Sunday, September 18, 2005

It was summer, now it's autumn

I came across this ridiculous waste of time while doing half-assed research on my Flight 93 post. I initially laughed it off as just more international left PC labeling... but there's more going on here than just a little man behind the curtain. And it's not trying to cozy up to the whole-earth crystal power veganhadeen crowd, I'm afraid.
The red cross and red crescent emblems are used in different countries: to protect medical personnel, buildings and equipment in time of armed conflict and to identify national Red Cross and Red Crescent organizations, the International Committee of the Red Cross and the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies.

Over 190 countries use one or the other of these emblems but some find it difficult to use either because they are seen as having religious connotations. They would like to use other emblems, for example the red shield of David in Israel or both the red crescent and red cross together in some countries. This is not currently possible under the terms of the Geneva Conventions and the statutes of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement.

Yes, I understand the ICRC is trying to allow an emblem that's "religion neutral" for any member societies (read: Israel) that don't want to use the cross or crescent.
That argument might fly except that the Red Cross already caved to the Ottoman Empire and Iran (among other islamic nations) to allow "muslim-y" symbols that can be used in lieu of the cross. Iran doesn't even use their Red Lion & Sun anymore, because it echoes the Shah's flag, rather than the current terrorist-in-chief. So why not allow Israel's Magen David Adom (Red Star of David) as well?
The islamic crescent is just as religious a symbol as Israel's star, and their reasons for using it are equally based in religion. Claiming one symbol is religion-neutral but not the other is asinine.

Another argument for excluding the Red Star as an "official" protective symbol is that the Geneva Convention specifically lists the symbols that the ICRC can use for protection, and that adding another would require approval from the signatories. This is, of course, Capital-B Bollocks. If the convention can be amended to add the red crystal/square/lozenge then why not just eliminate the middleman and add the star?
Naturally, islamic nations won't approve anything that comes close to admitting that Jews have a right to exist. These are the same upstanding representatives from the religion of peace that have no compunctions against shooting at ambulances, (regardless of their red cross / star markings) or using UN vans to smuggle weapons and stage terror attacks.

The Statutes of the Red Cross charter specifically state that member organizations must remain neutral and assist all persons in need, "making no discrimination as to nationality, race, religious beliefs, class or political opinions. It endeavors to relieve the suffering of individuals, being guided solely by their needs, and to give priority to the most urgent cases of distress." (emphasis mine) Why, then, is it no big deal for certain Red Crescent organizations to be little more than fronts for terror groups? Could it be because they're ever-so-slightly not "the Jews?"

What ever happened to the good 'ol Worldwide Zionist Conspiray that controlled the media, governement, and everything that I grew up with? Come on guys, get in the game here. If you can't even get your logo approved ahead of the crystal healing crowd, how are you ever going to secretly control the world?

NB: Edited to add quotes. Damn the Worldide Zionist Conspiracy for making me forget to put them in the first go-round!


Post a Comment

<< Home