EXCLUSIVE Syrian MSF Hospital Kept Location Secret to Avoid Being Bombed

a reply to: tanka418

You did not touch upon a single relevant point. For example, the hospital was not shelled, it was attacked by air to surface missiles. Carry on.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: tanka418

You did not touch upon a single relevant point. For example, the hospital was not shelled, it was attacked by air to surface missiles. Carry on.

Splitting hairs? You're better than that...
Seriously man. That is the statement of a early teen who lost his argument...kind of disappointing.

In reality the Syrian MSF Hospitals arent helping the Syrians fleeing from the war zones nor the war torn towns but rather the fighters of the opposition forces.

Otherwise it wouldn't be targeted. When you harbor terrorists what were you expecting?

originally posted by: TaleDawn
In reality the Syrian MSF Hospitals arent helping the Syrians fleeing from the war zones nor the war torn towns but rather the fighters of the opposition forces.

Otherwise it wouldn't be targeted. When you harbor terrorists what were you expecting?

They should be able to expect to be left alone to do their humanitarian thing; of course that is quite impossible IF no one "what to leave alone".

A question I have is; Are the MSF Doctors in Syria under the auspices of the government, or did they just cross the Turkish border like ISIS? The answer would begin to explain "why" they didn't notify the Syrians where the hospital was. And of course, IF they were in Syria illegally, then they forfeit virtually all of their "moral ground".

a reply to: tanka418

They should be able to expect to be left alone to do their humanitarian thing; of course that is quite impossible IF no one "what to leave alone".

Exactly; if Syrian forces attack a hospital deliberately, it would be in violation of the Fourth Geneva Conventions, and therefore a war crime:

Part II. General Protection of Populations Against Certain Consequences of War

Art. 18. Civilian hospitals organized to give care to the wounded and sick, the infirm and maternity cases, may in no circumstances be the object of attack but shall at all times be respected and protected by the Parties to the conflict.

States which are Parties to a conflict shall provide all civilian hospitals with certificates showing that they are civilian hospitals and that the buildings which they occupy are not used for any purpose which would deprive these hospitals of protection in accordance with Article 19.

www.icrc.org...

A question I have is; Are the MSF Doctors in Syria under the auspices of the government, or did they just cross the Turkish border like ISIS? The answer would begin to explain "why" they didn't notify the Syrians where the hospital was. And of course, IF they were in Syria illegally, then they forfeit virtually all of their "moral ground".

Irrelevant; the Syrian government was not in control of the territory. The niceties of the Geneva Conventions do not necessarily apply to civil wars, as they are couched in terms of "conflicting powers," the implication being that the parties the conventions apply to are nation-states that are signatories to the Conventions. This is why, for example, certain leaders are tried for "crimes against humanity" rather than "war crimes."

It is telling that Bashar al-Jaafari accused MSF of being a branch of French Intelligence: he was attempting a pre-emptive strike against charges that the regime was violating the spirit, if not the letter of the Conventions:

Part I. General Provisions

Art. 5 Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.

Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.

[op. cit.]

This would provide Syria with a loophole, if it weren't for the next loophole:

In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be.

[op.cit]

Not content with trying to both deny and justify the government's attacking hospitals, the UN representative goes on to claim that US backed forces were doing it. The whole exercise reeks of desperate improvisation; there was no need for al-Jaafari to perform these verbal gymnastics, other than to avoid acknowledging that, under the circumstances, MSF was not protected by the Geneva Conventions, so Syria is justified in bombing the hospitals.

Hospitals are supposed to be identified by a visible sign; usually a red cross or crescent. This was not the case, by MSF's own admission, so even if the Geneva Conventions could be applied in a civil conflict, MSF was in violation of them and therefore, as Assad's spokesperson had been trying to explain, without bringing up the specter of the spirit of the Conventions, they were free to bomb them deliberately if they so chose.

That is the question here: al-Jaafari made MSF responsible for the hospitals being attacked. At the very least, this is a confession that Assad's forces attacked the hospitals, presumably because they did not know they were hospitals and, hence, accidentally. Is his attempt to justify the attacks an unwitting confession that they were deliberate?

a reply to: TaleDawn

In reality the Syrian MSF Hospitals arent helping the Syrians fleeing from the war zones nor the war torn towns but rather the fighters of the opposition forces.

Otherwise it wouldn't be targeted. When you harbor terrorists what were you expecting?

Exactly. In addition to treating civilians, it was treating fighters. Nevertheless, even wounded belligerents are "protected persons" under the Geneva Conventions. Thank you for acknowledging that the MSF was telling the truth when it said Assad was deliberately targeting hospitals.

a reply to: tanka418

Ad hominems? That is a tactic used by someone who has no argument at all.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: tanka418


Exactly; if Syrian forces attack a hospital deliberately, it would be in violation of the Fourth Geneva Conventions, and therefore a war crime:

And there it is DJ...the bottom line; "deliberately attacked"...in ALL of its inescapable self.

In as much as the MSF doctors failed in their responsibilities to notify; Syrian forces were quite incapable of doing anything "deliberately" (a wee matter of common logic there laddie). Thus destroying your entire argument...

There is absolutely no evidence to support a deliberate Syrian attack, That whole "element" has, and will continue to be, only in your imagination.

Whether or not these "doctors" were In the country "legally" is highly relevant...

Something to think about: Dr. Juan Gomez crosses over the border and enters the US illegally. Then he opens a clinic. Is he a hero for providing safe medical services to other "illegals"? Or is he just another illegal alien? Sorry man, but, education, intent, no matter how noble, cannot make an illegal act legal. My fictional doctor, and your real "doctors" are illegals.

Now...for that accusation of "Ad hominem"; You should do something about your use and understanding of language; it seems a bit 'broken'. There a "real' Ad hominem...enjoy.

a reply to: tanka418

And there it is DJ...the bottom line; "deliberately attacked"...in ALL of its inescapable self.

"IF deliberately attacked." If it was a deliberate attack, it would not be in violation of the Geneva Conventions. The Assad government has explained that for you. Why justify attacking the hospitals if they were not attacked?

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: tanka418

And there it is DJ...the bottom line; "deliberately attacked"...in ALL of its inescapable self.

"IF deliberately attacked." If it was a deliberate attack, it would not be in violation of the Geneva Conventions. The Assad government has explained that for you. Why justify attacking the hospitals if they were not attacked?

Tell ya what; When you decide to stop trying to twist everything to suit your own ill-perceived needs, and actually make an honest attempt at embracing reality; let me know...till then; we are done.

ETA: You are aware, I should hope, that the word "IF" in your post above, has no linguistic value, nor does it have logical value. It is a null (void) predicate...as was explained earlier; that has become defaulted in this discussion.

a reply to: tanka418

Tell ya what; When you decide to stop trying to twist everything to suit your own ill-perceived needs, and actually make an honest attempt at embracing reality; let me know...till then; we are done.

You are the one who deliberately deleted the word "if" from my post, and you accuse me of twisting things?

ETA: Anyway, thank you for bumping my thread and demonstrating how irrational support for the Assad regime is.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: tanka418

ETA: Anyway, thank you for bumping my thread ...

just tryin to help

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: TaleDawn
In reality the Syrian MSF Hospitals arent helping the Syrians fleeing from the war zones nor the war torn towns but rather the fighters of the opposition forces.

Otherwise it wouldn't be targeted. When you harbor terrorists what were you expecting?

They should be able to expect to be left alone to do their humanitarian thing; of course that is quite impossible IF no one "what to leave alone".

A question I have is; Are the MSF Doctors in Syria under the auspices of the government, or did they just cross the Turkish border like ISIS? The answer would begin to explain "why" they didn't notify the Syrians where the hospital was. And of course, IF they were in Syria illegally, then they forfeit virtually all of their "moral ground".

There are exceptions. A school, for example, becomes a legitimate military target if soldiers are based there. With hospitals, the situation is more complicated since they are permitted to keep armed guards on their grounds. But immunity from attack can be lost if the people or objects are used to commit acts that are harmful to one side in a conflict.

- See more at: www.crimesofwar.org...

NO, Hospitals are not Immune to attacks. Its even in the conventions which some have conveniently left out of their arguments about the exceptions. Is it Moral? no. Is it illegal in certain circumstances? Nope.