> but that doesn't defeat the point of the article.

It does, very much. Read what is my point above. What argument they have against that?

Their reasoning is shallow, their data is very meticulously gathered, but is nevertheless massaged, and people behind the report... take a look at their bios and judge yourself.

I have a lot of anger for types of people calling for peaceful sit ins when crowds are already being showered by machine gun fire. Those share the blame for people's deaths as much as regimes doing the killing.

Doing that is an advocacy for moral frailty.