Big Wave

Some are sending more than others it seems as this article shows.

(popup warning for those that worry about such things)
http://www.hindustantimes.com/2004/Dec/29/181_1174078,001301540000.htm

</quote>

By comparison:
UAE GDP - $57.7 billion
Kuwait GDP - $39.54 billion
Qatar GDP - $17.54 billion

Figures from http://www.indexmundi.com

 

I'm not sure it's true to say they are the same organisation but the
IFRC is an umbrella organistion I think. In the same way that The FA is
not the same as FFF even though they are both in FIFA.



The link posted was this one: http://www.ifrc.org/

<quote>
Founded in 1919, the International Federation comprises 181 member Red
Cross and Red Crescent societies
</quote>

 

United Kingdom - GDP
Home > United Kingdom > Economy > GDP

purchasing power parity - $1.664 trillion (2003 est.)

 

Interesting when, AIUI, the logo was chosen simply to be the "reversal"
of the Swiss flag.

It rather reinforces my obviously unjustified belief that religious
tolerance varies according to whaich religion you subscribe to.

 

And you're quite right http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Cross shame it
doesn't give a date for the formation of the Red Crescent.

TBH I don't quite follow this.

 

Sorry: I should have phrased it more clearly. I'm just interested that
Muslims should be offended by the image of a cross when I don't see many
Christians being offended by the image of a crescent.

That said, perhaps the Hindus take exception to the crescent. I wouldn't
know.

 

(Bad form post)

I've just checked the link you posted. Fascinating. So yeah, first the
Muslims objected, and then the Israelis wanted a red star because if the
Christans had their cross and the Muslims their crescent...

and now:

"In response, the Red Cross movement is in the process of developing a
new symbol, which will be without any religious connotations and also
easily recognizable on the battlefield. As of 2004 the most likely
candidate is a red lozenge or diamond on a white background. Once the
Red Cross movement has adopted the symbol it will then be presented to
the State Parties to the Geneva Conventions for amendment of the
treaties. However, it will only complement and not replace the existing
list of symbols."

You know, this is the first time I've heard of this planned change of
symbol. Coo, the things you learn on ukrm.

 

The Older Gentleman says...

Maybe the ungrateful fuckers should be glad of the relief efforts and
humanitarian aid provided by the Red Cross, no matter what race,
religion or colour they may be or whatever logo might be displayed.

I really don't see what having a new logo, flag or whatever is going to
do to make things easier, apart from eat up milions of pounds in
rebranding. Money that would be better spent on those the organisation
was set up to help.

 

The Older Gentleman wrote

You wait mate, this company rebranding stuff never works. Give it a
couple of disasters and refugees in their thousands will end taking
their business to oxfam, you mark my words.

 

On a similar theme, I was watching an anti USA demonstration on the news
a while back. The group being filmed were burning US stars and stripes,
cut out of sacks that used to contain rice supplied to them under
humanitarian aid.

It's religion again, it kills more people than anything else.

I see in the news the pope has sent his prayers to the tsunami hit
areas. No money just prayers.

 

Lozzo wrote

Cunts the lot of them. They should fucking hang them.

Tell you what all, the fucking assorted nigger haters out there would be
better turning their attentions to distrusting, disbelieving and
disembowelling anything that dares offer "their" particular brand of
salvation as The Only Way. The day that happens will be a Great Leap
Forward for mankind.

 

He's a bit short of cash these days what with having to pay off all the
law suits because his priests have been buggering all the little kids.

 

One, but not the only, problem is the cross as a symbol of white European
Christianity has had overt colonial and ideological overtones in the last
two hundred years, the Red Cross may also be seen as part of the old
Imperial order, and I can see why some sections of the world view it with
mistrust.

This for the Red Cross would be a serious handicap; not so much in a
relief context but more so as the upholders of the Geneva Convention. It
would make sense to adopt a more culturally neutral symbol.

This in itself has brought them problems; hence the move to another
symbol to cover all areas of operation that doesn't carry similar
historical baggage.

 

(Bad form post)

I've just checked the link you posted. Fascinating. So yeah, first the
Muslims objected, and then the Israelis wanted a red star because if the
Christans had their cross and the Muslims their crescent...

and now:

"In response, the Red Cross movement is in the process of developing a
new symbol, which will be without any religious connotations and also
easily recognizable on the battlefield. As of 2004 the most likely
candidate is a red lozenge or diamond on a white background. Once the
Red Cross movement has adopted the symbol it will then be presented to
the State Parties to the Geneva Conventions for amendment of the
treaties. However, it will only complement and not replace the existing
list of symbols."

You know, this is the first time I've heard of this planned change of
symbol. Coo, the things you learn on ukrm.[/QUOTE]

News just in: A group of menstruating women have refused aid from the
Red Blob Society. They complained that it should be blue, like in the
adverts. They did like the all-white uniforms, though.

--
| ___ Salad Dodger
|/ \
_/_____\_ GL1500SEV/CBR1100XXX/KH500A8/TS250C
|_\_____/_| ..73063../..17250.../..3180./.19406
(>|_|_|<) TPPFATUICG#7 DIAABTCOD#9 YTC#4 PM#5
|__|_|__| BOTAFOT #70 BOTAFOF #09 two#11 WG*
\ |^| / IbW#0 & KotIbW# BotTOS#6 GP#4
\|^|/ ANORAK#17 IbB#4
'^'

 

Sadly not the case for Indonesia.

A friend of mine's [1] family lived on (or around) that little bit of island
they keep showing in before and after shots.

He's lost 19 - NINETEEN - family members.


[1] extended, but somewhat removed/remote due to him living in the States
etc etc.

 

This brings it home to you:

http://www.digitalglobe.com/tsunami_gallery.html

 

On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 15:20:41 +0000, Cane wrote:

I don't think you should underestimate the Christmas spirit. People
*want* it to be the season of good-will, even if it seldom is.

 

You also mentioned "ragheads", though, which would normally be taken to
mean Arabs, (many but not all of whom happen to be Muslims), not Muslims,
(who might be of any race).

Although there is a difference, it is a vague and ill-defined one. I
think it is naive to believe that much of the ill-feeling expressed about
Islam is not racist in nature. It would be nice if allegedly educated
people took a little bit of care: perhaps researching potentially divisive
remarks *before* making them.

 

Hadn't given it a moments thought.

 

snip

Well that would depend on what type of muslim they were...

I knew some Lebanese christian medics and nurses who didn't seem to
have any problem working for the Red Crescent. Most of thier patients
were muslim...

--
O
1 Black, shortly to undergo extensive surgery.
1 Red, undergoing lightweight surgery. -----
1 Blue, for Power-Ranger baiting. | o |
Numbers ... | o |
Stuff ... | ooo |
Life ... -----