EXCLUSIVE Syrian MSF Hospital Kept Location Secret to Avoid Being Bombed

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: tanka418

Is this a confession that you think it is possible that the "legitimate government" may have accidentally attacked a neutral hospital? If they had, it would make sense for them to hold MSF responsible for not keeping them informed. Instead, the Russians claim to have "intelligence information."

What I saw in your links was an individual making statements that were...shall we say "out of line", and not quite compliant with reality...What I didn't see was any sort of official Russian statement in this regard. And, wasn't it you who was trying to insist that the Russians had nothing to do with this incident?

I think what we have here is you attempting, yet again, to twist reality to suit your needs.

Are you beginning to understand the OP now? Syria is not telling a consistent story. The parallel to MH-17 is that if they just admitted it was a mistake and offered to pay damages, as the United States did when it attacked an MSF hospital, it would have been a forgivable "fog of war" incident. Instead, they are denying, blaming, and claiming to have evidence that someone else did it, without being able to explain why it was done.

Well...perhaps, this "inconsistent" story of yours is really your not wanting to accept reality. You misconstrued MH17, accused Russia of contradiction, and story changing; when the reality was that the story was dynamic and was in fact changing itself via new data, all Russia did was update their understanding with the dynamic data available. But, you don't understand that that is the way an intelligent person operates. Stories may appear to change when they are new, and a complete "picture" is still developing. If you take a "snapshot" of a dynamic dataset, and claim that it is a representation of reality, you are a fool. If you continuously update your understanding with new data you at least have a chance at wisdom.

ETA:

if they just admitted it was a mistake and offered to pay damages, as the United States did when it attacked an MSF hospital, it would have been a forgivable "fog of war" incident.

It wasn't Syria's mistake, that is solely on MSF.

"pay damages"?!! Those MSF fools should be arrested, and put on trial for criminal negligence, negligent endangerment, and several other charges stemming from their negligent lack of thought, and criminal decisions.

a reply to: tanka418

Wow. You want heroes who are risking their lives to save the lives of others to go on trial? That shows where your values are. You defend murderers who deliberately bomb hospitals, then want to put the doctors on trial.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: tanka418

Wow. You want heroes who are risking their lives to save the lives of others to go on trial? That shows where your values are. You defend murderers who deliberately bomb hospitals, then want to put the doctors on trial.

You have twisted things again to suit your own desires.

I have not defended any murderers, nor is there any confidant data demonstrating the deliberate bombing of a hospital. Both the "murderers", and the "deliberate" nature of the bombing is only in your imagination, and not a part of reality.

And, you should understand; I'm not condemning the "Doctors" desire to help, I am condemning the Doctor's lack of thought, and method.

They are not heroes; they threw that distinction away with their lack of thought.

Oh, and my "values"; IF One should do aught; then One must do aught correctly.

a reply to: tanka418

MSF had every reason to believe that Assad's regime was deliberately targeting hospitals, that is why they did not tell them. A Syrian spokesman blamed the bombing of the hospitals on MSF because they did not tell the government where they were. Those are the straight up facts. But by all means, refuse to admit thatn1 + 1 = 2.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: tanka418

MSF had every reason to believe that Assad's regime was deliberately targeting hospitals, that is why they did not tell them.

Easy to say, impossible to prove. It could have been little more than the Doctor's paranoia...in any case; they were wrong! This is a very good demonstration of "broken logic".

A Syrian spokesman blamed the bombing of the hospitals on MSF because they did not tell the government where they were. Those are the straight up facts. But by all means, refuse to admit thatn1 + 1 = 2.

The Syrians are absolutely correct in the placing of all blame on the MSF Doctors. After all, it was the Doctor's criminal negligence that ultimately cased this tragedy.

a reply to: tanka418

The Syrians are absolutely correct in the placing of all blame on the MSF Doctors. After all, it was the Doctor's criminal negligence that ultimately cased this tragedy.

Only if they were bombed by Assad's forces because they did not know they were hospitals.

Get it? Syria's UN rep made a "Freudian slip." He implied that the Syrians would not have bombed the hospitals if MSF had told them, ergo, they bombed the hospitals not knowing they were hospitals. Please stop pretending that you don't understand, and stop twisting the truth to imply that one of the few aid organizations on Earth that is not corrupt are "criminals."

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: tanka418

The Syrians are absolutely correct in the placing of all blame on the MSF Doctors. After all, it was the Doctor's criminal negligence that ultimately cased this tragedy.

Only if they were bombed by Assad's forces because they did not know they were hospitals.

Get it? Syria's UN rep made a "Freudian slip." He implied that the Syrians would not have bombed the hospitals if MSF had told them, ergo, they bombed the hospitals not knowing they were hospitals. Please stop pretending that you don't understand, and stop twisting the truth to imply that one of the few aid organizations on Earth that is not corrupt are "criminals."

You seem rather confused; I have been saying all along that Syria didn't know the targets were a hospital. It is you that has insisted that Syria knew they were hospitals, and bombed deliberately.

As far as the "Criminal" stuff; I said the Doctors involved were "criminally negligent"; that wasn't supposed to be an indictment of the Organization, I certainly didn't imply any corruption...so, please get a hold of your imagination.

a reply to: tanka418

The Syrians are absolutely correct in the placing of all blame on the MSF Doctors. After all, it was the Doctor's criminal negligence that ultimately cased this tragedy.

Really?

So those who have been bombed in the past by the the only group fighting in those areas should be held criminally negligent because they are tired of having their hospitals bombed by the same group who bombed their prior hospitals...that is pretty much what your saying right?

Care to show where that would be criminally negligent, because I believe they call that trying to survive to help those caught in the middle of this war.

Criminally negligent would be those who bombed it, not those trying to save it.

a reply to: DJW001

Get it? Syria's UN rep made a "Freudian slip." He implied that the Syrians would not have bombed the hospitals if MSF had told them, ergo, they bombed the hospitals not knowing they were hospitals. Please stop pretending that you don't understand, and stop twisting the truth to imply that one of the few aid organizations on Earth that is not corrupt are "criminals."

Nice example of your ability to spin the spin no matter what way the conversation trys to go . Oh an this is gold

and stop twisting the truth to imply that one of the few aid organizations on Earth that is not corrupt are "criminals."

at this point in time it would be quite the statement to believe that your statement could actually be true .Like if there was any legitimate origination out there that had not or is not infiltrated by these sick Narcissist/neo-cons .

a reply to: tanka418

As far as the "Criminal" stuff; I said the Doctors involved were "criminally negligent"; that wasn't supposed to be an indictment of the Organization

Except it is by saying they have doctors in their organization that are criminally negligent while doing their duties for this organization.

That doesn't make an organization look too good. Whether that was your intention or not... that is the way it looks.

a reply to: tanka418

You seem rather confused; I have been saying all along that Syria didn't know the targets were a hospital. It is you that has insisted that Syria knew they were hospitals, and bombed deliberately.

Talk about twisting things! I have said that MSF believes that Syria has targeted hospitals in the past, which is why they concealed their locations. I have not expressed the opinion that the hospitals under discussion were necessarily targeted deliberately, I have only pointed out that Bashar al-Jaafari's statement only makes sense if the Syrians bombed the hospital by accident. (He then goes on to contradict himself.) Are you saying now that you agree with me, and that Syria destroyed the hospital because they did not know they were hospitals, or are you just playing games again?

As far as the "Criminal" stuff; I said the Doctors involved were "criminally negligent"; that wasn't supposed to be an indictment of the Organization, I certainly didn't imply any corruption...so, please get a hold of your imagination.

What makes you think the decision was made by the doctors? There are administrators who might have made the decision for them. I think you just like the idea of painting doctors as criminals.

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: tanka418

The Syrians are absolutely correct in the placing of all blame on the MSF Doctors. After all, it was the Doctor's criminal negligence that ultimately cased this tragedy.

Really?

So those who have been bombed in the past by the the only group fighting in those areas should be held criminally negligent because they are tired of having their hospitals bombed by the same group who bombed their prior hospitals...that is pretty much what your saying right?

Care to show where that would be criminally negligent, because I believe they call that trying to survive to help those caught in the middle of this war.

Criminally negligent would be those who bombed it, not those trying to save it.

I can't speak to historical events, I don't have any of the detail data. Nor do I care to review it...

Are you saying that there is only one group fighting there? How does that work? Do they fight amongst themselves? Maybe, they roll into an area and choose sides?

Or more accurately...you have no idea who are the combatants, how many factions there are, or who is currently bombing who...

a reply to: tanka418

Please stop evading: you have said that MSF was criminally negligent for not informing the Syrian government, and the Syrian government has blamed MSF for the bombing, implying that they bombed it out of ignorance. Instead of playing games, why don't you offer an opinion. Do you think Assad's forces bombed the hospitals or not?

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: tanka418

Talk about twisting things! I have said that MSF believes that Syria has targeted hospitals in the past, which is why they concealed their locations. I have not expressed the opinion that the hospitals under discussion were necessarily targeted deliberately,

In just the past two pages, I count at least 3 instances where you imply exactly that; that the Syrian forces deliberately targeted that specific hospital. One instance is wholly devoid of subtlety.

a reply to: tanka418

So you are going to continue to play games rather than commit yourself. Any native English speaker can see that I have made a distinction between alleged past assaults and the assaults under discussion. If I give credence to MSF, it is because they have made allegations about the US as well as Syria, demonstrating their neutrality. Your evasions speak volumes.

a reply to: DJW001


"Commit myself?","Evasions?"


What are you talking about?

What should I commit to, and what have I evaded?

While I suspect the problem is your linguistic shortcomings. Perhaps you could be a wee bit more specific...

a reply to: tanka418

What are you talking about?

You said:

I have been saying all along that Syria didn't know the targets were a hospital.

Does that mean that you believe Syria attacked the hospital? If not, why would MSF be "criminally negligent," given that they believed, with good reason, that Assad's forces targeted hospitals and civilians?

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: tanka418

What are you talking about?

You said:

I have been saying all along that Syria didn't know the targets were a hospital.

Does that mean that you believe Syria attacked the hospital? If not, why would MSF be "criminally negligent," given that they believed, with good reason, that Assad's forces targeted hospitals and civilians?

I have great reservations over the "with good reason". I do not believe there has been sufficient data presented to make such a determination.

And, no, my statement does not necessarily show what I believe in this case. Further, I haven't seen enough data to determine "who" was shelling. Truth be told; I find the whole thing rather suspect...tends to want to become an ill-conceived, back-handed attempt at "setting up" the legal governmental Syrian forces.

The reality is that MSF Doctors have no leg to stand on; it was their decision to attempt to remain "hidden" from the legal authority (Don't they have permissions and guidelines directly from the Syrian government?). They have no one to blame for any of their plights but themselves...and of course, in a civilized society, their actions would constitute Criminal Negligence. IF these "Doctors" are representative of the organization, then that organization should be investigated...

a reply to: tanka418

This is not a legal case, so not having a leg to stand on makes no sense. It is not a question of you determining whether MSF's decision was justified. The only case where they share any part of the blame if it was Assad's troops who attacked them by accident. Still can't bring yourself to say that in so many words, can you? Now who needs a course in logic?

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: tanka418

This is not a legal case, so not having a leg to stand on makes no sense. It is not a question of you determining whether MSF's decision was justified. The only case where they share any part of the blame if it was Assad's troops who attacked them by accident. Still can't bring yourself to say that in so many words, can you? Now who needs a course in logic?

It would appear that needs the course in logic.

Of course this is not a court of law, never implied it was. It is however, still a "court of opinion"; with that "opinion" part being a default.

Your "running around" about whether the shells were from Assad or not is nearly moot...you are kind of missing the obvious predicates here. You want me to admit to something that should have "gone without saying"...further it was presumed that your logic was up to the task, and these things were, for the greater part, understood. Guess that was my bad.

I'm kind of wondering why you condone the level of utter stupidity it takes for a guest in a country to not inform their host of their whereabouts...especially in a war zone. Or were the good doctors "illegal aliens"?