Could you elaborate? I feel like I’ve put forth strong evidence of Amnesty International often being sharply critical of Western powers (or Western-back parties), and then been met with absolutely nothing in the way of actual evidence of this supposed justice theater.
The person who wrote that up failed to do even the scantest amount of research to make sure their claims were right. They accusations that Amnesty International approved of bombings in Libya doesn’t jive with their report on NATO bombings of civilians.
And they’re claiming that “Syria” was fighting the United States and NATO. While that’s some lovely anti-imperialist framing, the truth was far more nuanced: Assad brutally suppressed protestors, and that spiraled out of control into a full fledged civil war. This wasn’t some CIA-backed coup from the 1980’s. This was a brutal dictator who started a civil war. This wasn’t just a western thing, either. Syria has been expelled from the Arab League. So yes, Amnesty International was going to be sharply critical of Assad. But they’ve also had plenty of criticism for other actors in the Syrian civil war, including the US.
Overall, that’s just a poorly researched article. They created a cherrypicked, one-sided narrative without researching whether it was an accurate portrayal of Amnesty International or HRW. That’s why I labeled it as lacking real evidence.
Removed by mod
Could you elaborate? I feel like I’ve put forth strong evidence of Amnesty International often being sharply critical of Western powers (or Western-back parties), and then been met with absolutely nothing in the way of actual evidence of this supposed justice theater.
Removed by mod
The person who wrote that up failed to do even the scantest amount of research to make sure their claims were right. They accusations that Amnesty International approved of bombings in Libya doesn’t jive with their report on NATO bombings of civilians.
And they’re claiming that “Syria” was fighting the United States and NATO. While that’s some lovely anti-imperialist framing, the truth was far more nuanced: Assad brutally suppressed protestors, and that spiraled out of control into a full fledged civil war. This wasn’t some CIA-backed coup from the 1980’s. This was a brutal dictator who started a civil war. This wasn’t just a western thing, either. Syria has been expelled from the Arab League. So yes, Amnesty International was going to be sharply critical of Assad. But they’ve also had plenty of criticism for other actors in the Syrian civil war, including the US.
Overall, that’s just a poorly researched article. They created a cherrypicked, one-sided narrative without researching whether it was an accurate portrayal of Amnesty International or HRW. That’s why I labeled it as lacking real evidence.
Removed by mod