I entirely lost any trust in Amnesty last year when they published a report criticizing the Ukrainian military for fighting in urban areas during the current war, calling it a human rights violation.
For me it's quite simple. It's factually true, but missing very important context and ignorant to how it will be misused by the aggressor in the conflict. Many people, including in Amnesty itself, were extremely critical of the report when it first came out.
I don't know if they believe that the report is factually incorrect, that it omits important information, or that it draws incorrect moral conclusions from correct empirical premises.
Do they a) Not think that such actions are not a human rights violation; or b) think such a conclusion should not have been reached about Ukraine, given its underdog/victim position in that war?
Or, less likely based on the comment, but still possible, c) they don't think such actions occurred?
> However, the head of Amnesty Ukraine’s office, Oksana Pokalchuk, wrote on Facebook that her operation disagreed with the report. She said they were cut out of the pre-publication process when they complained that the report was based on incomplete evidence compiled by foreign colleagues.
> “Our team’s arguments about the inadmissibility and incompleteness of such material were not taken into account,” wrote Pokalchuk. “The representatives of the Ukrainian office did everything they could to prevent this material from being published.”
Amnesty's Ukraine director resigned shortly thereafter. The Wikipedia article goes into greater detail and it's scathing.
Can you try to make your point without the sarcasm? What are you trying to say about the linked document?
There seems to be pretty clear evidence that facebook stoked the flames of racial / ethnic violence, I'd like to hear your thoughts on this without the veneer of irony to keep you safe.
> Myanmar: Facebook’s systems promoted violence against Rohingya
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/09/myanmar-faceb...