(no title)
throwme_123 | 1 year ago
Sadly, same goes for a huge part of the mainstream media that becomes an echo chamber for them (Guardian, NYT for example that used to be reference of truth but lost that status).
Don't take my word for it, please take the time to read opposite views and try to honestly make your own opinion.
mullingitover|1 year ago
Amnesty International isn't editorializing and this isn't a remotely controversial claim: the roundups happened via emergency powers which, by design, denied due process. It's not a secret, El Salvador wasn't trying to hide this.
bluSCALE4|1 year ago
jahewson|1 year ago
If by “enthusiastically” you mean “reluctantly”, then yes.
deadbabe|1 year ago
[deleted]
plufz|1 year ago
unknown|1 year ago
[deleted]
whaaaaat|1 year ago
"Do your own research" is a pretty thin rebuttal to "here's a source by a well regarded NGO".
And if you are saying Amnesty International is feeding propaganda through the mainstream media, that's also going to need some credible sources. They are generally considered a fairly highly factual organization.
newyankee|1 year ago
threeseed|1 year ago
Because that doesn't seem to be the case given we've seen much of the world become developed over the last 50 years. And almost all have a functioning judicial system.
1839175912|1 year ago
* There's no justification for ethnic or ideologic cleansings of any type, period. No, making tourists happy is not a good reason for state terrorism (nothing is).
* Bukele is untrustworthy. See "liquid ideology" on [1], just for a start.
--
0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enforced_disappearance
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nayib_Bukele#Social_issues
threeseed|1 year ago
Which parts of Amnesty International's statement are inaccurate and why ?
You know because we want to form our own opinion.
Tostino|1 year ago
You just liked when it was saying before.