<< GLOBAL GLACIALATING ~ MAIN ~ FORCES OF DARKNESS CONFRONTED >>
CROSS WITH RED CROSS
Reader James C., of Fredericksburg, Virginia, emails:
So far I have read 110 comments to this post and no one seems to have noticed what could be a larger implication in the story. Zombie Times reports that the ambulance hoax started with a press statement from the Red Cross on July 24th, which was then picked up and expanded upon by the media. Zombie Times quotes the press release as saying that on July 23rd in Cana, two Red Cross ambulances were struck by weapons fire in violation of international conventions (in other words, a war crime).
What I want to point out is that it looks mighty apparent that the Red Cross (or at least the local chapter owning the two ambulances) was at least partly complicit in perpetrating the hoax. I mean, they were the first to issue a press release which started the whole thing. What we may have here is a very large, international NGO involved (partly or wholly) in a fraud intended to bring down a U.N. recognized nation. That should be big news to everyone.
As far as I am concerned, this event should hurt the Red Cross as it appears they were used (possibly knowingly) to perpetrate a massive war-time fraud against a nation allied with the West in the War on Terror. Why should anyone now trust the Red Cross?
Over to you, Red Cross, should any representatives wish to reply.
Participating in a false claim of a war crime—would that not be a war crime also?
Sounds to me that an international investigation should begin of the Red Cross. There needs to be transparency and accountability.
Posted by wronwright on 2006 08 26 at 01:07 PM • permalinkOver to you, Red Cross, should any representatives wish to reply.
To which Richard the Lionheart thinks and replies…
What in the hell have you people done to sully, The Cross of St. George!?
This is a chilling but spot on analysis. I expect nothing but crickets from the International Committee of the Red Cross. I’m very glad that I’ve never donated a single dollar to the ICRC.
But keep one thing in mind—the ICRC is exacatly that—an international committee. Individual naitons maintain their own version, such as the American Red Cross. I expect that there are formal agreements between the various member nations, brokered by the ICRC. But the ICRC is a separate and distinct NGO.
So I suggest keeping two points in mind:
1. Focus on the responsibility of the ICRC to own up to their part (willing or not) in this fraud. THEY issued the press release, not the member nations.
2. If you write anyone about this, write both the ICRC and your national offices. For the ICRC, it’s just as Tim notes. For your national offices, ask them to speak to the ICRC about this.
The Red Cross lives by the donations from people like us. They WILL listen if you write.....and I do donate to the American Red Cross. They WILL get a letter from me.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 08 26 at 01:15 PM • permalinkFWIW:
Here’s the ICRC contact page.
Here’s the American Red Cross contact page.
Plus the contact pages for the Canadian Red Cross, and the Australian Red Cross home page (the page won’t come up for me, can’t say why).
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 08 26 at 01:23 PM • permalinkthe probity of the red cross depends much on which national chapter you are talking about. in the former yugoslavia, for example, the red cross was involved in stealing food aid & selling it into albania, & in diverting fuel for emergency generators to private trucks & cars. if there’s a klepto culture, a victim culture or a history of media manipulation, government institutions & ngos will reflect it
ot but similarly outrageous, check this new pic of david hicks being used by the melbourne pravda. looks about 15, a sweet ickle boy who wouldn’t hurt a fly & couldn’t possibly be a convert to the cult of death
Maybe the MSM’s reluctance to beat up this footage of UN ambulances being used to transport armed “civilians” is because the journos suspect it is a hoax.
It looks very authentic to me, but the Hez are quite clever at staging events for the media and maybe the journos are becoming sceptical.
Only problem with that theory is that the UN ambulance footage was on the web well before the recent Red Cross and Reuters frauds were exposed.Anonymous Lefty only stops to change hands.
Posted by Steve at the pub on 2006 08 26 at 03:06 PM • permalink#4, what TheRealJeffS said.
The Red Cross in individual (Anglospheric at least) nations do a lot of good, and every time the International Red Cross dirties the name, they suffer unjustly.
Now if only we could get them to stop calling us every time they run short of O neg (vampires, I’m telling you).
#11 RebeccaH:
Aren’t those calls a pain? They start calling me two full weeks before the local blood drive and I average four to seven calls in that period despite not having missed donating in the last five years. The last time I told them that if they didn’t stop harrassing me I was gonna not show up in protest. >:DWhy should the ICRC be any different than any other international, non-governmental, tax-exempt organization that operates and survives (and quite handsomely if you go by most) by virtue of donations, gifts and grants? It’s the same crowd, same agenda, same world view, same prejudices. Not one of them has ever received a dollar nor an hour of volunteered time from me and none ever will. The Salvation Army is my charity of choice.
Posted by Kyda Sylvester on 2006 08 26 at 04:16 PM • permalinkWhy should anyone now trust the Red Cross?
As far as the International Red Cross is concerned, whaddaya mean now? They haven’t been trustworthy in decades. If ever.
But don’t confuse them with the American Red Cross, please. It does good work. For example, where I live (and I suspect in the rest of the country), they respond any time of the day or night for people who are put out of their homes by fire (or other disaster). They see that the people get clothing, temporary shelter, etc., until something more permanent can be worked out.
That’s probably true of other in-country Red Crosses, too. But the IRC assholes? I wouldn’t be surprised if they were complicit in something like this.
Posted by Barbara Skolaut on 2006 08 26 at 04:59 PM • permalinkThe way I read it the report emanated from the Lebanese Red Cross, and specifically the chapter in Tyre - Hizbo stronghold and hospital where Green Helment works. Not unlikely Hezbo has infiltrated that little chapter. Also Riehl has been questioning the licence plates which would be another avenue of enquiry.
I recall this op/ed in the Wall Street Journal a couple years back: Red Double-Crossed Again /The ICRC betrays America--and the Geneva Conventions.
Posted by wronwright on 2006 08 26 at 05:11 PM • permalink#13, saltydog—yes, the ARC remains tightly knitted with the military for family emergencies, I am happy to report.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 08 26 at 05:33 PM • permalinkThe International Red Cross stands condemned along with Amnesty International for perpetuating leftist bias. Having achieved their positions with attendant media spotlights, they proceed to misuse their influence by misleading statements and warped priorities.
Our ABC runs with all these dogs, plus the recent beat-up about Hicks’ impending death penalty -it’s shameless."But don’t confuse them with the American Red Cross, please. It does good work”
Sorry. I have told my local Red Cross (Connecticut, USA) that IMO they belong to a corrupt international organization, for that reason I will end all my contributions to them. (I’m a past contributor of both money and blood).
This message must be delivered. Perhaps the U.S. Red Cross can bring some pressure on the complicit ICRC bastards. If not, well, there are other charitites that are deserving and that I can give to.
Posted by John Fembup on 2006 08 26 at 06:43 PM • permalinkI have told my local Red Cross (Connecticut, USA) that IMO they belong to a corrupt international organization, for that reason I will end all my contributions to them.
For what it’s worth, the American Red Cross withheld its contribution to the IRC beginning in 2000 because of the refusal to admit Magen David Adom. This amounted to $42 million, a quarter of the IRC’s annual budget. The Israelis were finally admitted this year—after 58 years of being stonewalled by the IRC. They must use a diamond, rather than a Star of David, as their symbol, however.
Posted by Bruce Rheinstein on 2006 08 26 at 07:10 PM • permalinkI used to volunteer for my local Red Cross branch on the Gold Coast. I don’t know if the set up’s the same in Lebanon, but here each branch also acts as disaster relief for lcoal emergencies. They’re networked with state emergency services and arrange their own plans and contingencies, ok’ed by HQ, which swing into action when needed.
Under these circumstances I can envisage a loosely accountable Red Cross group in Hez-controlled southern Lebanon that ran ambulances could concoct the hoax, then pass it off to the ICRC who’d no reason to not take it as legit. Like I said, I don’t know this but it I can see it happening by the way the Red Cross is organised.
You’ve got to realise that just because it’s Christian-based ‘Red Cross’ is no guarantee either of impartiality or integrity. In the M-E there are many dhimmi Christians, cowed by their Islamic environment.
“Christian” Falangists massacred people in Beirut, and Sharon got the blame for that. SBS show us Lebanese Australian Christians who stupidly back Hezbollah against Israel.I got the lapel pin for fifty blood donations, but stopped giving after the Australian Red Cross started a campaign against the Australian Army having land mines. If the Australian Red Cross wants to kill Australian troops by putting them at a disadvantage in the battlefield, they can get their blood elsewhere.
Along with the original press release, the Red Cross - don’t remember now if it was Lebanese or International, also employed the ambulance drivers that were part of the hoax, and as part of the propaganda campaign had the ambulances parked in front of the Red Cross offices. I think for at least that part of the Red Cross we can remove the “wittingly or unwittingly” disclaimers, and the ICRC should be conducting a serious inquiry.
On the other hand, I have seen first hand and have worked with many first responders from the American Red Cross both in the US and other places, and they do an enormoous amount of good around the world. Their admin costs as a percentage of the total money collected is fairly low for what they provide. Any large organization will have people somewhere, sometime fuck things up for the rest of the organization. I will continue to support them with money, time & blood, and hope these ME fucknuts don’t cause a mass boycott of the American Red Cross.
Well, Israel has turned it’s sight onReuters vehicles now…
Why should anyone now trust the Red Cross?
I ceased to trust the Red Cross when they chose to operate the illegal migrant transit camp at Sangatte, near Calais.
The “asylum seekers” were already in a safe country, i.e. France, but were opting to continue their “flight” into the UK. Such flagrant abuse of the asylum treaties should never have been aided & abetted by the Red Cross (not to mention France!)
How about UN ambulance picking up fighters in Gaza…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqGjz7iJTns
More examples in comments.
Page 1 of 1 pages
Members:
Login | Register
| Member List
Here’s what I expect to hear from the Red Cross:
...
Followed, if they’re pressed, by “how dare you question us!”