US based Rights group :vomit:
What the f would a fucking rights group in the US know anything about an incident in an active war zone on the other side of the world lmao.
And here's another thing that bugs me about the article, it states that UN peacekeepers were under artillery fire, which killed two soldiers. As far as I know, Chinese peacekeepers don't possess artillery or air force of their own. Ideally, you'd want to answer artillery with airstrikes or artillery fire of your own, but since neither option was likely available, the tactical decision to evacuate was not only sound, but possibly the only option.
Naturally, one shouldn't expect The Guardian to understand this, and even if by some miracle that it did, it'd be out of character for it to take that into consideration, since it would make this a non-story. The Guardian had to print something because it's in the business of printing stories.
Yes, I understand the headline of UN peacekeepers "abandoning from their posts" was too good to pass on, but people should be made aware that UN peacekeepers are not required to render humanitarian aid beyond their specific mandate. That may sound morally suspect, but a great many things
.
I think The Guardian should be regarded as a disreputable source in the same vein as CNN. Neither is in the business of informing the public, and therefore neither deserve a place here.