Christian Cross Is Seen as the ‘Mark of the Beast’ by Islamists
US Army MEDEVAC helicopters in Afghanistan are marked with Red Crosses. Helicopters sporting a Red Cross are not allowed to be armed. The enemy knows this. The enemy tries to shoot down these unarmed helicopters with the added advantage that our people cannot shoot back. And so, we push people into combat while advertising to the enemy that our people are unarmed. The best that can be said for this policy is that it’s wrong. The worst that can be said might be that it borders on criminal.
We like to think that after a decade of counterinsurgency, we have learned something. Have we? What does a cross on a helicopter mean? For some Afghans, it’s a mark of the beast. The poster above was hanging on a wall in eastern Afghanistan.
Of the approximate fifty evil symbols, most are crosses. Even the shape of an anchor is seen as unholy.
An Afghan friend translates:
*Destroying the cross is an Islamic obligation*
1. Christians want to publish and spread their unholy and cursed religious logos and signs in different shapes and appearances in clean and holy Muslim society.
2. These Christianity signs (Crosses) have affected our Islamic society too
– even our mosques and our Menbers are not safe from those Christianity signs (Crosses).
(Further note from my Afghan friend explaining “menber”: When you enter a mosque, the menber is a chair in the most forward point. After the prayer is done, a mullah sits on that chair and enlightens people. Talking rubbish about how to be a good muslim or other nonsense. That chair is higher than the regular ones in terms of height. It’s higher in order to enable the mullah to see all the folks and the folks seeing mullah – even the ones sitting far away. Menber is the written name of it.)
3. The respected Ulemas agree over the fact that destroying these crosses is an Islamic obligation and on whatever object or surface where there is a cross, praying is a sin.
4. —– had a gold cross in his neck and prophet Mohammad told him to remove that ‘idol’ from himself and is narrated from Aisha that prophet Mohammad never allowed anything in his house with a cross on it and used to destroy or throw it away.
6. For further explanations, refer to …. / …. / …. (Names of references given)
*Some of the names on the crosses:*
1. Cross of George
2. Cross of Andrew
3. Cross of Lauren
4. Cross of Jerusalem
5. Cross of Anthony
6. Cross in shape of the Nazi logo
7. Catholic Cross
===End Translation===
The US Army will defend the Red Crosses on the helicopters by falsely bringing the Geneva Conventions into the conversation. They will say, “According to the Geneva Conventions…”
There is nothing in the Geneva Conventions that says personnel or vehicles sporting a red cross cannot be armed. On the contrary, they are (in theory) allowed to retain some weapons even when temporarily under the control of an opposing force, although such weapons are strictly for the defense of their patients. Such strictures might make suppressive fire before they pick up wounded difficult, but absolutely justifiable afterwards. That being said, I see precious little reason to restrict some scarce helicopter resources to medivac only.
During my time in Vietnam (1968) the decision to arm Medevac choppers was left up to the individual Medevac units, Some did; some didn’t. The argument against was that ANY helicopter was a targot anyway, and if a red cross might make even one enemy hold his fire it was worth while. The argument for was basically, of course Charlie would prefer not to have suppresive fire pored into his area. I do not know the right answer. I do know a number of Conscientious Objector medics who had a change in philosophy and started carying weapons after their primordial awakening that “those bastaeds are trying to kill me!”
“The Army has not a single valid reason for sporting the Red Crosses.”
Agreed. These helicopters should be armed AND have their crosses removed. There are so many people in the west that still think that there are “rules” in this type of warfare. The Taliban fight by no rules, and they seem to be winning. And if they are not winning, they are certainly giving the Afghans a good impression of it. The Army sees its troops more as policemen rather than soldiers, cops who have to fight under very specific rules. Only the criminals these “cops” are chasing are heavily armed and very dangerous. Let the military be the military and fight a war AS a war. “Rules of Engagement” only seem to work for the enemy and never for us. If we are not careful, we will lose this war not because we are too vicious, but because we are too nice. And that only gets our troops killed.
We’re already fighting by our enemies’ rules, not ours. We have allowed the effete in power who secretly wish our defeat to dictate how we fight, so we won’t appear to be quite so “assymetrical” when we use our overwhelming firepower as we once did.
We even refuse to abide by the Geneva Conventions which permit us to execute illegal enemy combatants because it is said that they would become “martyrs,” when it clearly is in our best interests to do so.
Essentially, we’ve given up already. The ROE favor the enemy as we are the only ones who abide by them. How assymetrical is that?
Western Modern Warfare:
Build schools, roads and hospitals, pass out cookies and flowers in hopes of winning hearts and minds, all the while absorbing casualties from sniper fire and IED’s.
When did warfare go from destroying the enemies infrastructure to building all new for them?
Is this the lesson we learned from WWII?
We just can’t demo a city…—We have to reconstruct it too?—
Well—if we’re going to reconstruct, Shouldn’t we destroy first?
The problem is there really isn’t that much to destroy- destroying mud brick buildings will certainly be problematic, but this is a rural population used to nearly subistence level living. Having talked with a friend who’s very traveled and knowledgeable about the situation (he lived in the Helmand as part of a relief effort, and has been to more armpits of existance than any one ever should). I don’t think we can, as people in a developed, technology based society, completely understand that kind of existence.
To be fair, I think the ‘hearts and mind’ part could work- show people there is a better way of living, even respecting their Islamic faith, and you develop a working relationship to improve conditions. The problem is, the Taliban does two things a) spends money on similar projects, probably heroin poppy derived, or through the support of Islamic nations with regional interests and b) says ‘We’ll slit your throat if you don’t do what we say or we don’t like who you talk with’ and then goes ahead and slits a few throats anyway. It’s hard to fight against “we’ll build you a school, but kill you if you don’t obey”.
Forget respecting their blasted religion. We have failed terrible in both Afghanistan and Iraq essentially because we allowed these people to keep their religion. The only person who has ever did it right was McArthur with the Japanese. Shintoism is still practiced in Japan and they still have their god-emporer but we took their religion from them and forced them into a secular political world. Seems to have worked out just fine.
There are three accepted symbols for the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). Apart from the cross there is the Red Crescent and the ridiculous Red Crystal. If the Army wanted to really confuse the Taliban it could use the Red Crescent. If it really, really wanted to confuse them it could use the Red Crescent. The ICRC claims this is a religion neutral symbol but it was created because the Muslims refused for years to allow the Red Star of David.
Mr. Yon:
Maybe Roger announced this and I missed it, but are you going to be writing regularly for PJM? People have been asking about getting you on board since he hired the other Michael (Totten).
Oh dear the Quebecois in Canada are not going to like being lumped in with all that evil. I note the Fleur de lis is on the poster.
If the Army truly believes it must have big crosses on all medivac helicopters then the solutionis to permanently assign two armed Apache helicopters to each medivac helicopter to act as an armed escort.
In Afghanistan, the Army IS using Apaches as escorts but the Apaches are not assigned to the medivac unit. As a result many times the dispatching of medivac helicopters is delayed while waiting for the arrival of armed escort Apache helicopters.
As always, the phrase ‘Army Intelligence’ is an oxymoron.
You should delete your last blanket-sentence.
This example here of the use of the formerly (somewhat) respected Red Cross on medical vehicles points out the current dangerous mental-time lag in adapting to modern warfare against an enemy having no interest in “Western” “Rules” and “Conventions”.
Why aren’t we applying the very bloodily learned lessons that today’s warfare is trans-national, trans-historical period, trans-local militias, trans-religious, omitting uniforms and borders and …..and…-”rules” of warfare?
It’s what we used to call “guerilla warfare” only now on a continental scale, the Asian continent…..so far.
Who is to congratulate us, reward us… for being courageously alone in obeying such dangerous anacronisms as a Geneva Convention?
Why do we alone among the modern combatants in our new Islamic-factored warfare tie one terrifically armed ‘arm’ behind our backs while we fight amorphous religio-fanatical militias who are, perhaps, some sort of evolved modern day Dervishes?
Geneva’s historical role as the site of high-minded international conferences is an anacronism.
Medieval “lists” with their galloping horses carrying metal-suited riders during jousts had rules and conventions, called …chivalry…..and while our current enemy, militant,vicious, Islam, is certianly most medieval in their deadly tactics and outlook, we Americans are doing the deadly honorable modern thing by painting deliberately eye-catching Red Crosses on our air ambulances.
This article by Michael Yon is a thought provoking-piece which hopefully will be the first of many more such on-the-combat-scene reports. His penetrating subject matter and writing style has been compared to Ernie Pyle’s….on top of that he’s a superb photographer.
“against an enemy having no interest in ‘Western’ ‘Rules’ and ‘Conventions’.”
- The thug holding up a liquor store in the inner city has no respect for ‘law’ ‘rules’ ‘conventions’ ‘property rights’ or anything else, Western or otherwise. However, we still make sure that those we send after him abide by the law, as it should be. Just because someone is in violation of ‘rules’ doesn’t give us the right to do the same.
“Who is to congratulate us, reward us… for being courageously alone in obeying such dangerous anacronisms as a Geneva Convention?”
- Who is to congratulate us for not tearing out fingernails or disfiguring prisoners we take? Congratulating is not the point. Congratulations is not any valid reason for adhering to rules of war. Not a reason for anything really. Is the only reason you don’t cheat on your wife or abuse your children because you are congratulated for NOT doing it?
You mistakenly took “congratulate” literally.
My mistake then. That’s for the correction.
The Geneva conventions only apply if the enemy also accepts and applies the provisions, that is, follows them: they do not have to be a signatory, just abide by their terms; if they do not, the conventions are not binding; in the case of Afghanistan, that means if we were at war with the new government, and they did indeed follow those treaties, then we would have to abide by them; since we are at war with a defunct regime, their supporters, Islamists, etc., we do not have to abide by their provisions with respect to those opponents in these conflicts. I’m sure there are many enemies and mis-interpreters, foreign and domestic, who insist otherwise, but you can read them for yourself and see.
What we should do is promise to obey the Geneva Conventions TO THE LETTER. That also means SUMMARY EXECUTION for any combatant caught on the battlefield not wearing the uniform of any nation or using human shields of any sort.
Actually that’s not quite accurate, you do have to give them a trial. It needn’t be much, three officers and a summary court will do, but you do have to try them.
Thank you for posting that.
Mike: You are conflating the point CG made. Insuring civil rights to people who live in the 5th Century is not the same as assuring civil rights for our miscreants. The problem is that PC has thoroughly corrupted our military-ever since Vietnam. The left wing LSM and Dems could care less about our military and how many lives we lose; they want to emasculate our power so they constrain our military through PC doctrine and shame.
“Congratulations is not any valid reason for adhering to rules of war. Not a reason for anything really. Is the only reason you don’t cheat on your wife or abuse your children because you are congratulated for NOT doing it?”
I don’t get your analogy but I’ll try: So tying our hands behind our backs during Vietnam and now today by using ROE that virtually makes our guy’s targets is some how right or virtuous like not beating your wife…then we are doomed.
The left does not want us to win wars. Never have and never will. We lost Vietnam because of the left and we are losing the two wars we are fighting today because the left wants us to suffer humiliation and to so wear out our military that should a real war hit us we will not have a strong military to fight it. Think the debt commission and 50% reduction in our military budget. Wonder why the left so desires it?
And why are we fighting for a people who thinks the cross is evil?
…..blotto,
Re: your,…”And why are we fighting for a people who thinks the cross is evil?” ….good one.
Permit me to add, “….and stealing from right under our noses…..bales upon bales of our ‘AID’ cash”.
Damocles’ Sword (forgive me) – the USD cash spigot being turned off – is really causing sleepless nights after their Jirga conventions. This is the dilemma causing the indigenous Manipulators-In-Chief deep inside Kabul and Baghdad to have sweaty palms.
I note with surprise that they lumped the ‘devil horns’ in with it?
I didn’t know there were so many Christians sporting crosses at metal concerts!
Likewise the ancient tau cross and ankh. Maybe they were co-opted, but they were certainly not Christian symbols in origin. But the most puzzling of all is the is the swastika. I was unaware that it was a Christian symbol.
Personally, I wish they would declare jihad on emoticons: they are the greatest abominations of symbolism ever devised.
I would think though, that the symbol that they should fear most is the question mark. After all, it’s like kryptonite to religious fanatics of all faiths.
Heck, I thought it was the UT “Hook ‘em Horns” sign.
I’m an EMS volunteer with a small rescue squad. One of the biennial retraining sessions I attended was on wound trauma and was taught by former combat medics. One said he not only carried a gun but shot back. He considered it scene safety and protecting his patients. I’m sure he and a number of his patients got back alive because of that attitude. Good.
As the father of three U.S. Army Soldiers (one a medic), I posit that the proper response to barbarians targeting humanitarians is not to submit (remove the cross), but rather to destroy the barbarians, completely.
You see, the Cross is holy, has power, and protects us. Removing it is the goal of the barbarian.
I agree with you completely, for what it’s worth.
The USA will take steps to solve this problem by banning the red cross and accepting the crescent either that or they will add the crescent to the red cross, doesn’t matter though the islamofacist will still shoot and kill our wounded because the medivacs are safe to attack since they are not allowed to shoot back and haji knows this.
I would just attach a gunship, A-10 or a couple of Predator drones armed with weapons to fly assist.
Haji is in this to the end of time and intends to win at all cost, we here in the west are in it till we get tired and bored.
http://vietnam-hueys.tripod.com/Med%20Evac%20Hueys.htm
EXCERPT: In 1969 the Defense Department started a program with state agencies to provide emergency medical personnel and medevac helicopters in response to serious traffic accidents in the states. The program was called MAST (Military Assistance to Safety and Traffic). Military helicopters assigned to the MAST program were painted white with large red crosses on the sides.
The Medical Service Command in Vietnam got the idea that medevac helicopters were being shot at in Vietnam because they were olive drab and looked too much like other choppers. The order came down that some medevac helicopters should be painted white like the stateside MAST helicopters, and maybe the enemy would stop shooting at them! Needless to say, medevac units chosen to receive these white Hueys were overjoyed with this decision.
The 57th Med Detachment began taking delivery of these white Hueys in January 1972. The flight crews quickly dubbed these aircraft “White Elephants”. The nose retained the flat black paint, with the lower half of the nose painted white. The skids were OD, and 57th Med Hueys had white skid tips. The UNITED STATES ARMY legend and a/c tail number appeared in black as on standard OD aircraft. This particular Huey had “ALIVE & KICKIN II painted in white on the nose above the red cross. “As expected, the NVA and VC targeted these white helicopters just as quickly as other choppers.”
——
I’d say no one outside the NATO western alliance recognizes these as safe passage emblems The current enemy is quite willing to take our casualties POW and then slit their juglars and decapatate them all on video for yucks and fun.
Take the red cross aiming point off and place weapons aboard.
then, use the red crescent on the islamo’s vehicles as aiming points also turn about is fair in war and this is a war to the death with no rules for haji but so many for GI Joe he has to have a lawyer present just to shoot back.
They also need to take seriously, even if stupid–when the western world recognizes this as a medical and neutral rather than religious symbol in the context of people performing these charitable services, the significance these enemies impute to the symbol, and remove it, so they cannot keep using it in propaganda that depicts these conflicts as a religious war; it may be in their eyes against us, but we need not feed them material to make it look like the U.S. & Allied efforts are religious, rather I think we should be both hospitable and great friends (even if one way) towards the general populaces and civilians, even at the cost of casualties, and brutal towards these murderous scum, and quite vocable about our intentions to exterminate from the earth’s service those who go murdering those who simply to not believe as they do but otherwise harmless; to discover and do the same even to those making pretense of being friends, neutral, civilian, and that no matter the age (to them, it doesn’t matter). Of course that also means having a lot more spine than the current politically correct and schizophrenic liberal order.
As has been noted, the red cross is not required by the Geneva Convention. In fact, having any symbol on any type of vehicle can be dangerous to the people in that vehicle. While in Vietnam, many jeeps had a canvas cover on the spare tire and they were marked with the rank of the person the jeep was assigned to. This was displayed while the vehicle was “behind the Lines” but was removed when moving from one base to another outside of friendly lines.I saw the result of forgetting this little precaution when our Motor Transport officer forgot. Result: one driver KIA one MTO Major turned into a vegetable, the jeep was just a twisted hunk of metal.
As said, the Red Cross is not needed. Those calling in a medevac know who it is and no one else needs to know. One of our Corpsmen, that accompanied our people on patrol did not wear an armband, he did however carry a 12Ga. shotgun. He was not about to be turned into A bigger target than anyone else out there.
There will be a day when Muslims will take offense of the British Union Jack because it consists of the flags of St. George, St. Andrew, and St. Patrick. If the Brits take those off their flag, they would be left with a white rag – fitting.
Um – the muslims DID take offense and the Brits have virtualy banned their own flag as offensive.
Targeting vehicles exhibiting the red cross operating in these sand hole countries calls for serious retaliation – how about the babbling towers connected to Mosques – sweet!
“Nothing in the Geneva Conventions forces us to put Red Crosses on medics or helicopters.”
Really?
Art. 36. Medical aircraft, that is to say, aircraft exclusively employed for the removal of wounded and sick and for the transport of medical personnel and equipment, shall not be attacked, but shall be respected by the belligerents, while flying at heights, times and on routes specifically agreed upon between the belligerents concerned.
They shall bear, clearly marked, the distinctive emblem prescribed in Article 38, together with their national colours on their lower, upper and lateral surfaces. They shall be provided with any other markings or means of identification that may be agreed upon between the belligerents upon the outbreak or during the course of hostilities.
That seems rather clear that helicopters must be marked with the “distinctive emblem” (Red Cross).
Art. 40. The personnel designated in Article 24 and in Articles 26 and 27 shall wear, affixed to the left arm, a water-resistant armlet bearing the distinctive emblem, issued and stamped by the military authority.
And that pretty clearly covers that medics must wear the “distinctive emblem” (Red Cross).
(As a note, Article 24 refers to military personnel exclusively engaged in medical services. If someone is serving as a medic in addition to other duties then they would not wear the distinctive emblem.)
Conversely, there seems to be a bit of confusion as to whether helicopters and other transports so marked, and the personnel assigned to them may be armed, as Rupert Fiennes noted:
Art. 22. The following conditions shall not be considered as depriving a medical unit or establishment of the protection guaranteed by Article 19:
(1) That the personnel of the unit or establishment are armed, and that they use the arms in their own defence, or in that of the wounded and sick in their charge.
It would seem not.
Indeed they are rather explicitly permitted to blow the bleep out of anyone who attacks them or those they are assiting without losing their immunity.
So perhaps the problem that needs to be addressed is these transports and medics are unarmed rather than being marked.
Further if the insurgents are putting up such posters and deliberately targeting protected units, then a political decision needs to be made that the Geneva Conventions are not applicable to this particular conflict, and other appropriate actions taken, unrelated to the issue of whether or not medical units, vehicles, and personnel are marked as protected.
The loophole is the word “exclusively.” If we declare them dual-use combat and MEDIVAC helicopters, there is no need to mark them, and we are free to arm them.
Actually, I expect that’s why the Air Force, British Army, and other vehicles are not so marked – they are dual use.
And that’s no loophole, that is deliberate; you cannot expect to change the markings on vehicles that easily, and using marked vehicles for other purposes is explicitly made illegal.
So the question there is whether the army wants dedicated evac vehicles or not.
And again, as noted they can be armed, we just choose not to.
Both are very simple choices.
The missions that medivac helicopters fly do not comply with artice 36. I can guarentee you that these helicopters are not flying “at heights, times and on routes specifically agreed upon between the belligerents concerned.” Therefore, our use of these aircraft in such a role with such a marking (red cross) is a violation of the Geneva Conventions. To fix this, we would have to publish the route, altitude and time of each medivac misison, which is an unacceptable option. The only solution to comply with the GCs is to take the red cross off. This is even before we start talking about armament.
This is amazing that the swastika is on that paper. The muslims and Persians where great followers and friends of nazi Germany. Iran means aryan people.
The Persians were orginally not Muslims, they were Zoroastrians (that might be spelled wrong). So, if the Swastika as framed is Persian in nature, it could be heretical to a Persian Muslim. The Swasticka in a reverse frame is apparently out of Indo/hindu culture, and is somehow related to certain sects of Buddhism, also considered pagan by Muslims.
If Muslims were friendly towards Nazis, it was only because they hate Jews too, and likely they respected anyone as blood thirsty as they are.
Putting red crosses on medivac helicopters is incomprehensively stupid. Has any enemy since the invention of the helicopter done anything except use the symbol as an easy (unarmed) target. Arm em to the teeth!!!!! This has to be something politicians came up with based on the level of stupidity associated with it.
I have an idea- let’s paint black crosses on our attack helicopters. That’ll really confuse them, because they won’t know the difference. To them, a cross is a cross, who cares what color it is?
The Luftwaffe already uses black crosses. All that will do is confuse everybody.
The Mark of the Beast is here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GtquNNEO7Fw
Let them deny the Geneva Conventions. It shows they are not members of civilization, but are truly barbarians and beasts.
A whole lot of those crosses aren’t even Christian. Not that it matters to the superstitious hordes of Islamic barbarians, who don’t care anyway.
I’ll have to get myself a big cross.
paint on a green crescent.
Best advice is that of the old Romans – CARTHAGO DELENDA EST!
Dr. Shalit
By insisting on having red crosses on US Army MEDEVAC helicopters in Afghanistan, it makes it appear that our leaders want our MEDEVAC helicopters to be targeted by the infidel hater Islamics. This is truly criminal. It is also criminal and excessively wicked for our helicopters and medics to not be armed, deliberately rendering our medics defenseless prey against terrorist killers.
Woow. Why am I not surprised. Every one in the know is aware that the medical emblem is from the staff of Abraham. God told Abraham to place the wood staff and ALL that look up on it would be healed . This IS the cross that MD’s wear that have the serpents on it as it is told in the scriptures that SIN is destroyed on that that is hung from a wood cross. The serpents represent sin and illness. The wood cross is were ( Jesus ) was put to death. So ya I bet the Muzzies know this and they are attacking CHRIST as the anti-Christ. THEY (MUZZIES) are the Anti-Christ army. This is not secret but they are counting on the ignorance of the US people to make there point.
If a vehicle is marked with a Red Cross, Red Crescent, Red Lion, Red Crystal, or Red Shield of David are barred from carrying offensive weapons by Geneva Convention (I) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field. Individuals may carry strictly defensive weapons for the purpose of defending the patients, but the vehicles themselves must remain unarmed. If armed vehicles are used for the transportation of wounded and sick, then there is no obligation to mark those carriers, but under the agreement those vehicles become legitimate targets for attack. The fact that our current enemy does not respect our symbols indicated that we may well do better by not marking our medevacs and going ahead and arming them. Of course, woe be it to us if we accidentally hit a vehicle marked with the Red Crescent, that would be a crime against humanity.
I’m not sure I understand the problem. Let’s review the facts.
1) Vehicles with a red cross or whatever symbol is in vogue cannot be armed.
2) The enemy never signed the Geneva Conventions.
3) The enemy uses the symbol as an aiming point knowing that those vehicles are unarmed.
This doesn’t seem to be a tough problem. Lose the damn symbol, arm the vehicles, and blow any enemy in sight off the face of the earth. Why would it take 6 committees and 15 power point presentations to figure this out. If we want to give the enemy moving targets to practice on we can do it a lot cheaper by sending over OWS protestors (that’s sarcasm for the folks that want to find fault). You don’t waste men, training, and equipment in such a foolish manner.
What is the feasibility of conducting an operation in which an empty medivac unit is dispatched to specifically to draw fire. The medivac is escorted by two higher-altitude close air support jets. As soon as the medivac is fired upon the target is identified and engaged by the jets.
I am not knowledgable enough to know if this is feasible but if so it would not take long before attacks on medivac helicopters dropped way off.