The hell of a Syrian hospital: 'We are waiting for your help'

By John Ray, ITV News and Tracy Connor, NBC News

Expired medicine, contaminated water, a bug-infested operating room — and innocent children dying of malnutrition with little way to save them.

New video out of Syria has exposed the horrific conditions at a battered field hospital in the rebel-held city of Homs, where doctors face sniper fire and lack the most basic supplies.

"Sick people here do not die due to medical treatment, but because of hunger and severe malnutrition, unhealed wounds, severe lack of food and absence of basic human necessities," one of the physicians, identified as Dr. Mosab, wrote in a letter to Britain's ITV, accompanied by disturbing footage of the makeshift medical center.

The video shows a starving 14-month-old being examined — her distended belly, hollow cheeks and glazed-over eyes sickeningly reminiscent of images from the worst famines. She died within a day, doctors said.

Another child who appears to be suffering from malnutrition howls in pain and the doctor warns, "We urgently need baby milk or more will die."

While Syrian government forces and the rebels have been locked in a battle for Homs, the women, children and injured trapped there "drink from polluted wells and wash in the sewage water," Mosab wrote.

"We eat leaves and rotten rice," he wrote.

The streets outside the hospital are lined with wrecked empty buildings and littered with debris after months of shelling. Inside, it's not much better.

Crude tunnels and trenches have been carved out to protect patients and workers from bullets as they travel between buildings. When night falls, the rats take over.

The operating room is crude, and there is no lab, so they transfuse blood directly from the donor to the wounded, raising the risk of transmitting hepatitis or HIV, Mosab said.

Contaminated water runs from the sink, and bug zappers hang on the wall because there is no way to keep insects out, the doctor said.

Pointing to a wall of nearly empty shelves, he said, "Here we have some medication but most of it is out of date and should be thrown out. But we should use it, because we don't have another choice."

A boy, perhaps just 12 years old, is identified as an assistant, and the doctors said most of the "nurses" in the hospital have no medical background. "Most of the people who should be here fled," he said.

His letter to ITV ended with plea: "We are waiting for your help."

The International Committee of the Red Cross said this week that it could help in rebel strongholds, but the Syrian government won't let them in.

Magne Barth, head of the ICRC's Damascus delegation told of visiting one field hospital desperate for supplies.

"Basically they need everything," Barth said.

"They are working under extremely difficult conditions and I had to tell the doctors who were struggling there —I said, 'I would like to give you everything and I can give you nothing.' Because at this stage we are not allowed to bring in medical aid to medical structures in opposition-held areas."

"This was just one place. Clearly there are huge medical needs in many places of Syria," he said.

"The needs are there. The capacity on our side is there. But we're not able to do what we would like to do to serve the Syrian people under the current conditions."

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/09/27/20720420-the-hell-of-a-syrian-hospital-we-are-waiting-for-your-help?lite

There are many places in the world where they have the same needs but the aide is not allowed through. Why is Syria any different?

The rebels hold the town. If they can get their arms through then they could get aide through if they cared about the people. They prefer for the people (the innocents of Syria) to suffer, and for us to hear about it and get angry because they want us to attack and help them overthrow Assad. Plus, the radicals have been know to use the red cross (not saying the red cross helps) to bring in more arms, as shields, as vehicles to attack etc. I understand why the Syrian govt says no. There is a "civil" war going on. This would help the rebels and most likely not the innocent civilians. The rebels hold the town, I hold them responsible for the well being of the innocents in the places they hold.

I'm confused.

First, why does my posting of what is happening in Syria mean that the situation Syria is somehow different from the rest of the world? If I post an article about an earthquake in Pakistan, would I be met with questions about why Pakistan is different than Peru?

I also fail to understand why some seem to be... I'm not sure how to phrase this other than to say defending Assad over the rebels.

The article I posted states that it is the Syrian government that is preventing them from providing much needed help, not the rebels. To me this is simply more proof of the Syrian governments neglect and disregard for its own people.

Does that mean all rebel groups are worthy of admiration? Of course not.

i don't think any of us are defending Assad. what were ARE doing, however, is asserting that we have no right to individually intervene in Syria.

Ha. When you post an article like this about Syria after the "discussions" we have had about Syria, it appears to me to be part of your argument about Syria. I asked then why Syria is different in its suffering and I ask now why this is news because it is the same in many other places. Why is Syria more important to you? As you said, this is (in your view) "more proof of the Syrian govts......". So, see, it is part of your Syria argument so I respond in kind. Why does your posting about Syria mean you care more about Syria? Maybe because you aren't posting thread after thread about the other places where the suffering of innocents is equal or worse.

I like to try to see all sides of an issue. I do not blindly embrace one side over another, especially when threat of military action hangs in the mix. Assad sucks. There is no debate there. The rebels suck. There is debate there. Which rebels hold this town? What kind of people take over a town only to allow such suffering? The kind that will let the red cross come in to help the innocents? No, the kind that allows press in to see the horror and does nothing to get aide in. The kind that uses the suffering to play us. The kind that would kill the innocents and /or the red cross if they thought it would help their goals. Obviously many believe whatever the rebels say and hold them responsible for nothing. If Assad lets the red cross into war zones and something happens to them he will be blamed. He can not assure their safety. Plus, one simple fact of war is you do not hold off on your battles so that people can come in to mend your enemy. And don't jump on that. You know damned well the rebels want their people mended more than they want the innocents mended. Their people alive are most important for their goals. Innocents suffering is more important to their goals.

Why are the people suffering? Because the country is in a war. Because some Syrians and many non Syrians are trying to violently overthrow the govt. The govt is trying to prevent that. Wouldn't any govt do the same?

John, our argument is not over Assad. He is horrible. If the majority of Syrians ever worked together to oust him they would have my full support (not our govts military support). Right now that isn't happening. There are too many radicals involved, on both sides and too may other govts involved on both sides. The innocents pay the price and will continue to do so.

John, I don't understand why you whine when people respond to your posts.

I am not defending Assad over the rebels. I am trying to see his side. I do not blindly support the rebels which is exactly what you are doing. I hold both sides responsible for the suffering of the innocents. And I hold both sides responsible for the red cross not getting in. I hold the press responsible for not presenting all sides. Doctors killed by sniper fire. From whom? The red cross is often more like a bullseye in stuations like this. The rebels have nothing to gain from the red cross getting in. They have lots to gain from them not getting in.

Well said, John.

For those who say we should not help the Syrian people rid themselves of their ruthless, brutal dictator: You should hang your head in shame for not wanting us to do the humanitarian thing and help those who need our help.

Ha. I do not think the humanitarian thing is to bomb and kill more innocents if that's what you mean. I do not think the humanitarian thing to do is help radicals win so they can impose even harsher laws.

This is not about doing the humanitarian thing. We have easily closed our eyes to the suffering of milliions around the world. Hang your head in shame for that.

This is not about helping the Syrian people rid themselves. Very few of them are fighting. Our blind support of those fighting could lead to equal or worse for them.

What do you and John propose we do about the red cross thing? Bomb Syria?

Odd that many USians are suddenly up in arms over a few hundred deaths while they passively go about their business while tens of thousands get slaughtered, maimed and/or displaced by regimes far worse than Assad's.
Why is that?

oh, bullcrap. we sat there, during the Rwandan genocide, when 1M people were murdered, and did NOTHING. when 1500 are gassed in Syria, we run around screaming like it is some sort of unspeakable horror? we sat back and watched as Saddam gassed his kurds, but not only did nothing, but assisted him with dual use weapons during the campaign. our policy of constructive engagement with the fascist apartheid regime resulted in unspeakable atrocities in South Africa. and all the while, Reagan had the audacity to compare the Samosistas, who, among their many virtues, dragged babies over barbed wire in front of their mothers, to our founding fathers?

forgive me for laughing out loud at our peity, SciFi. but you will NEVER shame me into objecting to our hypocrisy until we stand against ALL atrocities, rather than the ones that suit our interests.

I've started posts very few times about Syria. Some of my comments are on threads started by others. This is because there has been much happening there that has frequently covered by the media.

If you feel there are other places we should be discussing, you are free to post something. But please do not equate posts on one nation as implying I have no concern for the people of other nations.


All I can say is consider the article I posted. It states that the Syrian government is standing in the way of the Red Cross helping people. Nowhere does it blame the rebels. You say you "hold both side responsible". OK, is there evidence for that?

You seem to put all the rebels into one bad group. There are different groups and no doubt some are acting only in their interest and care little about the Syrian people. But certainly there are Syrians fighting for themselves. Certainly there are many tired of Assad's brutal rule.

I don't see this as whining. I'm trying to understand some of the things written by members on this issue.

But at the same time, when action is suggested, there is criticism.

We cannot be the police for the world.
We will only end up killing more people.


Each situation has to be evaluated in terms of what is happening, how we can influence it, and what possible outcome will there be.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but I don't think anyone can be 100% certain about any of this.

I also think we should learn from history, not be held captive by it. We should look at something like the Iraq invasion and see the mess and deaths it created, but that does not mean we should never invade a nation under any circumstances ever again.

So do we stand by and do nothing or get involved. You tell me.

This thread is twisting into a few different arguments/debates ~

Mac's comment "forgive me for laughing out loud at our peity, SciFi. but you will NEVER shame me into objecting to our hypocrisy until we stand against ALL atrocities, rather than the ones that suit our interests." resonates strongly with me ~ having said that, I easily admit deeply hating picking-and-choosing who to help when and why ~ but as many [including me] have said, we cannot be everything to everyone [maybe especially when we are not being everything to ourselves] ~ and we cannot do anything to change past mistakes or bad behavior ~ I'm NOT suggesting we just forget the past and move on ... but since we cannot change the past, does that mean we do nothing for anyone now? ~ I'm honestly not being snarky ~ but I am getting lost in some of the arguments ~

Sooz

then allow me to boil it down for you.

we have three paths forward that would relieve us of the naked hypocrisy:

1) we could take on everything resembling genocide that happens in the world, and become a sort of mother theresa out there- the undisputed unilateral good guys on this issue.
2) we could take on NOTHING out there, and be isolationist, like most countries do.
3) we could work through the UN, with other governments, to channel our outrage into meaningful coalitions that are in shared, common interest of all humane peoples.

there are, of course, very real reasons why we don't do any of these things. but none of those reasons are very good.

Though it started out with the usual hubris and sabre-rattling you (the US) are still involved.
The difference between this time and last time is that y'all haven't bombed the crap out of anybody (as far as we know), haven't contributed to any deaths (as far as we know) and are at least trying co-operation instead of confrontation... and there's progress being made as opposed to Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. where it all went to hell in a handcart.

Mac, I am admittedly pleased with how the Syrian crisis seems to be working out ~ and the workout seems to fit snugly in your #3 above ~ do you have a problem with it that I'm missing?

Sooz

nothing at all. this is how i would like ALL future conflicts to be resolved. what i object to are the soap box preachers that claim the rest of us would rather have seen more Syrians slaughtered than "do anything". that was NEVER the idea. the idea was ALWAYS to work with our allies for a diplomatic solution. the moralizing about that position as mamby pamby appeasment do-nothingness really needs to stop. WE WANT THE SAME THINGS. those in favor of diplomacy just don't want (aka are tired of) those solutions dropped out of bombers, or flown in via drones.

Well, I had a big response to you, John, even copied it in case the computer messed up......which it did. But, it's just not worth it.

I ask questions that appear to be ignored. There is no real debate going on about points. I fear, also, that there is no critical thiking when it comes to articles we post. No questioning or recognizing biases. Just blindly accept whichever ones agree with our views. That's sad.

There is always more than one side. The truth will generally be a mix of the points from all sides. When it comes to Syria, there is only the one side to some. It is surprising to me because usually more objectivity is shown.

No one asks why is Assad saying no? Which rebels hold the town? Who will be responsible for the safety of the Red Cross? If they were allowed in and were killed would you blame Assad? Do you even care about anything other than Assad = bad, which isn't even in debate. He is. The rebels ddn't allow the press in to say they were negligent. They allowed them in to show horror to upset people like you. The more horror the more they are apt to get help from us. These people are trying to violently overthrow a govt. The people hurt the most are innocents. They are in a war zone. But who cares right?

I have named places where we could help people, help get aide through. You keep telling me to do that. I have. The question in my mind was do you have other places you care enough about to do what you're willing to do for Syrians. Obviously, the answer is no. So, I have to admit that my perception that you care more about the Syrians, for some reason, has not changed. Your simple denials show nothing to make it change. That's not an insult. It's certainly your right to care more about them for whatever reason. It does sadden me.

Should we do nothing? In Syria with all the others involved, yes we should do nothing. You're right, we have to pick and choose. You pick Syria. I don't. I pick starving children in other regions in Africa where aide can't get through because of the govts. Put as much effort there and in the UN to form groups to tell the govts we will escort the food and medicine to the people in need. Do we not care about the black skinned kids? or are we afraid to stand up to the black skinned leaders? I don't understand. Why not there? Why Syria? It's happening now, just like Syria.

I give up this crap.

I wouldn't mind an answer from someone to the question concerning this thread specifically. What should we do about the Red Cross not being allowed in? John, you always expect someone to not just complain but come up with a solution. So what do we do?

Jeanne, let's first admit that our discussions here have little meaning beyond presenting our own views. At best, one of us may change the others mind but even that isn't likely.

We are just two people and we shouldn't let one issue that neither of us can do much about drive a wedge between us.

I had two reasons for posting this topic.

First, I thought it shows something about the Syrian government. Whatever their reasoning, they are preventing help from getting to people that need it.

Second, because this is an effort to do something good without military force and it is being stopped.

What should we do about the Red Cross not being allowed in? I don't know. Does that mean I was wrong to post this story?

I don't know why you jump all over me whenever I post something about Syria. Your first words on this thread were, "There are many places in the world where they have the same needs but the aide is not allowed through. Why is Syria any different?" I had not yet even commented on the story.

Have I ever said Syria was different? Have I ever implied that we shouldn't be concerned or send aid to other countries? Have I ever said, "Sudan? Why should we care about Sudan?"

I have tried like hell to be respectful. I have read other comments, posted my own, and asked questions.

You asked, "So what do we do?" It seems we avoid discussing anything to do with Syria.

Yes, you have implied Syria is different, imo

As was mentioned in the respect thread, sometimes a person's view on one thing can change the amount of respect they get from another. Your avoidance of questions bothers me. I'm sure some of my habits bother you.

John, we don't really know each other well enough to even like or dislike. We are only learning a little about each other through our posts and views. Is there really an "us" to drive a wedge between? The ideas presented in these threads are real issues facing the world. My involvement in many of them is not just posts on a board. I imagine that's true for many here. This is just words. Actions happen away from here. I do have feelings that show on here when confronted with the same bs thinking as I face and fight in the real world.

I doubt very seriously that the world or this board will collapse if you and I do not join hands and play friends. It's a waste of time to discuss Syria further with you. As I said and then you said, I'm done with this crap.

BTW, as you well know, the "what do we do?" was not about you and me.

John, if Syria denying access to the Red Cross bothers you why are you so passive about the US denying the Red Cross access to Bagram?

You know me, Oskar - I only care about Syria. But seriously, I don't know to what you are referring. After Google search of 'Bagram', I still don't.

I have to add that VoC was always better than this. I expect it elsewhere, but not here.

Certain comments are understandable, such as "Do you know what is happening in Bagram?" or "If this concerns you, read about Bagram". Even better would be a news story on it.

Why these assumptions? What do I need to do to prove Syria is only one place that concerns me? How can I be "passive" about something with which I am unfamiliar?

CEII has always been a place for confrontation. Even more, personal insults are not uncommon and some draw strange conclusions from member's posts. VoC had always been an escape from all that. When there was disagreement, it was presented in a respectful way.

I guess everything changes.

John, even you have implied that those of us who are trying to see more than your view of things regarding Syria are "defending Assad". It is opinions we may be disrespecting. I would consider one of the biggest signs of disrespect to be ignoring questions asked. Sometimes using certain words or wording things in a certain way can get a response when nicey nice doesn't.

"better than this" better than what, John? Didn't we have a thread on respect? The wonderful thing about this group is that we are allowed to use our own words in our own way. We are not required to kiss ass.

John, I will try to explain again the problem I and apparently some others are having. Things like those in Syria have happened and are happening elsewhere. We have not seen a huge reaction to them like we have to Syria. They don't get as much media because the Pres has not threatened to bomb because of them. Syria is a biggee for you. You aren't one to say yes, I support bombing at other places. You do in Syria. That is drastic and appears to be contrary to what we usually see from you. We just don't understand why and it's frustrating. The "I do care" just doesn't really explain the difference to us. So you are getting a lot of questions over and over. You are getting hot words used to try to draw an explanation.

I don't do the other group. Never have and never will. Friends of mine helped start this group. From what I have heard, the worst insult in the politics group world is to compare this one to that other one. Do you honestly think that adds anything to the discussion? And why did you do it? Because we used wording you don't like? There are perceptions and our wording is based on those. In this group that is allowed, just as your perception that we were "defending Assad" was allowed.

I admit that I get lost in world politics and the game playing involved. Mostly because we are never given the entire story, but only that which is filtered through the governments and media. Otherwise, I'd give my opinion.

oskar, why not start a separate thread about Bagram, if it bothers you? I didn't know any of that until I read from your link. Keep in mind that I won't participate due to the above paragraph.

My bottom line is that people should not suffer at the hands of their own government due to lack and/or denial of care (nod to Obamacare obstruction and cuts to funding social programs ) and should not be subjected to torture at the hands of governments in far away lands. How, or even if we can stop it all, I do not know. "We" can't even take care of our own citizens properly. Granted, they are much better off than those in Syria et al, but still..........

Oskar, thanks for posting that link. I'll check it out.


Jeanne, I don't know what questions I have refused to answer. You asked, "Why is Syria any different?" You keep asking that and I have answered several times, but you don't accept my answer.

You asked, "What do you and John propose we do about the red cross thing? Bomb Syria?"
I answered that. I said I don't know. Why assume my answer will always be military action?

I have explained why I agreed with the president's position.
I have said I am pleased that an alternate solution has been found.

I phrased that point in a particular way;
"I also fail to understand why some seem to be... I'm not sure how to phrase this other than to say defending Assad over the rebels."

Did I cross a line with that comment? Perhaps "defending" was a bad choice of word, but I wrote that because of comments like "I understand why the Syrian govt says no" and others. I never said anyone liked Assad. I never asked why you oppose Syrian rebels doing bad things when there others in the world doing worse.

My comparison of VoC to CEII was limited. In no way did I mean to imply the two sites are the same. The point was that it would be no surprise to see a member at CEII ask why I don't care about people dying in places other than Syria. I just didn't expect it here.