First, from DemocracyNow.org: ‘Russia‘s Entry into Syria Worsens Killings of Medical Workers on War’s Front Lines’, October 30, 2015
Please understand that I don’t intend to breeze by all of the other hospital bombings, war crimes, the sarin gas attack in Gouta, or the massive diaspora that has resulted. My interest here is to try to suss out which reporting is true, which is false, given the conflicting accounts of assigning blame to Russia having bombed hospitals. (the transcript) including this:
“AMY GOODMAN: And this is about attacks on hospitals in Syria.
WIDNEY BROWN: Yes.
AMY GOODMAN: Increasing attacks, Doctors Without Borders are saying, by Russian attacks on hospitals?
WIDNEY BROWN: Yes, we’re also documenting attacks on hospitals by Russian airplanes. We’ve confirmed several. MSF, as you know, has announced that they’ve had 12 attacks just in October. The Russians started bombing, I think, the last day in September. So, obviously, we’ve got Russians using what they say is smart bombs in attacking hospitals. So now doctors are trying to survive both Syrian air force barrel bombs and guided missiles from the Russians.
Oct. 30 Sputniknews.com: ‘There Is No Evidence That Russia Hit Our Hospitals – MSF Rejects US Claims’; Unsubstantiated US State Department claims that Russian airstrikes had struck hospitals have been rejected by Medecins Sans Frontieres and the Red Cross.
“Medical staff from Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF) have made no claims that their hospitals were struck by Russian air strikes, the organization’s head of emergency care told Sputnik on Thursday.
MSF’s rejection of claims made by the White House, and repeated in the US press, that Russian air strikes had hit hospitals follows confirmation from the Red Cross that none of its personnel on the ground have made any claims about a Russian air strike on its centers in Syria.
Dounia Dekhili said that MSF hospitals have no information on which to base the US allegations that Russia is responsible for the destruction of hospitals.
On Thursday, the medical organization reported that 12 hospitals had been targeted in Syria, six of them MSF institutions. However, MSF declined to assign responsibility for the attacks.”
Does solidarity mean their organization agrees with Physicians for Human Rights?
Now I did check to be sure, and Sputnik News is funded by the Russian government, according to Wikipedia. Knowing that Human Rights Watch is considered my many a tool of the Imperium’, I checked SourceWatch.org for information on Physicians for Human Rights, wondering if that group is affiliated with HRW. It seems not, but this is the list of their funding sources; some have the ring as ‘Noblesse Oblige for profit’, but maybe I’m a tough sell. Charity Navigator does give them high marks, for what it’s worth. For me, it’s their agenda or bias that’s key. The sole ‘critic’ link was to John Stauber’s 2013 ‘The Progressive Movement is a PR Front for Rich Democrats‘, and the only directly one relevant here that I saw scanning is the (pffffft) Tides Foundation. (Their Facebook page; haven’t found them on Twitter) Dissenters weigh in, and yes, they may have an agenda, one is ‘leave Israel alone’.
Morton K. and Jane Blaustein Foundation
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation
John Merck Fund
Oak Foundation USA, Inc.
Open Society Institute
Hilariously related is Popular Resistance’s ‘Bill Gates: Only Socialism Can Save Climate, ‘Private Sector is Inept’:
“In a recent interview with The Atlantic, billionaire tech magnate Bill Gates announced his game plan to spend $2 billion of his own wealth on green energy investments, and called on his fellow private sector billionaires to help make the U.S. fossil-free by 2050. But in doing so, Gates admitted that the private sector is too selfish and inefficient to do the work on its own, and that mitigating climate change would be impossible without the help of government research and development.
“There’s no fortune to be made. Even if you have a new energy source that costs the same as today’s and emits no CO2, it will be uncertain compared with what’s tried-and-true and already operating at unbelievable scale and has gotten through all the regulatory problems,” Gates said. “Without a substantial carbon tax, there’s no incentive for innovators or plant buyers to switch.”
Gates even tacked to the left and uttered words that few other billionaire investors would dare to say: government R&D is far more effective and efficient than anything the private sector could do”
But just R&D and carbon taxes, baby!. Lawdie, Lawdie…
Or without proof, does it all boil down to opinion by bia as to the culprits?
Addenda (I don’t know what to say; CAGE said it heartbreakingly well.)