Probably because they're only credible if they address non-partisan issues. In other words, ignoring human rights abuses in countries where such abuses are in the interests of the United States such as Saudi Arabia or (historically) Indonesia in East Timor, or somewhat irrelevant like the Christian atrocities in East Congo rather than where the abuses are committed by an enemy of US interests such as in Libya, Iraq, NK or repression of non-Arabs in Darfur.
They regularly address human rights abuses in Saudi Arabia. Same is true for Israel, Turkey, Egypt, the list goes on ... These are all - and have been historically - big allies of the United States. Furthermore, AI addresses human rights abuses in Guantanamo, which de facto is part of the U.S. Anyone who claims that Amnesty is partisan in favour of the United States has obviously no clue whatsoever of the kind of work AI actually does.
I'm just explaining why mrbriscoe thinks Amnesty International wouldn't be credible by having Noam on, when Noam Chomsky is one of the most frequent cataloguers of human rights abuses outside of organisations dedicated to revealing them. In reality, stopping humans rights abuses is pretty much a left wing philosophy: there's room under the theory of property (Nozick) and population (Malthus) for genocide. So the right wing won't be happy unless NGOs equivocate.
Oh, now I get it... Sorry for the terrible misreading :D
BuQdu 1 month ago
and there goes the Last of Amnesty International's credibility......
mrbriscoe2001 4 months ago
@mrbriscoe2001 Oh! By all means explain why!
RSFO 3 months ago 4
@RSFO
Probably because they're only credible if they address non-partisan issues. In other words, ignoring human rights abuses in countries where such abuses are in the interests of the United States such as Saudi Arabia or (historically) Indonesia in East Timor, or somewhat irrelevant like the Christian atrocities in East Congo rather than where the abuses are committed by an enemy of US interests such as in Libya, Iraq, NK or repression of non-Arabs in Darfur.
gamerunknown 2 months ago
@gamerunknown
They regularly address human rights abuses in Saudi Arabia. Same is true for Israel, Turkey, Egypt, the list goes on ... These are all - and have been historically - big allies of the United States. Furthermore, AI addresses human rights abuses in Guantanamo, which de facto is part of the U.S. Anyone who claims that Amnesty is partisan in favour of the United States has obviously no clue whatsoever of the kind of work AI actually does.
BuQdu 1 month ago
@BuQdu
I'm just explaining why mrbriscoe thinks Amnesty International wouldn't be credible by having Noam on, when Noam Chomsky is one of the most frequent cataloguers of human rights abuses outside of organisations dedicated to revealing them. In reality, stopping humans rights abuses is pretty much a left wing philosophy: there's room under the theory of property (Nozick) and population (Malthus) for genocide. So the right wing won't be happy unless NGOs equivocate.
gamerunknown 1 month ago
excellent post, i love how Noam explains the complicated world so simply and elegantly!
Dymdez 4 months ago
How does he do it ? and nobody else seems to see the TRUE outcome of Humanity like Noam, Keep On Truckin'
k9a2g6 5 months ago