And so the attacks start on the Colombian rescue mission

[Genx87]

Only in this world would a legitimate govt get charged with a war crime while the thugs they rescued people from continue to roam.

 

[Buck Armstrong]

Originally posted by: fallenangel99
Uribe apologizes for using the Red Cross logo

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/...ombia.cross/index.html

Most of you can apologize to CNN now

You can't be serious. Their article was a mess! But since we were debating it last night, I decided to check BBC this morning, and there was a much shorter and simpler article containing the facts without all of CNN's unsubstantiated rumors and subtle but baseless implications.

There was no Red Cross logo on the helicopter. What Uribe apologized for was ONE GUY aboard was wearing a bib or something with the logo on it. So while I admit that's just as wrong per the scenario Dari and Craig mentioned, CNN was indeed full of shit and spreading tabloid gossip before stopping to check their facts.

If the BBC can let the truth ruin a good sensationalist story, then so can CNN.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Buck Armstrong

Originally posted by: Dari
This is wrong because the Red Cross is supposed to be neutral. Next time FARC guerillas shoot down a real Red Cross helicopter, what will you have to say for yourself?

The same thing I say now: will somebody please kill this coked-up jungle trash?

When its your mommie getting brutalized in the jungle for 6 years, I'll be impressed by your moral high ground. She can either demand the pilot paste a big red bullseye target on the helicopter instead of the faux Red Cross logo, or she can stay behind when the rest of the cheering hostages climb aboard.

What will your dumb ass have to say if it's my mother working for the Red Cross? If the military has to hide behind an impartial institute to accomplish their mission, then they are worthless.

This is no different than terrorists using women and children to carry out their missions.

I would say your mother knew the risk going in. Just because she has that cross on her or her helicopter doesn't make it a magic shield to stops all violence. THEY ARE TARGETS, they are unarmed and make for good trade fodder.
The idea of fighting fair is going to cause us, the good guys to lose a lot of fights. Why should the good guys be the only ones to play by the rules? How many of us have to die because of some pansies moral feelings that because he is more successful in life that he owes the less fortunate something, even if it means trampling him in the process?

This is CNN/Media attempt to get bad news in the press. For some reason they love selling bad news and gloss over good news.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: fallout man
Colombia, LOL.

Like their pissant, corrupt, thug-filled government gives a shit about international conventions... No wonder they get praise and continued financial backing from the Oilman in Chief.

I hate Bush but what does he have to do with this?

Nothing, but some people love to throw him under the bus whenever they can.

 

[Craig234]

I didn't yet acknowledge Buck's admission on the wrongness of misusing the logo, so I'll do so here, good for him.

It looks like the whole story isn't out yet - the Colombian government is saying it was a panicky decision as the helicoptor approached, but witnesses say the bib was on before the mission took off. The lack of punishment for this also seems like a big problem, the harm is now done.

Originally posted by: Buck Armstrong

Originally posted by: fallenangel99
Uribe apologizes for using the Red Cross logo

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/...ombia.cross/index.html

Most of you can apologize to CNN now

You can't be serious. Their article was a mess! But since we were debating it last night, I decided to check BBC this morning, and there was a much shorter and simpler article containing the facts without all of CNN's unsubstantiated rumors and subtle but baseless implications.

There was no Red Cross logo on the helicopter. What Uribe apologized for was ONE GUY aboard was wearing a bib or something with the logo on it. So while I admit that's just as wrong per the scenario Dari and Craig mentioned, CNN was indeed full of shit and spreading tabloid gossip before stopping to check their facts.

If the BBC can let the truth ruin a good sensationalist story, then so can CNN.

The report said there *was* a false flag emblem on the helicoptor, not the red cross but another humanitarian organization logo, which I think is also a problem.

The unpublished video also reveals an emblem that bears the Spanish words "Mision Internacional Humanitaria" (International Humanitarian Mission) and a stylized red bird made up of wavy red lines above two curved branches of blue leaves. In the 3½-minute video of the operation issued by the military, emblems pasted on the side of the rescue helicopter cannot be seen. But in the unpublished video and photos shown to CNN, emblems measuring about one square meter (one square yard) are pasted onto the outside of the chopper...

Additional video clips show how the emblems on the side of the helicopter were stripped off and burned once the rescue mission had been completed. The fate of the bib is not clear from the clips.

Ya, having phony emblems for the helicoptor that the footage carefully doesn't show which are burned after the mission sure suggest an innocent mistake by one guy.

 

[Buck Armstrong]

I didn't say the one guy wearing the bib "made a mistake", and neither did BBC. They just said he WAS wearing it. They didn't mention a shady unnamed source with a possibly doctored video he wanted to sell. That's what they're supposed to do: here's the facts. Period. Seriously, go compare the BBC article to the CNN one and I think you'll agree.

Also, you mention that the report claims there *was* a false emblem on the helicopter, just not the Red Cross emblem. Did you read the rest about who one of the "possible" emblems used actually belonged to?

"...a non-governmental organization based in Barcelona, Spain...Although the site says the group is registered with the Spanish Interior Ministry and the regional Department of Justice, the site is littered with misspellings, and the telephone number that's listed is 000000000. CNN was unable to contact the group to verify its existence. The group's Web site could not be accessed early Tuesday."

That doesn't sound like some hastily-fabricated front organization to you? And of course, if the organization doesn't really exist, then use of its imaginary logo by the very spooks/military who probably created it in the first place is not really wrong, is it?

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Buck Armstrong

Originally posted by: Dari
This is wrong because the Red Cross is supposed to be neutral. Next time FARC guerillas shoot down a real Red Cross helicopter, what will you have to say for yourself?

The same thing I say now: will somebody please kill this coked-up jungle trash?

When its your mommie getting brutalized in the jungle for 6 years, I'll be impressed by your moral high ground. She can either demand the pilot paste a big red bullseye target on the helicopter instead of the faux Red Cross logo, or she can stay behind when the rest of the cheering hostages climb aboard.

What will your dumb ass have to say if it's my mother working for the Red Cross? If the military has to hide behind an impartial institute to accomplish their mission, then they are worthless.

This is no different than terrorists using women and children to carry out their missions.

I would say your mother knew the risk going in. Just because she has that cross on her or her helicopter doesn't make it a magic shield to stops all violence. THEY ARE TARGETS, they are unarmed and make for good trade fodder.
The idea of fighting fair is going to cause us, the good guys to lose a lot of fights. Why should the good guys be the only ones to play by the rules? How many of us have to die because of some pansies moral feelings that because he is more successful in life that he owes the less fortunate something, even if it means trampling him in the process?

This is CNN/Media attempt to get bad news in the press. For some reason they love selling bad news and gloss over good news.

And who says you're the good guy?

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Only in this world would a legitimate govt get charged with a war crime while the thugs they rescued people from continue to roam.

What's the point of a government that doesn't abide by the rules?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Buck Armstrong
I didn't say the one guy wearing the bib "made a mistake", and neither did BBC. They just said he WAS wearing it.

Uribe did, and the BBS quoted him.

Uribe made the admission after CNN reported on unpublished photographs and videos that clearly showed a man wearing a Red Cross bib. Wrongly using the Red Cross logo is prohibited by the Geneva Conventions...

The president said that as the constitutional head of the armed forces, he takes full political responsibility for what he described as a slip-up.

"This officer, upon confessing his mistake to his superiors, said when the [rescue] helicopter was about to land ... he saw so many guerrillas that he went into a state of angst," Uribe said.

"He feared for his life and put on the Red Cross bib over his jacket."

However, the confidential military source who showed CNN the photographs that included the man wearing the bib said they were taken moments before the mission took off.

Uribe said he was sorry for the mistake and has apologized to ICRC officials. There will be no official sanction against the man wearing the bib, he indicated.

Also, you mention that the report claims there *was* a false emblem on the helicopter, just not the Red Cross emblem. Did you read the rest about who one of the "possible" emblems used actually belonged to?

"...a non-governmental organization based in Barcelona, Spain...Although the site says the group is registered with the Spanish Interior Ministry and the regional Department of Justice, the site is littered with misspellings, and the telephone number that's listed is 000000000. CNN was unable to contact the group to verify its existence. The group's Web site could not be accessed early Tuesday."

That doesn't sound like some hastily-fabricated front organization to you? And of course, if the organization doesn't really exist, then use of its imaginary logo by the very spooks/military who probably created it in the first place is not really wrong, is it?

That is what it sounds like,and that's how my post was written, saying that seems bad for similar reasons to me, to try to take advantage of the willingness of the rebels not to shoot at humanitarian helicopters - in that case, by creating a phony humanitarian organization the rebels would think was real. It has the same bad effect - telling the rebels to shoot at all humanitarian helicopters because they might be government forces.

 

[AlienCraft]

Originally posted by: Dari
This is wrong because the Red Cross is supposed to be neutral. Next time FARC guerillas shoot down a real Red Cross helicopter, what will you have to say for yourself?

"Game on!" ?

 

[keird]

Fvck CNN. Really. They cannot censor themselves. They *have* to profit with their stories or they won't be able to pay for... stuff.

I can wear a Red Cross anytime I want. I have a 3x4 foot flag with the Red Cross emblazoned on it. I have an official Red Cross armband that I can wear, too. I have an identification card that fvcking says so. Want to guess my job? I'm a medic in the U.S. Army. What's stopping a Columbian Army medic from wearing a Red Cross emblem that he's authorized to wear? What's to stop a Columbian soldier from wearing an apron or a smock that shows that he's not a combatant but 'retained personnel'? Perhaps I have a better grasp of the Law of War than others and I can see a grey area, but JEEBUS, I hate CNN!

Fvck CNN.

 

[Thump553]

The neutrality of the Red Cross, and a clear and express prohibition against using their symbols, etc. except along certain specific guidelines is part of the Geneva Convention, to which Columbia is a signatory. This is so Red Cross vehicles and workers are recognized as neutrals by all combatants.

Assuming Columbia deceptively used Red Cross symbols (they deny it, some journalists - and apparent photos-dispute this) they violated the Geneva Convention. They were wrong, pure and simple. Sure, the trick might have worked this time but if the Red Cross sign becomes not trusted by all combatants, then how many additional lives will be lost in the future?

Most of the comments here are a result of short term only thinking. This rules have a very valid and real public safety purpose.

 

[AlienCraft]

Originally posted by: Thump553
The neutrality of the Red Cross, and a clear and express prohibition against using their symbols, etc. except along certain specific guidelines is part of the Geneva Convention, to which Columbia is a signatory. This is so Red Cross vehicles and workers are recognized as neutrals by all combatants.

Assuming Columbia deceptively used Red Cross symbols (they deny it, some journalists - and apparent photos-dispute this) they violated the Geneva Convention. They were wrong, pure and simple. Sure, the trick might have worked this time but if the Red Cross sign becomes not trusted by all combatants, then how many additional lives will be lost in the future?

Most of the comments here are a result of short term only thinking. This rules have a very valid and real public safety purpose.

You assume too much on the part of "combatants". This is the same mindset that outlaws firearms thinking that will prevent criminals from using them.
I am of the opinion that criminals, insurgents, revolutionaries and their ilk, pretty much don't trust anything even themselves and that their rule book trumps any that society may have in place due to the fact that they HAVE NO RULES !
FARC have done far worse, yet you prosecute the Government for a successful rescue.

I'm sure the families of the rescued see it in a much different light than you.

 

[m1ldslide1]

According to a Glenn Beck op-ed, apparently they were wearing Che Guevara t-shirts, although it isn't clear if its one guy or several.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/07/...che.guevara/index.html

So what's the deal? Pretty soon it will be dangerous to wear your Che t-shirt since terrorists could think that you're really a government agent! Imagine how many teenagers and Mac owners could be killed as a result of this lack of foresight!

NEW YORK (CNN) -- What T-shirt should you wear when you need to blend in with terrorists? Incredibly, we have an answer to that question.

Robin Meade conducted an exclusive interview that aired this past weekend on Headline News with Thomas Howes, Keith Stansell and Marc Gonsalves, three of the 15 now-former captives of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia. It is a leftist terror group that has specialized in kidnapping during its war with the Colombian state and capitalism in general.

After their plane crashed, the captives spent five torturous years hoping to see their families again, at times being locked in boxes at night around rats, pigs and bats. Sometimes they had weights chained around their neck and were led around at gunpoint with a dog leash.

Upon finally escaping, Keith Stansell emotionally described the moment he laid eyes on his 5-year-old twins for the first time.

It took a rescue by the Colombian Army to reunite them with freedom and probably save their lives. The army posed as terrorists, persuading FARC to turn the prisoners over to them, saving 15 innocent victims of the brutal terrorism that has ripped Colombia apart for years.

But how did this happen? How did FARC get fooled?

Colombian Army members infiltrated the highest levels of the organization, telling FARC they were going to take the hostages to meet an "international mission." They landed in a helicopter and spent 22 minutes on the ground collecting the captives and speaking in code to one another before taking off and letting the victims (who included a former Colombian presidential candidate) know that they were safe.

So, what is the uniform of choice when fooling terrorists in Colombia?

Sure, there's plenty of talk of one intelligence team member, nervous about the mission, who wore a Red Cross symbol against orders. But other accounts confirm the use of something you can probably pick up at any mall: a Che Guevara T-shirt.

That's right, the same T-shirts you see Hollywood celebrities, starving pseudo-artists and confused hipster teens wearing around local coffee shops. To all those who decide that you want to be coffee house communist-chic, remember this: When you are wearing a Che T-shirt, you're wearing the same shirt that makes terrorists believe you're just one of the gang. I hope that latte is tasty.

How Che became such a revered superhero of the hard-core left is laughable. First of all, he wasn't even a good revolutionary. He failed in his attempt at world revolution almost as badly as communism has failed in the places it was actually tried.

"This is a history of a failure" is how he himself described his efforts in the Congo. He was killed in Bolivia, trying to fire up another failure of a war. Earlier, he even managed to drop his gun and shoot himself in the face.

But more important than his incompetence is the fact that the man was a mass killer. Hundreds were reportedly executed on his watch, and that doesn't include the deaths incurred in the wars he was constantly trying to start. He described his maniacal lust for war in his writings, saying he savored "the acrid smell of gunpowder and blood of the enemy's death." How this guy is a hero to the anti-war crowd is truly perplexing.

I should also point out what seemingly gets eliminated from the Hollywood movies attempting to glorify him: his bouts with racism. When describing the differences in the strife between "Europeans" and "the black," the supposedly progressive-minded Che wrote, "their different attitudes of life separate them completely: the black is indolent and fanciful, he spends his money on frivolity and drink; the European comes from a tradition of working and saving which follows him to this corner of America and drives him to get ahead."

Ohhhhh, so the "European" is a hard worker while "the black" is a fanciful drunk. Now I understand the difference.

I wonder if that quote would inspire the volunteer office of Barack Obama's Houston supporters to remove their Che flag. After it was spotted on the wall in a local news video, Obama's campaign, far from a haven for right-wing nut jobs, went out of its way to make sure everyone knew that it had nothing to do with the flag and didn't approve of its use. If Che were such a hero, why would that be necessary?

Revisionist history's fusion with fashion sense isn't exactly new, but its popularity seems to be growing. When actress Cameron Diaz showed up in Peru, she thought she had a trendy bag that might garner some jealous stares. People were staring, sure, but for all the wrong reasons.

The bag, purchased in China, featured a red star and the words "Serve the people" on it. The problem? That was Mao Zedong's most famous political slogan, and it stirred up memories of the Maoist Shining Path insurgency, which, according to the BBC, was responsible for 70,000 deaths in Peru during the '80s and '90s. Diaz apologized later for "inadvertently" offending anyone.

It's been five years since the story of convicted abortion clinic bomber and Olympic park bomber Eric Rudolph led the news. As he was evading police capture for months, stories of townspeople donning "Run Rudolph Run" bumper stickers were correctly greeted with horrified disdain.

With the exception of the fact that Che killed a lot more people, what's the difference? You shouldn't be wearing an "I heart abortion clinic bombers" T-shirt, and if you have any respect for humanity, you shouldn't be wearing a Che Guevara T-shirt, either.

Perhaps I should cash in on a Che T-shirt featuring his clichéd image too. Except this time, instead of glorifying him, it could specifically be designed to point out his pathetic and brutal legacy.

Honestly, though, I'm afraid I'd be sued. The communist revolutionary who dedicated his life to fight capitalism has now become nothing more than a piece of merchandise. Lesson learned: In the end, capitalism always wins.

When your only option is a Che shirt, maybe it's just better to go topless.