Both the UN and AI, are biased...
The UN's appointment of some of the worlds worst human rights violators to the Human Rights Commission, is but the tip of the iceberg. The UN's fascination with Islam and its protection and perpetuation is but the most troubling. The UN is no longer an unbiased entity. As the bodies mounted in the Sudan they past no resolutions against this vile act. All the while, with far fewer bodies to count, it past 22 resolutions against Israel. How can anyone legitimize this bias. At worst, they would be supporting the Nazism that still permeates the Middle East. At best, they are a complete moron.
As for AI, anyone that today, still believes that AI is unbiased and a reliable source for reports on human rights, is a moron, period. AI has been shown to use spotty investigation models, speculative reports and eyewitness accounts. They have been shown to filter who they will accept accounts from, ie; hand picking witnesses for best impact. They have been proven to use photo evidence that was fake, doctored or at best in some cases, knowingly suspect.
Here is but one article.
There are literally hundreds of articles available, some sketchy, but most with sources, examples and far more traceable, verifiable and transparent claims then AI or the UN can muster for their flawed reports.
Link
The UN's appointment of some of the worlds worst human rights violators to the Human Rights Commission, is but the tip of the iceberg. The UN's fascination with Islam and its protection and perpetuation is but the most troubling. The UN is no longer an unbiased entity. As the bodies mounted in the Sudan they past no resolutions against this vile act. All the while, with far fewer bodies to count, it past 22 resolutions against Israel. How can anyone legitimize this bias. At worst, they would be supporting the Nazism that still permeates the Middle East. At best, they are a complete moron.
As for AI, anyone that today, still believes that AI is unbiased and a reliable source for reports on human rights, is a moron, period. AI has been shown to use spotty investigation models, speculative reports and eyewitness accounts. They have been shown to filter who they will accept accounts from, ie; hand picking witnesses for best impact. They have been proven to use photo evidence that was fake, doctored or at best in some cases, knowingly suspect.
Here is but one article.
There are literally hundreds of articles available, some sketchy, but most with sources, examples and far more traceable, verifiable and transparent claims then AI or the UN can muster for their flawed reports.
These and many other details published in NGO Monitor's report on Amnesty provide further evidence that this powerful NGO has lost its way, and is no longer a "respectable" or credible human rights organization.
These fundamental defects extend beyond the Middle East. Researchers from a Bogota-based conflict think tank, the University of London and the Conflict Analysis Resource Center, reached similar conclusions about reports on the conflict in Colombia.
In their report, "The Work of Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch: Evidence from Colombia," the authors state that both groups follow a "non-systematic approach that includes opaque sourcing and frequent changes in the objects they measure." In other words, these reports are biased and lack credibility.
Moreover, they note the "failure to specify sources, unclear definitions, an erratic reporting template and a distorted portrayal of conflict dynamics" among the methodological problems with Amnesty International's publications, adding to evidence of "bias against the government relative to the guerrillas."
These problems are compounded by the absence of transparency and any system of checks and balances among these powerful political actors. In contrast to the democratic governments that Amnesty officials frequently denounce and condemn, including Israel, NGOs are not subject to independent accountability.
Link
Last edited: