The Red Cross, no stranger to controversy, has added another notch to their belt of questionable acts, although this latest antic is unconscionable and in my mind treasonous: The Red Cross is aiding and abetting terrorists. Not just our enemies, the Taliban to be specific.
In an "operational update", the International Committee for the Red Cross reported that it had trained and equipped "over 70 members of the armed opposition" as part of a programme to deal with battlefield injuries.
First-aid training and kits was also given to "arms carriers" and "civilians living in conflict areas", 100 Afghan security forces personnel, taxi drivers used to transport the wounded and the Red Cross's own staff.
I have no problem with helping civilians in the region, but the Taliban?
The Red Cross has remained neutral in global conflicts, a role that is accepted by Nato's military commanders. Some in the Afghan government, however, are likely to be unhappy that the Taliban is being given aid that could help sustain its forces in the field.
Neutral? The war on terror can in no way be compared to an ordinary global conflict, and there can be no neutrality in that kind of conflict. The rules of engagement are totally different. We don't want these people to survive, at least I don't, so they can live another day and kill more of our troops and innocent Afghanis and Pakistanis. The Taliban are barbaric men lacking a conscience and any moral compass. What the heck is wrong with the Red Cross?
In the update, the Red Cross reported that participants in Dr Baldan's workshop had noted a trend noticed at Mirwais hospital in Kandahar that that there has been a substantial increase in the number of patients injured by improvised explosive devices and other weapons.
Basic first aid skills and facilities were lacking and even where health care was available it was often difficult for the wounded to be transported to them during military operations like the recent offensive in Marjeh.
"Even after the fighting is over in a particular area, we're having difficulty transporting patients to doctors," an Afghan Red Crescent Society volunteer said. "Mines, checkpoints and general insecurity stop us getting through safely."
Let them blow themselves up. Save us the effort. No-one should be helping these mass murderers who would just as easily blow up the Red Cross folk as they would any other infidel.
You might want to reconsider those donations. There are far worthier organizations to donate your hard earned money to. Think twice before you give the Red Cross funds to help sustain and heal the terrorist injured.
UPDATE: In spite of worldwide criticism, they will continue to aid the Taliban.
Red Cross/Taliban Poster courtesy of BCF .
6 comments:
It seems no one is really interested in your opinions anymore.
Neutral is neutral, sweetheart. Deal with it. If you don't like it bring your troops home. They are wasting their time and lives.
Hello, Brit expat in Hong Kong. I forget all the other names you used in the past. Looks like you still are interested.
And frankly I do this for my own catharsis. I get paid to blog on another site, so that's where I now spend most of my time.
Neutral is not the same as aiding and abetting Richy.
Is this particularly new information about the Red Cross? It is, despite its claim to neutrality, a political organization as well as a life-saving one, in that it selects whom it will support and whom deny. The Israeli Magen David Adom was unable to be credentialled by the Red Cross for an awfully long time, and the Red Cross lent itself to surreptitiously aiding one side against another in the conflict there. Because of the good work they do in other parts of the world, I do support them on occasion (would prefer to send my charitable dollars, truth be told to Medicines sans Frontiers), but my husband will not.
Whoever makes decisions such as the one where life-saving training is offered to Taliban agents has an extremely complex mind, one obviously beyond the understanding or ordinary folks such as we must be with our obviously-skewed notions of ethical choice, morality and accountability.
BCF: "Richy" doesn't know any better.
PIEFACE: New info re. the Taliban yes, re. being questionable in their operations no. They have too much baggage all around for me to ever send them money, when there are much smaller organizations doing good works, like Medecines sans Frontiers, etc. When one sends money, one never knows where that money is going and I, in good conscience, could not donate knowing that my few dollars might end up paying for one of those first aid kits. What the Taliban do to others does not warrant that they get to survive, if wounded. To me helping the Taliban is like giving a cigarette to a man who has lung cancer, without the death sentence.
Hi Ya Pieface thanks for the Info, Incog Pieface runs a great blog.
Post a Comment