3 ms·

Their work requires physical presence which makes them easy to threaten. Do you have similar presence, vulnerability, and defiance in spite of it? Or are you c

Their work requires physical presence which makes them easy to threaten. Do you have similar presence, vulnerability, and defiance in spite of it? Or are you casting stones from a position of comfort while doing, comparatively, nothing?

michelsedgh 9mo ago
I think you are the one that casting stones from a position of comfort rather than seeing and condemning evil for it is evil, same as all these NGOs and organizations. They could put themselves in danger its literally doctors without borders made to help the unrepresented populations. They were in Palestine and keep being against Israel, but can not say a word against IRGC? what are you trying to accomplish by your comment? I am doing what I can for my friends and family in Iran who many of them have had dangerous stuff almost getting killed by IRGC.
omio 9mo ago
"It's easy to be a saint in paradise." Cmdr. Sisko, ST:DS9
throwawayheui57 9mo ago
The real question is have they tried to “be present” and denied access? If not, what you’re saying is moot.
- vidarh 9mo ago
  It took me one search to determine that they have teams in Iran, and so face both direct physical risk to their teams, and face a direct risk to their mission if they are not careful about what they say.
  - throwawayheui57 9mo ago
    That was a question. From the source: “While we are not authorized to carry out activities beyond the scope of our projects — which focus on marginalized communities in Iran — we continue to offer medical support to hospitals.” https://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/what-we-do/where-we-work/iran https://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/what-we-do/where-we-wo... It seems that they are present physically but don’t have proper authorization for activities beyond the scope… Compare it with their missions elsewhere (i.e. Gaza, which I’m not against btw): “In Palestine, Doctors Without Borders/Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) provides humanitarian assistance to people affected by violence and displacement, and has scaled up activities to assist people affected by Israel’s war and siege on Gaza.” Why the difference? Do you get the point of the original comment now?
    - vidarh 9mo ago
      > Why the difference? What exactly is complicated about this? It is very simple: Different governments allow them different access. This access is often precarious and dependent on not pissing off the government in control over whichever area they operate in. This is the same problem every humanitarian organisation operating in the field has to deal with.
      - throwawayheui57 9mo ago
        So do you think they have wider authorization or autonomy in besieged Gaza compared to Iran? Why is that? I think you’re getting closer to the point I’m trying to make here.
        vidarh 9mo ago
        What is complicated here? The Iranian regime apparently cares more what they might report, presumably because the Iranian regime perceives it to be a bigger threat to their interests. What is it you think is complicated about this? Just tell us instead of beating around the bush.

michelsedgh 9mo ago

I think you are the one that casting stones from a position of comfort rather than seeing and condemning evil for it is evil, same as all these NGOs and organizations. They could put themselves in danger its literally doctors without borders made to help the unrepresented populations. They were in Palestine and keep being against Israel, but can not say a word against IRGC? what are you trying to accomplish by your comment? I am doing what I can for my friends and family in Iran who many of them have had dangerous stuff almost getting killed by IRGC.

omio 9mo ago

"It's easy to be a saint in paradise." Cmdr. Sisko, ST:DS9

throwawayheui57 9mo ago

The real question is have they tried to “be present” and denied access? If not, what you’re saying is moot.

vidarh 9mo ago
It took me one search to determine that they have teams in Iran, and so face both direct physical risk to their teams, and face a direct risk to their mission if they are not careful about what they say.
- throwawayheui57 9mo ago
  That was a question. From the source: “While we are not authorized to carry out activities beyond the scope of our projects — which focus on marginalized communities in Iran — we continue to offer medical support to hospitals.” https://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/what-we-do/where-we-work/iran https://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/what-we-do/where-we-wo... It seems that they are present physically but don’t have proper authorization for activities beyond the scope… Compare it with their missions elsewhere (i.e. Gaza, which I’m not against btw): “In Palestine, Doctors Without Borders/Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) provides humanitarian assistance to people affected by violence and displacement, and has scaled up activities to assist people affected by Israel’s war and siege on Gaza.” Why the difference? Do you get the point of the original comment now?
  - vidarh 9mo ago
    > Why the difference? What exactly is complicated about this? It is very simple: Different governments allow them different access. This access is often precarious and dependent on not pissing off the government in control over whichever area they operate in. This is the same problem every humanitarian organisation operating in the field has to deal with.
    - throwawayheui57 9mo ago
      So do you think they have wider authorization or autonomy in besieged Gaza compared to Iran? Why is that? I think you’re getting closer to the point I’m trying to make here.
      - vidarh 9mo ago
        What is complicated here? The Iranian regime apparently cares more what they might report, presumably because the Iranian regime perceives it to be a bigger threat to their interests. What is it you think is complicated about this? Just tell us instead of beating around the bush.