Let me keep this short...
Who the heck are you to call her claim "absurd"? Snoops even said they do not know exactly which video she is talking about. Instead they Google search, find 3 "Aya" videos and make the stretched claim these are the videos being talked about. They don't know.
Indeed, they don't know and that remains so until Bartlett makes it clear about what she's talking about. Until then I think it's safe to say the kind of claim she makes, by the implied sweeping accusations behind it, is pretty absurd.
You know, you really should direct that same kind of anger toward her for making this accusatory claim without being able to back it up. I find it somewhat troubling that you believe the dissenting voice without needing any kind of proof, yet when reputable news agencies report something, you are suspicious from the get-go.
To the Syrian election...so how exactly was the Syrian government supposed to run their election in rebel held territory?
That's not the point. The point is that you didn't mention an important fact from the Snopes article -- it had most likely an impact on the outcome of the election -- along with the percentages you stated.
To Sandy Hill, don't you see the propaganda in action here? If you are supposedly doing a serious fact check, how does bringing Sandy Hill and unrelated fake claims add to the discussion? It doesn't unless you have already decided it's false...
I think they made the comparison based on both having the characteristics of conspiracy theories, in that the claims are pretty outlandish and without proof.
As to the hospital attack itself...
I'm not sure what to make of your articles. They don't appear to be very consistent as to their intent. About the first article you've linked to: One moment it's downplaying the severity of the hit, the next moment it says it didn't happen at all. Then somewhere it also says the hospital had good reason to be attacked because it secretly was a military facility... The articles seem to spread doubt, instead of supplying a believable and thorough alternative narrative, backed by credible sources.
I saw that Wikipedia says of Globalresearch.ca that they're frequently promoting conspiracy theories such as 9/11, the Charlie Hebdo shooting and the FEMA camps conspiracy. Color me unsurprised.
As for the DWB report I went by: yes, it was an important source to base my view on, but it was not the only one. There are televised interviews with staff and bystanders and videos showing and talking about the aftermath, the rubble inside of the hospital and the damage to the outside of the building. There's the mentioning of the names of several staff who could be seen on the CCTV footage from within the hospital moments before they're killed.
Based on that, I don't see how you (or Bartlett) can still say the bombing didn't happen.
Edit: somehow I'm unable to quote your post, RWarehall