• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Amnesty Interational -- now we have an idea why they lie about Israel/Palestine

They?

Some unproven allegations about one woman's husband.

And one gullible human posting this hearsay.
 
How does this prove
1) Amnesty International presents false information, and
2) Amnesty International knowingly presents false information?
 
I'd like to know which definition of Islamist we're using in this thread. The term covers a lot of different political stances, including peaceful ones.

I'd also like to know more about Ms. Yasmin Hussein. Does anyone have any good sources beyond Wikipedia?
 
I'd like to know which definition of Islamist we're using in this thread. The term covers a lot of different political stances, including peaceful ones.


The definition where there's no peaceful Islamist. And Muslims generally are suspect. As well as anyone who dares question the current government of Israel. Or says anything in defense of Palestinians.
 
http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2015/08/amnesty-director-has-links-to-islamists.html

Sorry it's a blog link, the main article is paywalled and this is the only copy of it I can find.

Apparently one of their senior people is an Islamist.

There you go again. ONE of their senior people is a person who has dealt with Islamists. One, Loren, not the whole bloody outfit. You might not know it but at this very moment the CIA has Russian and Jewish agents hidden in its ranks. At least ONE, maybe more! So I say we shut them down now. We don't want to be spied on. It seems the quickest way to get spied on is to start covert operations in a foreign country and lay plans for regime chance. Just sayin you are merely calling the kettle black.
 
I'd like to know which definition of Islamist we're using in this thread. The term covers a lot of different political stances, including peaceful ones.


The definition where there's no peaceful Islamist. And Muslims generally are suspect. As well as anyone who dares question the current government of Israel. Or says anything in defense of Palestinians.

Peaceful Islamists don't associate with terrorist groups.
 
So now he's going to bring this up (without sourcing the link ever again) any time anyone ever mentions Amnesty International in one of his "Palestinians are terrorists and liars" threads. It will be "Amnesty international has been infiltrated by/sympathizes with/cooperates with Islamists" and when asked for a source for this claim it'll be "Links have been posted before. I can't be bothered to do your research for you."
 
http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2015/08/amnesty-director-has-links-to-islamists.html

Sorry it's a blog link, the main article is paywalled and this is the only copy of it I can find.

Apparently one of their senior people is an Islamist.

There you go again. ONE of their senior people is a person who has dealt with Islamists. One, Loren, not the whole bloody outfit. You might not know it but at this very moment the CIA has Russian and Jewish agents hidden in its ranks. At least ONE, maybe more! So I say we shut them down now. We don't want to be spied on. It seems the quickest way to get spied on is to start covert operations in a foreign country and lay plans for regime chance. Just sayin you are merely calling the kettle black.

She isn't even currently a senior person in the organization. The article mentions several paragraphs into it that she "was until recently" a director at Amnesty International.
 
The definition where there's no peaceful Islamist. And Muslims generally are suspect. As well as anyone who dares question the current government of Israel. Or says anything in defense of Palestinians.

Peaceful Islamists don't associate with terrorist groups.

Her husband was alleged to have ties with the Muslim Brotherhood.

She met with the Egyptian Education Minister in Egypt who was apparently in the Muslim Brotherhood, but that was at the time the Muslim Brotherhood was running the country. Very tenuous ties at best.
 
So now he's going to bring this up (without sourcing the link ever again) any time anyone ever mentions Amnesty International in one of his "Palestinians are terrorists and liars" threads. It will be "Amnesty international has been infiltrated by/sympathizes with/cooperates with Islamists" and when asked for a source for this claim it'll be "Links have been posted before. I can't be bothered to do your research for you."

You're admitting you've seen the link. Why should I post it again?
 
So now he's going to bring this up (without sourcing the link ever again) any time anyone ever mentions Amnesty International in one of his "Palestinians are terrorists and liars" threads. It will be "Amnesty international has been infiltrated by/sympathizes with/cooperates with Islamists" and when asked for a source for this claim it'll be "Links have been posted before. I can't be bothered to do your research for you."

You're admitting you've seen the link. Why should I post it again?

Because the link doesn't say what you claim it says, nor will it support the claims you will surely make in the future.

You do not get to supply your biases and assumptions and then treat them as facts when called on it.
 
This is the madness of the apologist of decades of Israeli brutality and theft.

An entire organization is condemned, really because it exposes the true nature of Israeli crimes.

Smeared by a baseless allegation concerning the husband of ONE member.

But at least we get to see the sick workings of the mind that supports the sickness called Israeli expansionism.
 
How does this prove
1) Amnesty International presents false information, and
2) Amnesty International knowingly presents false information?
Still waiting. Until LP can provide an explanation, the OP looks like another one of his promotions of a canard.
 
How does this prove
1) Amnesty International presents false information, and
2) Amnesty International knowingly presents false information?
Still waiting. Until LP can provide an explanation, the OP looks like another one of his promotions of a canard.

You're not going to accept the source but look back through that blog. He's been demonstrating repeated lies about the status of casualties in Gaza.
 
Let's see, which is worse?

Launching a murderous strike at a dense civilian area?

Or allegedly lying about casualties in a blog?
 
Back
Top Bottom