CFC website says 11.7%, which is on the high side, but as was pointed out they aren't a straight up charity so I don't know how that affects the numbers.
https://www.cfcnca.org/donate/?results&q=american+red+cross&f=30&s=LNI&o=0,110
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
The red cross will not get another cent, second or drop of blood from me . . .
- Thread starter fc2spyguy
- Start date
CFC website says 11.7%, which is on the high side, but as was pointed out they aren't a straight up charity so I don't know how that affects the numbers.
https://www.cfcnca.org/donate/?results&q=american+red+cross&f=30&s=LNI&o=0,110
ImfromJersey
New Member
I'm curious to find out why people are regarding the Taliban fighters as legitimate combatants? These guys are straight up murderers who are just so happening to be fighting against a unified and organized force. Just because one legit military is involved in the conflict doesn't grant the other side the same status. Everyone keeps bringing up the Geneva Convention and how the Red Cross aided the Germans and other former foes. Last I checked, the Taliban fighters follow nothing that even resembles the Geneva Convention. Why should they be given the courtesy that other convention abiding nations at war are given? This seems more along the lines of aiding and abetting. I realize the need for neutrality, but this goes well beyond that. There are rules to the game, but post-9/11 the game has obviously changed.
Jersey, the saying "Same sh*t, different day" comes to mind. During ol' WW II, the German government was responsible for the wholesale slaughter of approximately 4 million innocent people. During Stalin's reign, Russia eliminated 10 million. The Japanese conducted ethnic cleansing campaigns throughout China. The current enemy has done little to compare with the evil that was brought on by those three countries.
Do you think that all of these countries followed the Geneva conventions? Japan didn't, and Russia sure as hell didn't. Germany and the U.S. followed them closer than most countries. The only thing the Taliban and AQ bring to the table that the others didn't, is their unconventional style of warfare. They have a command structure, they have training camps, internal government. . .they aren't all just a group of street thugs, or they would have been beaten long ago by the Soviets. I don't feel as if the game has changed. We just run a few new plays, that's all.
Do you think that all of these countries followed the Geneva conventions? Japan didn't, and Russia sure as hell didn't. Germany and the U.S. followed them closer than most countries. The only thing the Taliban and AQ bring to the table that the others didn't, is their unconventional style of warfare. They have a command structure, they have training camps, internal government. . .they aren't all just a group of street thugs, or they would have been beaten long ago by the Soviets. I don't feel as if the game has changed. We just run a few new plays, that's all.
Nope. Totally disagree. You want the Red Cross to be in with everyone so that they can help with any chance at all of people getting their Geneva Convention treatment, at least.
You wouldn't turn down Red Crescent help, would you? Let me answer that for you: No. And the only way this works for anyone, is if it works for everyone.
I'm just surprised the Taliban didn't kill the IRC personnel.
The Taliban aren't stupid - they're a very smart and capable organization...of questionable ethical standards, no doubt. If they kill IRC personnel, A. they'll never get help from that organization again, and B. it would be a HUGE blow to their image among Muslims (which they're already having a hard enough time with).
I am really not sure who the Red Cross actually treated since they apparently only said 'armed opposition'. Not all 'Taliban' are the same, some are much more casual to doctrine than others doing it only as a side gig or for the money. And many are just locals fighting because there are foreigners in their country/land. I would hazard a guess that these guys were more likely the local variety and not the hard core types. Just a little context.
Uhh, I thought the first paragraph was pretty clear, Taliban in the field . . .
Note sure what more you're looking for, unless you think the taliban has medics with a red cross on there arm and are unarmed . . .
Read closer, the only quote they have from the Red Cross was that they trained the "armed opposition". Was it local tribesman allied with the Taliban? Men whose warlord has decided to call himself Taliban for now? The HIG? The Taliban is not a monolithic entity, anything but.
So if your ass is captured by this enemy or some future enemy...do you want the IRC to help you or not? While I completely understand your aversion to ANY organization helping out an enemy, I think this situation is very unique. As several others have pointed out, it is their absolute neutrality that makes them effective. Support both the ARC and the IRC - they'll both help YOU when you need it, regardless of where you are or what you were captured doing.
Fully agree. To the naysayers, remember that if you are shot down over Indian country and captured, they probably aren't looking at you any more highly than we do of the Taliban/Al Qaeda/etc. I personally would welcome the opportunity to get proper medical attention (given the areas we are currently fighting in), and if accepting the fact that the IRC is fully neutral is the price I pay, then so be it. Just take a look at some of the medical attention our pilots downed over N Vietnam got, and maybe you will reconsider.
What I find interesting about this thread is the understanding of who our enemy is. There are two basic groups on this thread... 1) those opposed to the helping of our enemy by a third party (IRC) and 2) those for the enduring neutrality of said third party. The first group, at least to me, sees the Taliban as a monolithic (Flash's words) organization. The Taliban in reality is a loose term/umbrella term for fighters currently aligned against allied forces. I use "currently" because there is quite a bit of history of side-switching and our efforts are aimed to get as many to switch as possible. Furthermore, any help that gets the Taliban to consider their own lives as valuable (otherwise what good is the red cross?) is a step in the right direction.
Remember, the Taliban are very proficient in small war doctrine. They will conduct guerilla tactics to fight the allies while at the same time build infrastructure, hospitals, and schools to help the local populace. They aren't stupid. They will bomb an allied road-building effort and simultaneously build one of their own.
Remember, the Taliban are very proficient in small war doctrine. They will conduct guerilla tactics to fight the allies while at the same time build infrastructure, hospitals, and schools to help the local populace. They aren't stupid. They will bomb an allied road-building effort and simultaneously build one of their own.
Maybe it also appalls the Taliban that the IRC would help one of us.