>>mdhb+(OP)
Relevant:

> Myanmar: Facebook’s systems promoted violence against Rohingya

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/09/myanmar-faceb...

>>mdhb+(OP)
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.

>>meepmo+cJ
Amnesty, the Peta for humans?

>>meepmo+cJ
Report in question: https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/08/ukraine-ukrai...

>>meepmo+cJ
What specifically do you dislike in the report?

>>George+tg1
For me it was very clear to me what they didn't like in the report from their comment. Not to you?

>>iancmc+jt1
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?

>>George+tg1
Apparently, even folks within Amnesty questioned the motivations of the report.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/aug/04/ukraine-civili...

> 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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Amnesty_Internati...

>>iancmc+jt1
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.

>>barbaz+Hp
interesting, another British Mandate that was dissolved in 1948

if only they were good clients for our defense contractors, then we might have been peer pressured to make a statement of some sort

too poor so no statements

>>George+tg1
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.

>>yieldc+V22
Could you clarify who the groups are you refer to here? ‘Our’ and ‘We’ are used and I don’t follow sorry. Apologies if this is obvious.

>>lostlo+Xc2
"Our" and "We" refer to US citizens that have no heritage to the affected region, in this context