Can I just ask why you assume activist organisations automatically know better than military experts, governments like the United States, or people with access to classified intelligence?
The level of debate here is honestly embarrassing - like watching Year 10s argue in a classroom.
Forming an opinion means weighing up evidence, not just parroting the loudest NGO that happens to confirm your existing bias.
Groups like Amnesty have a political slant. They select the facts that suit their narrative and conveniently ignore the ones that don’t. They are campaigners.
So when you say, “I believe Amnesty over X,” all you're doing is telling us whose opinion you prefer, not proving anything as objectively true.
Amnesty think women sometimes have a penis. Do you think women sometimes have a penis? Do you take it as fact because that's the political view of an activist organisation, or do you make your own judgements?
Facts are objective - they can be checked. If you doubt one, go and verify it. That's how grown-up reasoning works.
Opinions, on the other hand, are subjective. The only ones worth listening to are those formed by people who’ve looked at all the facts - not just the ones that support their agenda - and who aren’t driven by bias. That’s precisely why judges get removed from cases where they can’t be impartial.
Organisations like B’Tselem, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, MSF, Genocide Watch, and others often share views I may agree with - and just as often, views I strongly don’t. Their opinions are not sacred texts!!! They're political actors with priorities and blind spots like anyone else.
So if you want to have an actual debate, have your opinion and provide reasoning as to why you have it. Don’t just wave someone else’s around like it’s a trump card.