You’re attempting to double down on your one Amnesty International point because I’ve proven you wrong on the 100 other unsubstantiated arguments you’ve to put forth and were subsequently unable to defend. I suppose it’s because this is the only one you think you’ve found some leverage on but again, you are wrong.

I’ll ask you again for the third time, show me the part where I accuse Amnesty of bias in favour only of the US.

Let’s say you’ve misinterpreted what I’ve said and then I proceed to clarify it. Is it honest of you or productive to continue arguing on the basis of your original misinterpretation? I’ve asked you many such questions in previous comments pointing out logical inconsistencies such as this and you’ve failed to respond to any of them, so I expect more of the same here.

The fact is, your interpretation of what I’ve said is not what I’ve said does not represent reality.

This is what I’ve said:

>As for Amnesty International and HRW, many of their sources are affiliated with Radio Free Asia which is directly funded by the US government and has roots with the CIA. There has been precedence of bias in both organizations as found here [1] and here [2]

Claims:

Amnesty International has sources affiliated with Radio Free Asia: True

Human Rights Watch has sources affiliated with Radio Free Asia: True

Radio Free Asia is funded by the US government and has roots in the CIA: True

There has been precedence of bias in both organizations: True

Fact: Both articles I’ve linked show that there has been precedence of bias both for and against the US. Maybe you got upset that I pulled an example of bias in favour of the US from the HRW article which caused you to conflate with bias in favour of the US from the AI article. In the end, it really doesn’t matter. It’s simply desperate nitpicking because both articles show precedence of bias both for and against the US: exactly what I’ve said.

From the article [2]:

>Criticism of Amnesty International (AI) includes claims of selection bias, as well as ideology and foreign policy bias against either non-Western countries or Western-supported countries. Governments that have criticised AI include those of Israel,[1][2] the Democratic Republic of the Congo,[3] China,[4] Vietnam,[5] Russia,[6] and the United States,[7]”

You accuse me of trying to discredit Amnesty. No. Both AI and HRW do good work, but they are not the infallible arbiters of truth that you presented them to be.

To make my point crystal clear, if I wanted to say “Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch are biased in favour of the US”, that would have been just as much effort as writing “Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch both have a precedence of bias”. No matter how much you wish I did, I didn’t write the former. Why? Because words matter and I chose deliberate words to express what I intended to say. You tunnel vision on your one point and insist on debating against self-erected straw-men over and over again because you have no other valid talking points.

> If feel like you're projecting with your comments about needing to get the last word btw.

No, because clearly your posts have been low in effort, stooping to name calling, accusations of lying, Gish Galloping, arguments from fallacy and claims that you "don't have the time or inclination to fact check all of them". You’ve contributed nothing substantive to the conversation for many comments now, instead choosing to nitpick with weak ‘gotchas’. This is in contrast to my posts which are still arguing the main topic of discussion and providing facts and citations. All of these are signs that you are unable to carry on the debate, and yet you are still here. Therefore, it’s only reasonable to assume that you are trying to get the last word.