Posted December 21, 2016
First of all, thanks for responding with respect to the content.
RWarehall: Does this sound like a hospital that is back in business two weeks later per Snopes? Or still treating victims from the building next door? Or more exaggeration? Doesn't this prove the claims that the MSM misreported the facts? I suggest reading the following report. It basically underlines everything Snopes writes what happened to the al-Quds hospital.
Let me summarize:
On 27 April 2016 a building across from the Al-Quds hospital was struck by an airstrike. A second strike hit the staff residence further down the street. A third strike assaulted the entrance of the hospital's emergency room. A fourth strike hit the hospital, strongly impacting the emergency room, destroying the two top floors, both operational. The total death toll was over 50. The dead included 6 Al-Quds staff and approximately 20 patients. Around 80 people were injured.
Al-Quds reopened 20 days after the attack, but not all services were activated and capacities were greatly limited given that pediatric, cardiology and neurology services were suspended, as essential staff were killed and medical equipment and vital supplies were destroyed. The emergency room and lab were lost. The 34 beds were reduced to 12, diminishing the hospital’s capacity to one-third. The sanitation system, water tank and the hospital’s structure were also badly damaged.
After having read this, looked at the image and seen the CCTV footage embedded in the article - and perhaps looked at some other sources checking the validity of the report - could you give me an honest answer to the following question:
Who, most likely, was more wrong?:
* Eva Bartlett, the independent reporter, saying Al-Quds hospital was not bombed.
or
* The mainstream media saying Al-Quds hospital was bombed.
RWarehall: I'm not even sure why Snopes talks about the election as if that part is somehow false too given that they seem to agree that 88.7% voted for Assad but that somehow that only 73% of people voting makes all the difference? Didn't we just have an election where only half the people voted? And isn't 88.7% times 73% almost 65%? I agree with you that this is the weaker part of the Snopes article, but whatever the case, you left out the fact that voting was mostly only possible in Assad regime–held areas.
May I remind you that "this" is referring to Bartlett's unsubstantiated and absurd "Aya" claim, about the "recycling" of victims to be used by news agencies so they can publish one biased story after another on the Syrian war. ...Although I think "this" referring to the hospital claim would work just as well.
Let me summarize:
On 27 April 2016 a building across from the Al-Quds hospital was struck by an airstrike. A second strike hit the staff residence further down the street. A third strike assaulted the entrance of the hospital's emergency room. A fourth strike hit the hospital, strongly impacting the emergency room, destroying the two top floors, both operational. The total death toll was over 50. The dead included 6 Al-Quds staff and approximately 20 patients. Around 80 people were injured.
Al-Quds reopened 20 days after the attack, but not all services were activated and capacities were greatly limited given that pediatric, cardiology and neurology services were suspended, as essential staff were killed and medical equipment and vital supplies were destroyed. The emergency room and lab were lost. The 34 beds were reduced to 12, diminishing the hospital’s capacity to one-third. The sanitation system, water tank and the hospital’s structure were also badly damaged.
After having read this, looked at the image and seen the CCTV footage embedded in the article - and perhaps looked at some other sources checking the validity of the report - could you give me an honest answer to the following question:
Who, most likely, was more wrong?:
* Eva Bartlett, the independent reporter, saying Al-Quds hospital was not bombed.
or
* The mainstream media saying Al-Quds hospital was bombed.
May I remind you that "this" is referring to Bartlett's unsubstantiated and absurd "Aya" claim, about the "recycling" of victims to be used by news agencies so they can publish one biased story after another on the Syrian war. ...Although I think "this" referring to the hospital claim would work just as well.
Post edited December 21, 2016 by Zjeraar
