PROPAGANDA FAIL: 5 of 6 Syrian Hospitals Allegedly Hit by Russian Airstrikes Don’t Exist

[Jayjay]

And they in all likelihood did hit hospitals, but since they are rebel hospitals in those cases Russia can just claim they were hitting terrorists. Plausible deniability.

What evidence do you have ?

Go google SAMS or PHR who are making these claims. I suspect nothing will convince you precisely because you can always dismiss any evidence as coming from rebels.Thsi is precisely what I mean by plausible deniability... if you don't think there are civilians in the areas that Russia and Assad are bombing, then of course no civilians could be bombed.

And just because Russia didn't hit this particular hospital (even though they forged the satellite image for some reason),

Russia forged a satellite picture showing the hosptital still there? So you actually believe that hospital is destroyed or damaged? Wow!

No, but the satellite image is forged nevertheless.

 

[Jayjay]

And they in all likelihood did hit hospitals, but since they are rebel hospitals in those cases Russia can just claim they were hitting terrorists. Plausible deniability.

And just because Russia didn't hit this particular hospital (even though they forged the satellite image for some reason), doesn't mean they didn't hit others or destroy other infrastructure.

It was a specific hospital US claimed Russian forces hit. Journalists just trying to determine if US has an actual evidence of the hit.

When did US claim that Russia hit this hospital? The journalists were trying to trap the spokesperson into saying if that hospital was actually hit, but she did not. If US had admitted it before, I doubt the RT hecklers would have had to ask for confirmation.

 

[Will Wiley]

What evidence do you have ?

Go google SAMS or PHR who are making these claims. I suspect nothing will convince you precisely because you can always dismiss any evidence as coming from rebels.Thsi is precisely what I mean by plausible deniability... if you don't think there are civilians in the areas that Russia and Assad are bombing, then of course no civilians could be bombed.

And just because Russia didn't hit this particular hospital (even though they forged the satellite image for some reason),

Russia forged a satellite picture showing the hosptital still there? So you actually believe that hospital is destroyed or damaged? Wow!

No, but the satellite image is forged nevertheless.

How can you know that?
Let me get this right, you believe an American journalist showed up with a forged satellite image and bluffed the US state department and made the US state department look like a bunch of liars and the US state department did nothing about it?

 

[barbos]

It was a specific hospital US claimed Russian forces hit. Journalists just trying to determine if US has an actual evidence of the hit.

When did US claim that Russia hit this hospital?

After the alleged hit

The journalists were trying to trap the spokesperson into saying if that hospital was actually hit, but she did not. If US had admitted it before, I doubt the RT hecklers would have had to ask for confirmation.

Man does not work for RT, not sure about woman. They both implied that state department did make such a claim, Otherwise that would make no sense for them to ask her.

 

[Jayjay]

Go google SAMS or PHR who are making these claims. I suspect nothing will convince you precisely because you can always dismiss any evidence as coming from rebels.Thsi is precisely what I mean by plausible deniability... if you don't think there are civilians in the areas that Russia and Assad are bombing, then of course no civilians could be bombed.

And just because Russia didn't hit this particular hospital (even though they forged the satellite image for some reason),

Russia forged a satellite picture showing the hosptital still there? So you actually believe that hospital is destroyed or damaged? Wow!

No, but the satellite image is forged nevertheless.

How can you know that?

Bellingcat pointed out that the photo has other structures intact, which were known to be destroyed even before alleged time of the satellite photo was taken. Furthermore, Russia has been caught deliberately misdating their satellite photos before.

Let me get this right, you believe an American journalist showed up with a forged satellite image and bluffed the US state department and made the US state department look like a bunch of liars and the US state department did nothing about it?

No, I'm saying that a journalist showed up with a forged photo produced by Russian Ministry of Defense, to address a claim that the state department or the spokesperson had not made (in all likelihood). It's no better than photoshopping a plane on top of google maps image and trying to heckle a response.

- - - Updated - - -

When did US claim that Russia hit this hospital?

After the alleged hit

The journalists were trying to trap the spokesperson into saying if that hospital was actually hit, but she did not. If US had admitted it before, I doubt the RT hecklers would have had to ask for confirmation.

Man does not work for RT, not sure about woman. They both implied that state department did make such a claim, Otherwise that would make no sense for them to ask her.

If the state department had made that claim, surely these journalists would have known and quoted it. They did not.

 

[barbos]

Go google SAMS or PHR who are making these claims. I suspect nothing will convince you precisely because you can always dismiss any evidence as coming from rebels.Thsi is precisely what I mean by plausible deniability... if you don't think there are civilians in the areas that Russia and Assad are bombing, then of course no civilians could be bombed.

And just because Russia didn't hit this particular hospital (even though they forged the satellite image for some reason),

Russia forged a satellite picture showing the hosptital still there? So you actually believe that hospital is destroyed or damaged? Wow!

No, but the satellite image is forged nevertheless.

How can you know that?

Bellingcat pointed out that the photo has other structures intact, which were known to be destroyed even before alleged time of the satellite photo was taken. Furthermore, Russia has been caught deliberately misdating their satellite photos before.

Let me get this right, you believe an American journalist showed up with a forged satellite image and bluffed the US state department and made the US state department look like a bunch of liars and the US state department did nothing about it?

No, I'm saying that a journalist showed up with a forged photo produced by Russian Ministry of Defense, to address a claim that the state department or the spokesperson had not made (in all likelihood). It's no better than photoshopping a plane on top of google maps image and trying to heckle a response.

- - - Updated - - -

When did US claim that Russia hit this hospital?

After the alleged hit

The journalists were trying to trap the spokesperson into saying if that hospital was actually hit, but she did not. If US had admitted it before, I doubt the RT hecklers would have had to ask for confirmation.

Man does not work for RT, not sure about woman. They both implied that state department did make such a claim, Otherwise that would make no sense for them to ask her.

If the state department had made that claim, surely these journalists would have known and quoted it. They did not.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015...tal-idUSKCN0SN2TC20151029#xSyzDprPrxVbl2Vi.97

 

[arkirk]

If only people distrusted every word out of Washington as much as they distrust Moscow.

Both lie all the time.

But Moscow is way funnier in how they do it.

I am wondering about Russia and the U.S. bombing hospitals. According to Obama blowing up a hospital in Afghanistan had to be a mistake in judgment as the bombs are smart enough to go where they are sent. According to the Russians on RT five of six of the hospitals they are accused of bombing didn't exist. My question is why bomb any hospitals? That is like throwing mud in your own face.

 

[barbos]

But Moscow is way funnier in how they do it.

I am wondering about Russia and the U.S. bombing hospitals. According to Obama blowing up a hospital in Afghanistan had to be a mistake in judgment as the bombs are smart enough to go where they are sent. According to the Russians on RT five of six of the hospitals they are accused of bombing didn't exist. My question is why bomb any hospitals? That is like throwing mud in your own face.

nobody bombed anything, intentionally at least, but some in US are not happy that some other (than them) country is bombing someone, that's why they complain "you are not doing it right, let us do it!"

 

[Will Wiley]

Go google SAMS or PHR who are making these claims. I suspect nothing will convince you precisely because you can always dismiss any evidence as coming from rebels.Thsi is precisely what I mean by plausible deniability... if you don't think there are civilians in the areas that Russia and Assad are bombing, then of course no civilians could be bombed.

And just because Russia didn't hit this particular hospital (even though they forged the satellite image for some reason),

Russia forged a satellite picture showing the hosptital still there? So you actually believe that hospital is destroyed or damaged? Wow!

No, but the satellite image is forged nevertheless.

How can you know that?

Bellingcat pointed out that the photo has other structures intact,

The journalist did not show the photo, so how did you see it?

And you need a reliable source. Bellingcat are either incompetent or dishonest.

Der Spiegel Apologizes to Readers over Coverage of Bellingcat MH17 Report

'Bellingcat Report Doesn't Prove Anything': Expert Criticizes Allegations of Russian MH17 Manipulation

That is why say, the US state department won't reply to this stuff. They get/let Bellingcat do it knowing that foolish people will accept what Bellingcat says and when Bellingcat are shown to be wrong..."oh well it's just an unemployed Englishman on his laptop in his mothers loungeroom"

 

[Will Wiley]

But Moscow is way funnier in how they do it.

I am wondering about Russia and the U.S. bombing hospitals. According to Obama blowing up a hospital in Afghanistan had to be a mistake in judgment as the bombs are smart enough to go where they are sent. According to the Russians on RT five of six of the hospitals they are accused of bombing didn't exist. My question is why bomb any hospitals? That is like throwing mud in your own face.

Let's say some Taliban are being treated in the hospital.Some US special forces show up and want them. The doctors who have more courage than the soldiers say no.
The soldiers leave and the place gets bombed.

1. There were no building in the vicinity that looked anything like the Afghan hospital
2. The US had repeatedly been given it's co ordinates even very recently before the bombing.
3. They continued to bomb it for a long time even after the desperate staff toid them it was a hospital

 

[Jayjay]

Go google SAMS or PHR who are making these claims. I suspect nothing will convince you precisely because you can always dismiss any evidence as coming from rebels.Thsi is precisely what I mean by plausible deniability... if you don't think there are civilians in the areas that Russia and Assad are bombing, then of course no civilians could be bombed.

And just because Russia didn't hit this particular hospital (even though they forged the satellite image for some reason),

Russia forged a satellite picture showing the hosptital still there? So you actually believe that hospital is destroyed or damaged? Wow!

No, but the satellite image is forged nevertheless.

How can you know that?

Bellingcat pointed out that the photo has other structures intact, which were known to be destroyed even before alleged time of the satellite photo was taken. Furthermore, Russia has been caught deliberately misdating their satellite photos before.

Let me get this right, you believe an American journalist showed up with a forged satellite image and bluffed the US state department and made the US state department look like a bunch of liars and the US state department did nothing about it?

No, I'm saying that a journalist showed up with a forged photo produced by Russian Ministry of Defense, to address a claim that the state department or the spokesperson had not made (in all likelihood). It's no better than photoshopping a plane on top of google maps image and trying to heckle a response.

- - - Updated - - -

When did US claim that Russia hit this hospital?

After the alleged hit

The journalists were trying to trap the spokesperson into saying if that hospital was actually hit, but she did not. If US had admitted it before, I doubt the RT hecklers would have had to ask for confirmation.

Man does not work for RT, not sure about woman. They both implied that state department did make such a claim, Otherwise that would make no sense for them to ask her.

If the state department had made that claim, surely these journalists would have known and quoted it. They did not.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015...tal-idUSKCN0SN2TC20151029#xSyzDprPrxVbl2Vi.97

It does not specify which hospital (which is why the RT journalists had to ask for confirmation), and actually if you read what was actually said, it's that state department has reason to believe from media outlets that hospitals have been hit, but it only has "operational information" about civilian infrastructure. Not even hospitals in specific.

The devil is in the details.

 

[barbos]

Go google SAMS or PHR who are making these claims. I suspect nothing will convince you precisely because you can always dismiss any evidence as coming from rebels.Thsi is precisely what I mean by plausible deniability... if you don't think there are civilians in the areas that Russia and Assad are bombing, then of course no civilians could be bombed.

And just because Russia didn't hit this particular hospital (even though they forged the satellite image for some reason),

Russia forged a satellite picture showing the hosptital still there? So you actually believe that hospital is destroyed or damaged? Wow!

No, but the satellite image is forged nevertheless.

How can you know that?

Bellingcat pointed out that the photo has other structures intact, which were known to be destroyed even before alleged time of the satellite photo was taken. Furthermore, Russia has been caught deliberately misdating their satellite photos before.

Let me get this right, you believe an American journalist showed up with a forged satellite image and bluffed the US state department and made the US state department look like a bunch of liars and the US state department did nothing about it?

No, I'm saying that a journalist showed up with a forged photo produced by Russian Ministry of Defense, to address a claim that the state department or the spokesperson had not made (in all likelihood). It's no better than photoshopping a plane on top of google maps image and trying to heckle a response.

- - - Updated - - -

When did US claim that Russia hit this hospital?

After the alleged hit

The journalists were trying to trap the spokesperson into saying if that hospital was actually hit, but she did not. If US had admitted it before, I doubt the RT hecklers would have had to ask for confirmation.

Man does not work for RT, not sure about woman. They both implied that state department did make such a claim, Otherwise that would make no sense for them to ask her.

If the state department had made that claim, surely these journalists would have known and quoted it. They did not.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015...tal-idUSKCN0SN2TC20151029#xSyzDprPrxVbl2Vi.97

It does not specify which hospital (which is why the RT journalists had to ask for confirmation), and actually if you read what was actually said, it's that state department has reason to believe from media outlets that hospitals have been hit, but it only has "operational information" about civilian infrastructure. Not even hospitals in specific.

The devil is in the details.

In other news State Department has reasons to believe that Putin eats children.

 

[Jayjay]

Go google SAMS or PHR who are making these claims. I suspect nothing will convince you precisely because you can always dismiss any evidence as coming from rebels.Thsi is precisely what I mean by plausible deniability... if you don't think there are civilians in the areas that Russia and Assad are bombing, then of course no civilians could be bombed.

And just because Russia didn't hit this particular hospital (even though they forged the satellite image for some reason),

Russia forged a satellite picture showing the hosptital still there? So you actually believe that hospital is destroyed or damaged? Wow!

No, but the satellite image is forged nevertheless.

How can you know that?

Bellingcat pointed out that the photo has other structures intact,

The journalist did not show the photo, so how did you see it?

Because by now I'm very good at guessing how you Putin fanboys think.

And you need a reliable source. Bellingcat are either incompetent or dishonest.

As is Russian ministry of defense. You do realize that the article you linked is out of date, and it was proven beyond any reasonable doubt that the satellite photos were falsely dated by comparing them to satellite images from DigitalGlobe. Criticism that they may have also been photoshopped (which is what the Spiegel article is about) is a separate matter, and indeed Spiegel may have been right about that.

Russia will continue to try to publish these faked images because they knwo they can get away with it. It doesn't surprise me one bit that they would use a fake image of a hospital in Syria, even if they didn't have to, just because that was easier. "Hey, we didn't bomb this hospital! Do we have photo to prove it? No? Ok let's just take this one from two weeks back and nobody will notice!"

 

[Will Wiley]

Go google SAMS or PHR who are making these claims. I suspect nothing will convince you precisely because you can always dismiss any evidence as coming from rebels.Thsi is precisely what I mean by plausible deniability... if you don't think there are civilians in the areas that Russia and Assad are bombing, then of course no civilians could be bombed.

And just because Russia didn't hit this particular hospital (even though they forged the satellite image for some reason),

Russia forged a satellite picture showing the hosptital still there? So you actually believe that hospital is destroyed or damaged? Wow!

No, but the satellite image is forged nevertheless.

How can you know that?

Bellingcat pointed out that the photo has other structures intact,

The journalist did not show the photo, so how did you see it?

Because by now I'm very good at guessing how you Putin fanboys think.

Name calling now?

Criticism that they may have also been photoshopped (which is what the Spiegel article is about) is a separate matter,

If you want to resort to name calling rather than dealing with simple questions and use Bellingcat then you will have to find someone else who thinks Bellingcat is credible. And that does not include me. But good luck with it. I have better things to do.

 

[Jayjay]

Criticism that they may have also been photoshopped (which is what the Spiegel article is about) is a separate matter,

If you want to resort to name calling rather than dealing with simple questions and use Bellingcat then you will have to find someone else who thinks Bellingcat is credible. And that does not include me. But good luck with it. I have better things to do.

I'll answer your simple question: The Russian Ministry of Defense published an alleged satellite photo of a hospital that they say proves the hospital was not bombed. The journalist, who works for Russian propaganda outlet in the video has a satellite photo of a hospital. It's pretty damn likely that it's the same picture.

As for Bellingcat, clearly you cannot show that their analysis is not credible so you resort to poisoning the well. I doubt you even read the Der Spiegel article that you linked to, because if you had, you'd know that the criticism was about methods to detect photo manipulation. The proof that Russian satellite images from Ukraine and Syria are falsely dated has nothing to do with photo manipulation: the fakes were exposed simply by comparing them to other satellite photos and in Syria's case matching them up with photos taken from the ground.

If you think that one shoddy analysis is enoughto discredit Bellingcat as a source, then surely, the multitude of times when Russian MoD has falsified evidence should be enough to discredit it as a source as well?