Posted on 10/29/2015 1:36:01 PM PDT by marvel5
Red Cross personnel on the ground in Syria have not reported any 'airstrikes' allegedly delivered by Russian jets on civilian targets including hospitals, the medical charity’s top executive told RT.
Since Moscow started its air campaign in Syria on September 30, Western media have been publishing reports that Russian jets are targeting civilians.
Last week, Russia was accused of bombing a number of hospitals in Syria, an allegation flatly denied by the Russian Defense Ministry.
Dominik Stillhart, director of operations at the International Committee of the Red Cross, which has people on the ground in Syria, told RT he is unaware of any such incidents.
(Excerpt) Read more at rt.com ...
What....No instant lie??
It’s comforting to know that the USA isn’t the only
nation that can’t wage war without being accused of
insufficient gentleness.
The jihadis know with the western militaries hospitals, schools and mosques are safe zones to rest, regroup, stash arms, and even shoot from. Those rules may not apply with the Russians.
Just ask John Kerry if you do not believe me.
can be regarded as trusted sources?
Did you read the earlier post with a link to “Medecins Sans Frontieres” = in English Doctors without Borders” ?
“According to staff at the hospitals, the attacks, which have also wounded 72 people, targeted medical facilities in Idlib, Aleppo, and Hama governorates, including six supported by MSF. Overall, six hospitals have been forced to close, including three supported by MSF, and four ambulances were destroyed. One hospital has since reopened, yet access to emergency, maternity, pediatric, and primary health care services remains severely disrupted.”
http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/article/civilians-and-hospitals-repeatedly-attacked-bombing-escalates-northern-syria
Since you are an intelligent person I assume that you use Sputniknews by mistake.
Did you read the Sputnik article? The Sputnik article points out that MSF did not assign blame to Russia for the particular alleged incidents. Nothing in the MSF release or in the Telegraph article contradicts that statement.
The Telegraph cites unnamed “other aid groups,” as blaming Russia. If such anonymous groups exist other than in the mind of Telegraph propagandists, I’ll they are Western NGO puppets.
Do you agree that the hospitals were hit?
I the answer is yes, can you name whose air force was flying there?
I don’t know whether hospitals were hit by airstrikes, or whether, if damaged, it was a result of tank, artillery, or mortar fire. It’s not impossible that Russian airstrikes hit a medical facility, but no purportedly international group like the Red Cross or MSF has made that accusation.
The RFL/RL link you cite is interesting. Do you notice how it refers to claims of “opposition sources in Syria.” Also, to “[t}head of the opposition controlled Free Health Directorate of Aleppo.” And, to “[t]he pro-opposition Shaam News Network and other opposition sources.”
“Opposition” is apparently a euphemism for the terrorist jihadis on whose word we rely but can’t say so directly.
Also, the article refers suspiciously to “field hospitals,” which might be a tent with a first aid kit and a medic in it, not a permanent dedicated facility.
The article also cites the Institute for Study of War, as if it were some objective organization, not a think tank funded by big defense contractors to promote war.
It’s most likely that it is a propaganda drive by the USG to diminish or obscure the impact of the undisputed US bombing of the genuine medical facility in Kunduz.
However, as we are alone in discussing in this thread we can perhaps go to more important issues.
First read what Demirov is saying here; that an army division is required in Syria.
http://www.novayagazeta.ru/politics/70536.html
That is probably the next logical step, but it will take years. Then read this http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/10/29/syria-putin-russia-assad-obama/
I anticipate that this is what will happen. Then after a few years we have to work together to stop the Islamic fundamentalists.
Who funds Red Cross?
The ICRC is funded by voluntary contributions from the States party to the Geneva Conventions (governments); national Red Cross and Red Crescent societies; supranational organizations (such as the European Commission); and public and private sources. Each year the ICRC launches appeals to cover its projected costs in the field and at headquarters. It will launch additional appeals if needs in the field increase. The ICRC accounts for its work and expenditure in its Annual Report.
https://www.icrc.org/en/who-we-are/finances
Latest annual report
https://www.icrc.org/en/document/ICRC-annual-report-2014
The Red Cross is not funded by the government; its budget comes from donations as well as cost-recovery fees that are charged for some services. In certain circumstances, the Red Cross recieves government money because the government has contracted the Red Cross to carry out some aspect of relief efforts. Because it is a non-profit, charitable organization, the Red Cross is tax-exempt.
http://money.howstuffworks.com/american-red-cross3.htm
I’m sorry I don’t read Russian and am impressed that you do - seriously.
It’s not that I trust only Russian websites. I evaluate carefully their content as I do with Western sites. I read the print editions of The Washington Post, The New York Post, and The Washington Times daily as well as frequently reading the Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph websites in addition to articles posted on FR from various sources.
I find, of course, that Russian websites like RT, Sputnik, and TASS tend to post and emphasize stories that cast Russia in a favorable light, and Western corporate and government media tend to do the opposite.
As a lawyer,the things I look for in evaluating an article’s worth include internal consistency, whether there is corroboration from ostensibly unbiased or independent sources, whether certain statements or allegations are undenied after being in the public domain, whether there are admissions against interest made by an opposite party (e.g., if the Telegraph admits a fact favorable to Russia, it is probably true), the degree of bias or prejudice in a statement, etc.
I find that, although Russian media certainly tends to print articles favorable to Russia, they generally document those articles with quotations and evidence, and often from Western sources. The Western media will almost never print even important facts favorable to Russia. e.g., that Ukraine is now investigating the nationalist Svoboda party for instigating the Maidan shootings, to take one recent example.
I find that Western media, because they are dominant and cover for each other, tend to be more blatant in printing biased and propagandistic articles than Russian media. Russian media knows that mistakes and lapses on their part will bring down a hailstorm of Western media and government criticism.
That said, Russian media should be read with equal skepticism.
I don’t know how the Syria adventure will turn out, but I wish Russia well.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.