• Tomorrow_Farewell@lemmy.ml
    53·
    2 days ago

    Maybe not invade a neighboring country yourself, and then keep investing material and manpower after the invasion has stalled for no discernible gain.

    You said what they supposedly shouldn’t do (which would mean that Iran shouldn’t have struck NATO puppets in its vicinity that house NATO bases and equipment, by the way). You did not say what they should do.

    Also the implication that Russia is supposedly not winning when it has been advancing is rather silly.

    What the UN conclude was that while there are reeducation camps and systemic discrimination, there is not sufficient evidence to say its a genocide. Which is like “We can prove that A killed B, but we can’t prove that it’s murder”.

    Haha. What you are saying is actually “I can’t prove that A killed B, but A definitely murdered B!”.
    Do you even know what a genocide is?

    Funnily enough, it’s only ever the deniers who bring up this guy.

    So far, the only source the proponents bring.

    That’s a quite deliberate misconstruction of the facts. Amnesty International initially promoted the story

    “You are wrong to say that Amnesty promoted the atrocity propaganda. Amnesty did promote the atrocity propaganda…”

    Also,

    There’s no evidence of malpractice on their part.

    Amnesty International promoted the story

    • Saledovil@sh.itjust.works
      33·
      2 days ago

      You did not say what they should do.

      Doing nothing would have worked out much better for them.

      Also the implication that Russia is supposedly not winning when it has been advancing is rather silly.

      Thing being, Russia hasn’t been advancing.

      Haha. What you are saying is actually “I can’t prove that A killed B, but A definitely murdered B!”. Do you even know what a genocide is?

      Maybe re-read my post. That being said, genocide is a deliberate effort to destroy a national, racial, cultural or ethnic group entirely or in part. The crimes against humanity committed by the Chinese government against the Uyghurs constitute such an effort. The UN might disagree, because they are slaves to capital, and capital would like to keep trading with China.

      So far, the only source the proponents bring.

      It’s not.

      Malpractice would be if Amnesty International had kept promoting the testimony after evidence had failed to come to light. You’d have to show that they acted maliciously and/or recklessly, which they didn’t.

      Also, your argument for why Amnesty shouldn’t be trusted is because they fell for a fabricated testimony 35 years ago. If that’s all you have, then it’s actually a glowing endorsement of them.