivized toxic political behavior - check out Nepal for another buffer zone seeing similarly dysfunctional politics.
Over the past few years, BNP multiple activists have been shot and arrested, and the party was essentially banned a couple years ago, and the US has starting placing limited sanctions against the BAP, though I doubt they would have much impact as UAE+KSA+India+Thailand+Singapore haven't enforced sanctions.
Also, from an ideology standpoint (though ideology doesn't really matter in Asian politics), BAP was traditionally center-left and Secular leaning while BNP was traditionally center-right and also Islamist leaning because the pro-Pakistan Islamist party Jamaat-e-Islami was banned in 2013 and it's activists joined the BNP.
The politics of violence was really inflamed from the early 2010s when the founders of the JeI was executed after being found guilty of murders, rapes, and torture of Bangladeshi nationalists and Hindus during the Bangladeshi War of Independence, which then hardened the ideological battle lines. This lead to massive riots in retaliation, which had a direct impact on governance in Bangladesh and even India, as the same ethnicities live across the border.
On top of that, the Rohingya refugee crisis has destabilized Eastern Bangladesh as there aren't enough jobs or ability to provide aid, causing some Rohingya to turn to the Drug Trade as Myanmar is a major Opium and Meth (ever heard of Yaba in Thailand?) manufacturing region.
This analysis is accurate, but as someone whose family left the country under General Ershad, I think it misses the forest for the trees. Sheikh Hasina's government, while repressive, is also extremely popular. Her tack to neoliberalism has been enormously successful for the country, and most Bangladeshis do not want to change course. Her approval rating in multiple polls is 70-80%: https://www.dhakatribune.com/opinion/op-ed/322206/why-sheikh.... She has the popular mandate.
But in a country with the kind of history Bangladesh has had, minority movements can destabilize the government and overrule the will of the majority. It's hard to have free-wheeling political discourse in a country where people don't have a long history of democracy and aren't above using bombs and assassinations in the political process. (Last time I left the country, I did so under armed guard during a hartal.) Every fledgling democracy in Asia has gone through an authoritarian stage while the country developed and solidified its institutions. Good take from Charlie Munger on this: https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZT8YND31g/. I don't think it's even limited to Asia. The U.S. Congress passed the Alien and Sedition Acts in 1798.
The most important thing, I think, is that America should leave Bangladesh the fuck alone, which it has not been doing: https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/08/03/washington-bangladesh-d.... The United States clearly has no idea how to build democracy in the developing world. I'm scared to see this article in the New York Times, and what it might mean for what the neocons have in store for the country.
You won’t find anyone who agrees with that more than me, except maybe my mom. My point is simply that the country seems to have found a groove as of late. Any instability could be disastrous at this point. And I just hope America doesn’t fuck it up over Ukraine.
If I were you I would have a read to the books of Naomi Klein, in order to understand how deeply US has ruined everything it touched, from killing of political thinkers who were considered subversive, to funding armies and coups, to closing students for decades in wooden boxes of 1m2.
I understand people would think that their own population is capable of doing stuff, it's not. Having read about the history of US, I'd say that the world would be a better place without it, and would think twice before letting it off the hook with just some sarcasm, I know US it's very good at PR when it comes to funding death around the world, but there are writers who have told us what it actually is
The US has no interest in undermining the BAP, do you think they rather the Islamists get in power? Criticising and sanctioning brutal repression, and advocating democratic standards won’t undermine the BAP. As pointed out up thread, they’re very popular anyway.
So one reading of the US actions is just to try and push the BAP into cooling down the political temperature, and not exploit their dominant position so much that it incites further violent backlashes.
I agree with you that the US probably doesn’t have an interest in undermining BAP, but cmon now there is ample precedent for US supporting Islamists and other unsavory groups. e.g Afghanistan, Lat Am and in situations like that US interests take precedence over the future of the said state or free and fair elections.
That presupposes that Americans are just catastrophically bad at recognizing what’s in their self interest—because so much of it’s foreign policy is bad for America—which seems like an unreasonable assumption.
Yep! It's one example of multiple key projects in Bangladesh run by Indian corporations (a major reason why India supports Sheikh Hasina and the BAP), though to be fair it's not only Indian corporations.
QatarGas and Gazprom are both the primary partners with PetroBangla, the Padma Bridge (one of Bangladesh's most critical logistics arteries) was constructed by Chinese companies using Chinese originated loans, and the expressway projects in Bangladesh are being built and managed by a major Thai construction company with close links to the Thai govt.
To be fair, American companies don't really touched LDCs anymore - they get better RoI in investing within North America.
Countries like Japan, South Korea, UAE, Qatar, KSA, Türkiye, China, India, Thailand, Malaysia, and Russia fill the financing gap in LDCs and Developing countries as they have more experience operating and executing in those kinds of environments.
That said, it doesn't seem to be that big a deal then. It would be better for BD to build their own, but Jharkhand's electric grid has always been closely connected with Bangladesh, Nepal, and Bhutan because it's always been an electricity export market due to cheap coal and (before de-industrialization) a large manufacturing base.
I'm going to steer clear from Al Jazeera reporting simply because there is some Gulf rivalry going on there (eg. MBZ of Abu Dhabi has a significant voting share in Adani) because Qatar got frozen out of the Indian market by the UAE and KSA.
I was surprised to see US was in the mix there, any idea what the angle is? That article was really something, good ol democracy delivery lol. Could really be destabilizing as always.
Any how I’d like to read more on U.S position, this was new to me. Any recs?
The US is mad that Bangladesh and India are continuing to work with Russia instead of supporting the US and Ukraine: https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/01/05/bangladesh-us-russia-ba.... Bangladesh is doing so because it has close economic ties to Russia and China.
> US is mad that Bangladesh and India are continuing to work with Russia
At least with India, the response is annoyed, not mad. Washington wants New Delhi to counter Beijing more than it cares about Russia, especially since Putin’s own goals in Ukraine. In a cynical calculation, Indian industry building up—even on Russian oil—is a net gain. (America and India are also fundamentally aligned on a lot of values, both good and bad.)
Bangladesh doesn’t have similar military potential, so the calculation is less clear. But given its size, its primary value is in respect of its effrct on India, so the same logic (with a bias towards stability at all costs) ports.
> Sheikh Hasina's government, while repressive, is also extremely popular. Her tack to neoliberalism has been enormously successful for the country, and most Bangladeshis do not want to change course. Her approval rating in multiple polls is 70-80%: https://www.dhakatribune.com/opinion/op-ed/322206/why-sheikh.... She has the popular mandate.
I don't know how connected you are with Bangladeshi politics right now, but poll-hacking through extreme repression is the first trick Sheikh Hasina/her party Awami League mastered. I am not surprised to see such a high approval rating, rather, I'm surprised to see 30% people signal disapproval in an environment with extreme political speech suppression. If you doubt that, read the story we're discussing under again. This is a government that's been jailing people without trial for their Facebook posts.
If you want to know some indication of the true feeling of the people, go check out the Facebook posts of anything related to the ruling party, and check the ratio of "haha" reacts to likes or hearts. Generally, that's 4:1 in my experience.
That polling is conducted by US organizations. I have quite a bit of family left in Bangladesh, and my dad is very political (he was a student activist during independence). I don’t think I know anybody who supports the BNP, including folks who are MAGA when it comes to American politics. But I come from Dhaka so maybe I live in a bubble, who knows.
My Bangladeshi immigrant boss (from Dhaka) in Portland a decade ago supported the BNP and was pretty vocal about it and about how pre-1971 Pakistan was a great country.
Then again, he also complained about dressing up on Diwali maybe turning his daughter Hindu so IDK
Edit: AFAIK (edited because I’m rate-limited for some reason) he did support independence or was at least reconciled to it but was nostalgic for the unified country.
I have seen people claiming Western polls are wrong across al sorts of spheres for decades and almost always I find that the person claiming the polls are wrong has some political motive and the polls are later vindicated with a move to free, fair, monitored elections on the same questions.
Western polls are pretty accurate. Modi is popular, Hasina is popular, Erdogan is popular, Crimeans in 2014 wanted to join Russia... all of these things are likely true.
Erdogan is not that popular. The election was very close and went to a runoff. And that's after the political speech repression that happens on Twitter and Wikipedia bans.
> This is a government that's been jailing people without trial for their Facebook posts.
In this specific case, the woman was likely arrested because of her son's post, which is obviously worse.
But the rest is common even in so-called "liberal democracies": folks are jailed after arrest for months or years before trial, and folks are arrested and jailed for "hate speech" and "causing offense" via online posts -- or the government just creates a pretext for arrest, but it was really because of the person's legal speech.
So, yes, Bangladesh is worse, but the Good Guys™ are increasingly authoritarian. The gap isn't as large as most folks think.
As person who was born with Russian passport and US Citizen, I am in the similar situation. Two of my relatives were questioned about my position about the war in Ukraine, because of my statements on Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter.
It did not go as bad, as my relatives got detained. But unfortunately everything you say online, the government can read and use against you or your family.
So it's good to be arrested for an opinion? Is it good that someone else is arrested for his opinion? If an opinion is a crime, would it be possible to ask for extradition? I don't see the value of your post, what are you trying to say?
If people were actually arrested for 'wrongthink', they could at least be given due process and subject to clearly defined penalties.
That might be a step up from the mob justice currently doled out to people with bad opinions?
It's clear that society no longer values freedom of speech, so maybe we should consider formalising the punishment for expressing wrongthink, so at least there's rules that can be applied fairly and consistently?
I am pointing to the fact that why the persons mother was arrested. It was because he wrote a post in favour of a convicted war criminal. I have said nothing out of the subject being discussed here.
I don't think companies have to employ (or keep people employed) that harbor abhorrent views... problem is the "witch hunt" types that will make it their mission to get you fired over nothing.
> Unless your parents are doing the same thing it just won’t happen in the US, officially or unofficially.
While it probably won’t extend to firing, people experience significant social consequence for behavior of family members in the US (the exception seems to be “not if you aren’t also doing the same thing your family member is targeted for” but “not if you fully join in the imposition of social consequences on your family member”.)
Do you have any examples of parents bearing burdensome official or unofficial consequences of something their child did where they weren't doing the same thing themselves?
'Lu then bluntly raises the issue of a no-confidence vote: “I think if the no-confidence vote against the Prime Minister succeeds, all will be forgiven in Washington because the Russia visit is being looked at as a decision by the Prime Minister,” Lu said, according to the document. “Otherwise,” he continued, “I think it will be tough going ahead.”
Lu warned that if the situation wasn’t resolved, Pakistan would be marginalized by its Western allies. “I cannot tell how this will be seen by Europe but I suspect their reaction will be similar,” Lu said, adding that Khan could face “isolation” by Europe and the U.S. should he remain in office.
Asked about quotes from Lu in the Pakistani cable, State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller said, “Nothing in these purported comments shows the United States taking a position on who the leader of Pakistan should be.” Miller said he would not comment on private diplomatic discussions.'
Yes, I think it's wholly justified for the American people and their politicians to go "Wow, you guys want to support Russia in this blatantly murderous invasion? Well our people don't look too kindly on that and our relations are going to deteriorate. We do understand this is because of Khan, so if Khan isn't leading the country, it's more acceptable."
It's not regime-change for me to tell another country that their leadership concerns me, I do not support that leadership, and that I would like to trade and make less deals with you. We treat terrible governments like Putin's Russia or The Third Reich the same.
Even the mafia’s threats are less direct than what the US said here. “I think if the vote of no confidence against the Prime Minister succeeds, all will be forgiven in Washington.” And remember that was communicated to the military, which has long interferes with the democratic process in that country, with America’s support.
The fact that you’re willing to condone it just because hating Putin is “the current thing” is wild to me.
At the end of the day people sitting in Pakistan took the final decision. This wasn’t the CIA going in there with guns.
If the position on Ukraine was an inter-agency consultation, all these guys need their heads checked if they were going to throw under the bus a country that sold them tanks and supported them on Kashmir (and there’s not exactly a line of those countries out the door)
The CIA rarely goes anywhere with guns. And this is way worse than drone strikes. Drone strikes kill some people, often terrorists. At least the US has a material self-interest in killing terrorists. Meddling with the internal affairs of a country with 241 million people has much greater consequences.
It's pretty morally dense (to put it politely) to view "hating Putin" as merely "the current thing".
Also, re your initial reply to my comment: it's not like Pakistan had a fully-functioning democratic government and suddenly the Army staged a coup because of American pressure. For many decades now, any civilian leader in Pakistan has occupied the position only so long as the Army at least tolerates them. The military in Pakistan has a range of interests, and it only wants to strengthen ties with the US insofar as it feels that suits its purposes and those of the country more broadly. The Army should not be absolved of its responsibility here, and the US doesn't deserve scorn for pursuing its interests abroad through this kind of strong arm diplomacy. The moral approbation should be saved for things like drone strikes.
> It's pretty morally dense (to put it politely) to view "hating Putin" as merely "the current thing".
It is, and is the result of politics around Trump. A decade ago the idea was a punchline. In 2012, Obama zinged Romney for having a “1980s foreign policy” for saying Russia was a threat. Did that change in 2014 after Russia annexed Crimea? Nope, it was still a punchline: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2014/03/....
Why do we suddenly care about Putin now, when China is still brutally occupying Tibet and rounding up Muslims in camps? Hint: it’s not because anyone can find Ukraine on a map.
> Did that change in 2014 after Russia annexed Crimea? Nope
Completely ignorant of recent history. The US started sanctions on Russia because of that.[0] That was the resounding turn of relations with Russia, for good reason. The bellwether was what they did to Magnitsky, and thus the US Magnitsky Act, in 2012.[1]
And like the other poster:
> It's pretty morally dense (to put it politely) to view "hating Putin" as merely "the current thing".
Yes, morally dense is a very polite way to put your view. Every day, for the past year and a half, Russia has tried to march further and further into Ukrainian territory, in order to annex it, shelling and shooting humans who stand in their way, as they take more land and cities. It is reprehensible to support that, far far more than condoning a diplomat saying they disapprove of Pakistani leadership. Lawyers really do have a reputation as a shite ethical bunch, eh?
I think it's fair to say Obama was wrong and Romney was right. That's the conclusion I thought everyone drew. This framing of like "people didn't care about it then, so they are somehow wrong or disingenuous to care about it now" is bizarre and unwarranted to me. And yes, the fact that Russia put some real effort into messing with an American election is a factor in people's perception of the threat the country poses--as it should be. Ultimately though, the fact is that Russia invaded a country and is killing innocent civilians and animals.
> Why do we suddenly care about Putin now, when China is still brutally occupying Tibet and rounding up Muslims in camps? Hint: it’s not because anyone can find Ukraine on a map.
You can't care about both? I can. News cycles might not, and yes, I think it's largely because Ukrainians are White (at least nowadays) and Tibetans and Uighurs are Asian (on top of which the latter are Muslim). Not to mention the economic reliance on China, which I would say, btw, is a greater threat than Russia for sure.
But this notion that unless people are somehow dedicating the same mental and emotional effort to all oppressed and persecuted people then they shouldn't be devoting such energy to any such people is morally unsound and unrealistic.
But believe me, I think there is a lot of hypocrisy and moral depravity re: Uighurs. You see a lot of random Russians abroad cancelled at events and such as if they are pro-Putin stooges, while Netflix happily produces films based on books by a Chinese author who publicly defends the genocide.
The original post was about a witness, a Hindu witness, who refused to testify against the Islamist guy (saydee) government is after. His testimony was critical, Sayedee was charged with murdering his brother, but he kept refusing. You know how persuasive our govt can be- he even had to flee to India. But he never changed his position that in this particular case, Sayedee wasn't involved. It's an interesting post, but not enough to change the negative view an average Bangladeshi liberal have about Sayede.
What outraged us was what happened afterwards. The govt was a quite a bit tensed after Sayedee's death recently. There was lots of people coming out to praise this guy. Awami league had to sack hundreds of its own party members, particularly from its student wing, for their sympathetic posts. Rahman was unfortunate in that his post became perhaps the most viral one among so many.
Many members of the ruling party have been pretty open about the fact that they needed to make an example of out of him. Particularly egregious is the timing of her arrest, and the lazy excuse they came up with- this 60 yr old flail woman was a islamic terrorist planning to overthrow the government. It's a charge we've heard so many times over the years- the exactly same words.
Actually it's a genius charge. They know it's going to silence lots of potential western criticism by tying it to Islamic terrorism. And by being so transparently bogus to us, it sends the message govt intended to send all along- shut up or you'll be next.