The phrase: "Out of the frying pan and into the fire." Comes to mind . . .

{LINK}

I noticed that in Latin America, Amnesty International has been quick to focus attention on alleged abuses by anti-communist forces while ignoring the abuses by marxist insurgents.

IMHO, Amnesty International is a partisan political organization with a facetious concern about human rights.

BTW, The Guardian is a socialist newspaper.

It looks like more pro-Islamic, anti-American propaganda coming from the Left.

I knew you'd say something like that.

Likewise, I expected more of the same old, same old from you.

I knew you'd say something like that.

My ignorant brain fails to understand how reporting abuses of human rights makes Amnesty cummunist supporting.

Thats not what I found. Then again, that's probably what you heard and accepted at face value from some right-wing biased media outlet.

Cuba

China

Russia

However, this begs a question; Why would the right-wing be against Amnesty international?

I posted my sources in an edited post above.

I think that when the US forces are holding 11 year old children for 3 weeks without charge, interview or even informing the parents where they are -- Amnesty has a point, commie-loving or not.

Plus the Guardian is a well respected 'liberal' paper. It is not socialist -- a bit too targeted at an affluent market to get anywhere near raising a red flag...

If you won't look at my sources properly why should I look at your sources?

Lobby page? It should have been pages of reports on Amnesty's website on various human rights abuses in communist countries. Effectivley dispelling the idea that Amnesty is biased in favour of communist governments.
I'll have a look at your sources now though.

Yes JLB, I would say that if you wanted to actually find out whether or not Amnesty International was ignoring left-wing human rights abuses then their web page is probably the best and only place to look. Oh look, they're all there.

Now, back onto the subject of human rights abuses in Iraq. A couple of things I'd like to say. Firstly that whatever they are, they aren't a hundredth as bad as what Saddam was doing. But, that isn't any sort of excuse, nor is it an excuse that anyone on the left or right has done far worse. The west has to keep to its principles or freedom means nothing, and it is because we (generally) do while others commit all sorts of crimes that we can criticise.

They also put forth an excellent article about concerns for human rights in the USA's war on terrorism.

I did. I linked pages that had numerous reports of human rights abuses in Cuba, China and Russia.
Is this your method of ignoring evidence that contradicts your opinion?

Wasn't this meant to be about the message not the messenger?

It's called a diversion.