Brian Lilley:
“You’ll have to forgive me for not being over the moon at news that the Red Cross is training Taliban fighters in proper first aid and supplying them with kits.”
Hey, anything that keeps our enemies alive so they can get back on the battlefield:
“In the worldly eyes of the Red Cross there is nothing wrong with what they are doing, comparing training sessions for the Taliban to giving treatment to the wounded. That’s what comes from spending too much time in the finer salons of the world. There is a great deal of difference though between saving the life of someone who has been wounded in battle and training, as well as equipping, one side of that battle.”
“Can you imagine the Red Cross training the Irish Republican Army back in the 1970s and sending them off to the streets of Belfast with little first aid kits?…”
I couldn’t have imagined it back then, but times have changed.
Another one bites the dust. So many of those once honest and impartial human rights organizations has imbibed the Kool-aid
“Can you imagine the Red Cross training the Irish Republican Army back in the 1970s and sending them off to the streets of Belfast with little first air kits?…”
Am I very cynical? Because I can easily imagine it. I’m kind of surprised to hear they didn’t.
if they did this in Vancouver the Talibs would also recieve free housing ,free drug paraphenalia and the right to raise unmedicated free range chickens, hens only of course.
Just another part of the liberal death wish for western society. The Red cross is enabling the enemy. I can’t imagine that this would have happened during WW II.
Dinesh D’Souza in his book “The Enemy At Home” explains that there are two wars going on in the world today. The war the cultural left is making on western society today and the war on the west that the fundamentalist Muslims are making. He suggests that we will will not win the 2nd war if we lose the 1st one. He also suggests that the reason for the Islamic anger is their fear of the moral degradation of western society will spread to their society.
I do enjoy organizations voluntarily removing themselves from my list of charities. It makes my donations decisions so much easier.
Ken (Kulak), I was thinking that their fear is that the islamists won’t be able to foist their moral degradation upon us.
and I’m curious how the Red Cross will fare if word gets around that they’re aiding these people, along side the Red Crescent? I thought the Red Cross helps all people that require medical aid, but training them and outfitting them with kit? That’s not in their role is it? Can you imagine the Red Crescent returning the favor?
nope.
My Dad came out of WWII with a deep loathing for the Red Cross. When I was a kid, I was forbidden to participate in fund-raising for them.
He told me that their treatment of him while he was wounded and in a field hospital in Italy left him with a life-long disgust for that revered organization.
He is 90 now, and still feels the same way.
He was very pleased to see that some 70 years later they have proven to him that they have not changed and his opinion of them is justified.
Libtard do-gooders without any kind of sense. Its a death cult.
Maybe two years in JAIL for aiding and abetting the enemy in war time would get the Canadian Red Cross’ collective attention?
Is this a surprise from the medical community which has been lead by one Henry Morgentaler (our first doctor of death and proud recipient of the loathsome Order of Canada) by ignoring the Hippocratic Oath and not standing up for what is right but for what is politically correct?
We have been dumbed down to accept the double-speak of the more learned, and never question their reasoning and challenge their self-serving attitudes.
The Red Cross may as well be the Red Crescent. Thus ends my donations and support. Live with the shortfall you traitors!
Since when is the Taliban our “enemy”? Get out of that forsaken shit hole and let them rot in their own ignorance.
If these Taliban really were such powerful terrorizers, and not just some misogynist bums with left over AK-47’s, they still wouldn’t be a problem if we weren’t such pansies about “inclusive” immigration policies. Oh, we can’t just profile people on their allegiances to a 6th century war-mongering pedophile can we?
p.s. all the 9/11 hijackers were legal immigrants, London tube bombers were British, &c.
Times indeed have changed. Suborning terrorism openly was frowned upon back in the day. The upside is that we now have dykes against kikes.
Progressivism…the gift that keeps on killing itself.
Syncro
Nor did the Red Cross supply them to the Black and Tans!
“Since when is the Taliban our ‘enemy’?” – Bob Frank
Erm, the Taliban kills NATO soldiers, Bob, including Canadian soldiers, and are committed to continuing in this activity. So what is it, precisely, about the word “enemy” that causes you to have so much trouble in grasping it’s meaning?
During my childhood I well remember family members who had served overseas criticizing the Red Cross for their treatment of “regular” soldiers.
It was said that they only cared about those who had “connections” to prominent families back home.
The Sally Ann, on the other hand cared for everyone equally.
Atric said “During my childhood I well remember family members who had served overseas criticizing the Red Cross for their treatment of “regular” soldiers.”
I don’t know all the stories about the Red Cross involvement during WW2 but I’m pretty sure that 90% of the POW’s held by the Germans wouldn’t have returned if it weren’t for the Red Cross. They would have starved to death.
As Dylan sings, “I used to care, but things have changed.”
I learned in the early 90s, after experiencing a huge earthquake in the Central American country my family and I were living in, that the Red Cross was not a reliable organization.
I had assembled a few bags of children’s clothing for the families who’d been displaced and were living in a tent city, intending to deliver them to the local Red Cross. When my neighbour saw me hauling them to my vehicle, she asked what I was doing. When she heard “Red Cross,” she scowled and said, “Don’t take them there.” When I asked why, she said “They’ll take all the good things and they’ll probably never make it to the tent city.” She said that was usual practice.
I haven’t trusted the Red Cross since. My neighbour said to take the bags directly into the tent city, which I did, and delivered them to the children and moms who ran over to meet me.
BTW, glacierman, it probably IS The Red Crescent. Check out the Web site for the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies. The name’s been changed in countries that are offended by the cross.
I used to care, but things have changed.
Sorry, here’s the link:
http://www.ifrc.org/
It might be worth it to find out what company provides the first aid kits to the Red Cross & slip someone in there……. ;D
When I emailed the Red Crescent, they had the balls to suggest the Geneva Conventions allowed for humanitarian organizations to operate on all sides of conflicts.
Geneva Convention? Taliban? They don’t belong in the same conversation! The towelheads shit on the GC….
Based on something my dear departed Dad told me, I’ve never given a dime to the Red Cross and have donated mostly to the Salvation Army. Why? Dad told us that in WW2 while based in England, the Red Cross charged soldiers for a coffee & muffin (I think it was a dime) while the Salvation Army gave them a coffee & muffin for free. Not a big deal, but indicative of an attitude.
“the British Red Cross has posted an explanation for the training saying that they need to be seen as neutral in order to remain credible,”
IN-CREDIBLE! When we started enabling junkies through shooting galleries,I thought we’d reached the pinnacle of insanity. Obviously,I was wrong!
The Red Cross has basically declared themselves an enemy organization,they should be shut down in any Country fielding troops in Afghanistan.
how long before one of the rc’s members is taken hostage and/or gets their head sawed off?
Good for them — the Swiss-based ICRC has long adhered to the principle of neutrality in providing humanitarian aid to all war wounded, and I’m happy to see they’re continuing to do so.
eastern paul: “Geneva Convention? Taliban? They don’t belong in the same conversation! The towelheads shit on the GC….”
Their leadership does, yes, but we don’t. That’s why our troops abide by the Geneva Convention in Afghanistan. And why the ICRC does too.
I’m sure the Taliban’s future victims will be grateful for the RC’s humanity, the little girls can look forward to them healing the Taliban filth so they can throw acid in their faces when they aren’t poisoning them enmasse. Little girls being raped in a Sharia Law compliant marrages and let’s not forget the Taliban’s love of burying women alive to stone to death. The Red Cross another progressive organizations that has more empathy towards our enemies than our troops.
I have never given money to the Red Cross or any other large ‘helping’ organization. They simply cannot be trusted.
You might say they are “Too Big To Trust”.
Davenport – providing captured Taliban with “humanitarian aid” is not the same thing as providing their organization with medical training and supplies.
I’m getting real tired of this.
“Wah, the RC shouldn’t assist the Taliban with chickenshit first aid because the Taliban are criminal scum, wah!”
Well, guess what, sunshine, when the rest of the Western world stops treating the Taliban like a uniformed combatant(which the Taliban isn’t), then we’ll see this crap stop. Since the Taliban is viewed as a legitimate enemy combatant by the western world, subject to protection under the Geneva Conventions, the RC is in the right here(*as long as it’s only medical supplies and medical training*). I hate this too, but it’s our own own damn fault.
Laws of War dictate that any combatant that dosen’t carry it’s arms openly is tantamount to a spy and can be shot. But NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO, it’s more important that we worry about captured Taliban getting a bump on the noggin from Afghan Gov’t troops.
We were annual contributors to the Canadian Red Cross until during the time some of the former Yugoslavia refugees were housed in CFB Petawawa. Some of the items that these people could use and had been donated by Canadians were refused by the Red Cross because they were not politically correct. They have not received a dime from us since.
Black Mamba – providing basic first aid training and handing out bandages and is absolutely “humanitarian aid” in a war-zone where roadblocks, roadside bombs, and weapons fire prevent a wounded combatant from being transported to a hospital.
We’re not talking about advanced field surgery here. It’s patch-and-stabilize kind of stuff.
And whether you’re captured or not is irrelevant for groups like ICRC, MSF, etc. The whole point of impartial, neutral humanitarian aid — and even the ISAF recognizes this — is that you don’t take political/military sides.
The whole point of impartial, neutral humanitarian aid — and even the ISAF recognizes this — is that you don’t take political/military sides unless you’re using your ambulances to transport Palestinian terrorists and their weapons to fight against the Israeli occupiers.
FIFY
Okay Ken, I’ll bite: What could be misconstrued as PC offensive in donated stuff? Besides an old closet of Victoria Secret lingerie.
Davenport – what would be the moral difference if it were “advanced field surgery”, then? Why not build them a hospital?
If the Taliban were being starved out, would you be in favour of sending them food?
If this is in the Red Cross charter, then the hell with the Red Cross charter.
“providing basic first aid training and handing out bandages and is absolutely “humanitarian aid” in a war-zone where roadblocks, roadside bombs, and weapons fire prevent a wounded combatant from being transported to a hospital.”
Heh. Just who would be responsible for those roadside bombs and weapons fire preventing a timely hospital visit? Seems like a rather circular argument to me.
“Heh. Just who would be responsible for those roadside bombs and weapons fire preventing a timely hospital visit?”
That’s why it reads “ROADBLOCKS, roadside bombs, and WEAPONS FIRE (i.e., from all side).”
Feh, you’re not convincing me Davenport. The ragheads are the sole reason those conditions exist. An untimely hospital visit is their own damn fault. Seems to me the RC is enabling them to continue their behaviour which causes the conditions you describe. I still see the reasoning as circular.
That said, the RC has a right to do what they want. However, as individuals, we have a right to pass moral judgment over their actions. We also have laws in this country about aiding and abetting a terrorist organization. I would welcome those laws being enforced against the RC.
“Davenport – what would be the moral difference if it were “advanced field surgery,” then? Why not build them a hospital?”
There’s an operational difference — the ICRC, like all aid orgs in Afghanistan, are stretched too thin to provide advanced trauma care out in a battlefield, but given the ICRC’s stated mission, no moral one — either you’re impartial/neutral in providing aid, or you’re not. In fact, the ICRC staffs and supports a number of hospitals in Afghanistan, and they treat anyone who shows up wounded and/or dying — civilians and insurgents alike. Come to think of it, it’s quite possible that providing this first aid training to Taliban fighters might encourage them not to bring their wounded to these hospitals, which would be an altogether good thing for civilian safety.
What they WON’T do is build “them” (i.e., the Taliban) a hospital — that is, establish and run a facility that only helps one side.
Having just finished the last of my clients tax returns, for self-employed, I can say that this year the donations to the Red Cross was almost non existent for the majority of my clients. The Red Cross has lost a lot of donations, this past year.
These clients have found other org to support, like MS, MD, and local charities. Also down were donations to a lot of animal groups like PETA, Suzuki, and others.
Davenport, is there not a distinction to be made between “treating the wounded” and “supplying material aid to combatants”?
Treating the wounded, whoever they are, is neutral humanitarian aid. Giving first aid materials (or food, or shelter, or training) to avowed members of a terrorist organization is -not- neutral humanitarian aid, it is -illegal- under the Geneva Convention, and it is also morally reprehensible.
Do we give knowingly give Jeffry Dahmer a first aid kit in case one of his victims tags him before dying? We do not. Do we give the SS first aid training in case one of the doomed Jews manages to score on a guard before they chuck her in the gas chamber? We do not.
Therefore, it is entirely reasonable to ask why the Red Cross is doing this, and indeed to ask you why you think they are doing the right thing here when they are clearly, obviously not. By what logic do you justify this, Davenport?
What they WON’T do is build “them” (i.e., the Taliban) a hospital – that is, establish and run a facility that only helps one side.
The “first aid kits” and medical training they provide only help “one side”, the Taliban not being noted for charity. The only difference here is scale.
Wow, I missed that little item.
Treating wounded Taliban is perfectly reasonable — after capture.
(However, keeping the critically wounded alive also prevents martyrdom and is therefore a form of cultural genocide.)
It’s a short trip from “hearts and minds” to “hearts and flowers”.
The Phantom: “By what logic do you justify this, Davenport?”
Well, first of all, there’s the legal basis — specifically, Protocol I of the Conventions, Article 81.1: “The Parties to the conflict shall grant to the International Committee of the Red Cross all facilities, within their power so as to enable it to carry out the humanitarian functions assigned to it by the Conventions and this Protocol in order to ensure protection and assistance to the victims of conflicts; the International Committee of the Red Cross may also carry out any other humanitarian activities in favour of these victims, subject to the consent of the Parties to the conflict concerned.”
Then there’s the consent of the ISAF: “We recognize the need for [the ICRC’s] work to be executed impartially — and it’s precisely for this reason that they are able to gain the access that they do.”
The operational logic of impartiality and neutrality is further echoed by MSF: “Peace and stability are no doubt noble objectives, but when aid organizations seek to transform a society by promoting the strategy of one of the belligerents in the midst of a war, they are no longer seen as impartial by all sides and subsequently lose the ability to access and provide assistance to all people in need. For this reason, it is nearly impossible for any organization to simultaneously provide humanitarian assistance while also looking for ways to resolve a conflict.”
Now, your turn: please point to the specific Convention/Protocol and Article of the Geneva Conventions that supports this statement of yours: “Giving first aid materials (or food, or shelter, or training) to avowed members of a terrorist organization…is -illegal- under the Geneva Convention.”
The Phantom: “By what logic do you justify this, Davenport?”
Well, first of all, there’s the legal basis — specifically, Protocol I of the Conventions, Article 81.1: “The Parties to the conflict shall grant to the International Committee of the Red Cross all facilities, within their power so as to enable it to carry out the humanitarian functions assigned to it by the Conventions and this Protocol in order to ensure protection and assistance to the victims of conflicts; the International Committee of the Red Cross may also carry out any other humanitarian activities in favour of these victims, subject to the consent of the Parties to the conflict concerned.”
Then there’s the consent of the ISAF: “We recognize the need for [the ICRC’s] work to be executed impartially — and it’s precisely for this reason that they are able to gain the access that they do.” (upi.com/Top_News/US/2010/05/27/ICRC-defends-program-ISAF-has-no-issue/UPI-16741274961198)
The operational logic of impartiality and neutrality is further echoed by MSF: “Peace and stability are no doubt noble objectives, but when aid organizations seek to transform a society by promoting the strategy of one of the belligerents in the midst of a war, they are no longer seen as impartial by all sides and subsequently lose the ability to access and provide assistance to all people in need. For this reason, it is nearly impossible for any organization to simultaneously provide humanitarian assistance while also looking for ways to resolve a conflict.” (doctorswithoutborders.org/publications/article.cfm?id=4311&cat=special-report)
Now, your turn: please point to the specific Convention/Protocol and Article of the Geneva Conventions that supports this statement of yours: “Giving first aid materials (or food, or shelter, or training) to avowed members of a terrorist organization…is -illegal- under the Geneva Convention.”
I’m not going to give my uninformed Yankee opinion of British or Canadian law regarding treason. However IMO, under American law, if the American Red Cross were also active in providing this training to our Taliban enemies, it would meet the US Constitution’s strict definition of treason:
“Article III, Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.”
Regarding any American Red Cross involvement, that would seem pretty clear and pertinent, eh? And also pretty clear in any case that the International and British Red Cross agencies have and are using reliable back-channel communications with our enemies. Disgusting.
A liberal is a person, too broadminded to take his own side in a fight.
“The “first aid kits” and medical training they provide only help “one side”, the Taliban not being noted for charity.”
You misunderstand. Obviously, first-aid-trained Taliban aren’t then going to treat injured civilians or ISAF troops. Nobody is expected first-aid-trained civilians to treat Taliban insurgents either.
By “one side,” I mean access to the aid itself. The training and kits were available to anyone who wanted it — Taliban insurgents, yes, but also civilians, taxi drivers (who serve as an informal ambulance service), and Afghan police officers. In that way, it helps all sides (just as the hospitals that treat any wounded person is helping all sides).
Since when did the Taliban adhere to the Geneva Convention??
The Taliban are enemy combatants from all over the world, not a reconised military and they are not protected by the Geneva Convention so that argument is mute.
Go get them Davenport! The Red Cross should be commended for this and good for them. They are neutral.
Cutting to the bone of the issue through all the fluff, Davenport said: “…protection and assistance to the victims of conflicts…”
So the Taliban are the victims in this conflict? This is the thinking here?
Also cutting through some more fluff, “The Parties to the conflict…” One side of this conflict has signed the Geneva Conventions. That would be our side. The other side has not. Indeed, according to the conventions, there is no other side. There is Nato and then there are criminal combatants fighting them.
According to the convention, non-uniformed combatants are not soldiers and they are not civilians. Signatories to the convention are not required to treat them as such, and are allowed to execute them on the spot whenever they are found. People who provide material aid to such groups are likewise not protected by the convention, leaving their treatment at the sole discretion of whoever catches them at it.
This is common knowledge Davenport. If you want to know the exact clause I’m sure you could look it up quick enough. The behavior of the Red Cross aids and abets Jeffrey Dahmer’s moral brothers, and you know it.
I don’t know that I did misunderstand, since we both seem to agree that the Red Cross building a hospital designed to operate under Taliban control would constitute providing “one sided” aid, even, presumably, if they offered to build another for the rest of the populace, and given that supplying medical training and supplies is obviously analogous to that on a smaller scale, but I feel like I’m drowning in mud here, so let it pass.
Helping prisoners and the wounded – people who are out of commission – is one thing. Training terrorist guerilla organizations to be more effective is another.