Mark of the Beast: Evil Symbols in Afghanistan

crosses tb1000

22 November 2011

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 of 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…”

Nothing in the Geneva Conventions forces us to put Red Crosses on medics or helicopters. I’ve never seen a medic in Iraq, Afghanistan, or the Philippines who was wearing a Red Cross. I don’t recall ever having seen an American service member wearing a Red Cross. Importantly, the US Air Force, Marines, and the British do not put Red Crosses on their helicopters.

This puts the Army’s argument about Geneva Conventions into an interesting light. By bringing the Geneva Conventions into the discussion, the US Army implies that the Marines, Air Force and the British all are violating the Geneva Conventions. They are not violating the Geneva Conventions. Meanwhile, the Army is shamelessly hiding behind those conventions to forward an internal political fight about who controls those helicopters.

The Army has not a single valid reason for sporting the Red Crosses. Army leadership should hang its head in shame for willfully endangering troops and the mission by sending unarmed troops into combat, signaling to the enemy that they are unarmed, all while elegantly marking our helicopter with what to many Afghans is a mark of the beast.

If the Army insists on sending unarmed troops into combat, it should at least remove the crosses that alert the enemy that the helicopter is unarmed, all while inflaming local passion to shoot it down.

Related links:

RED AIR

Golden Seconds

Pedros

Helicopter evacuation

Comments   

 
+3 # Shaun 2011-11-22 07:45
ok so once more Im confused by Islam - the following are links to images from mosque decorations - does this mean they should be destroyed too?

http://www.pbase.com/bmcmorrow/image/58012995

http://www.pbase.com/bmcmorrow/image/58013006
Reply
 
 
+1 # Chuck 2011-11-22 07:58
Hypocrisy and prejudice are old bedfellows. These things have as much to do with Islam as westboro baptists have to do with Christianity. Just evil, hate-filled people grasping at anything they can to justify and legitimise their hate.

Still we'd be better off without enabling their deluded crusader fantasies and with armed medivacs.
Reply
 
 
+1 # Mike 2011-11-22 08:49
as Chuck said, "hypocrisy and prejudice" combined with a lack of education. It's much easier for a shaman (.aka mullah) to control people when they are illiterate.

I'm assuming the mark of the beast refers to the devil or is the beast something else in islam?
Reply
 
 
+2 # Scott Gleaton 2011-11-22 08:18
Although we are commanded to spread the word of Christ, we cannot change those who refuse to accept His teachings. To put others diliberately in harm's way for the sake of "Geneva Convention" is absolute preposterous! We must protect those that have gone to battle, even those in the medic copters, vans, etc. Furthering an agenda that inflames others to create more harm to us is insane. Praying you guys stay as safe as possible!
Reply
 
 
+2 # IronV 2011-11-22 14:34
I agree with your larger point. But speak for yourself and only yourself. I'm not "commanded" to do anything on behalf of anybody's religion. Yours or theirs...
Reply
 
 
0 # ethanf84 2011-11-22 19:11
Low blow- learn read english iron...Scotts was saying "we" referring to Christians. If you ain't one he ain't talking to you. Smart guy
Reply
 
 
-3 # IronV 2011-11-23 00:14
As one smart guy to another...

1. He does not specify who "we" is. Nonetheless, Christian or not he should keep his proselytizing to himself, if only as a common courtesy. Presuming others want to hear about your religion is unfathomable arrogance.
2. Your failure to see the irony in the fact we're fighting fanatics who believe god is "commanding" them to push their religion on others is a bit scary...

-allah akbar
Reply
 
 
0 # Dantone 2012-04-13 18:11
Presuming that he was talking to YOU is unfathomable arrogance.....
I read his post as a response to the OP, specifically " 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."
I assumed he was making the point that Christians are actually commanded to do this and that, etc....and that those Muslims who accuse them of degrading "holy Muslim society" are really misrepresenting Christians, intentionally or due to ignorance.
In other words, I thought Scott was simply offering his view as a Christian, which was certainly relevant to the topic at hand.
Reply
 
 
-2 # Pierce 2011-11-22 08:19
We should put inverted pentagrams on our copters instead, see how they like THAT.
Reply
 
 
-3 # Cassandra 2011-11-22 08:39
Shared! I have shared this with Pakistani Christian friends as well as on facebook. Yesterday the Occupy gang outside St Paul's Cathedral in London spray-painted on the beautiful columns and walls outside, "666" an "the cross is the sign of the beast".
Reply
 
 
+10 # Mike 2011-11-22 09:00
Clearly the crosses also have us playing right into the "crusader" narative of our enemies. Yet another reason to take them off and arm the helicoptors.

Did anyone else recognize the symbol on the lower right as the "expoding buthole" patch of 13th COSCOM? Also the picture of the anchor in the middle is funny, good thing Afghans are landlocked or all their boats would drift away for lack of anchors!
Reply
 
 
+5 # Russell Whitehead 2011-11-22 09:10
I say put crosses on all our military vehicles for awhile...then take em off...them put em back on...confuse the bastards!
Reply
 
 
0 # Bronco46 2011-11-22 10:28
You willing to drive one of those vehicles?
Reply
 
 
+1 # Tim 2011-11-23 10:41
While I like the idea, I think it would fail the vetting through JAG vs the Geneva Conventions etc.
Reply
 
 
+7 # njm 2011-11-22 11:20
Having been in an Air Force medical field some years back, I'm confused about something.

These folks are deployed in a nation where the vast majority of the locals are followers of Islam to one degree or another. These folks have a long-held animosity toward anything military carrying a cross-based emblem.

The medical symbol that prevails in Islamic nations is the red crescent. If the U.S. Army is so bound and determined to strap a target on its medical response equipment, why don't those units exposed to combat in an Islamic nation use the red crescent instead?

If the idea is to blatantly state that the medical response folks are unarmed, would it not be a teensy tich safer to use the internationally recognized symbol that the locals are at least slightly less likely to blaze away at Pavlovian-style?

. . . Or would that get Army command shorts in a knot, too?
Reply
 
 
+1 # Frank Burt 2011-11-22 12:09
While I agree with your logic regarding replacing the Red Cross with a Red Crescent, that would only open another can of worms with fundamental Christians and conspiracy theorists who would yell and scream about Islamization of our Armed Forces. (Ignorance and religious bigotry are not a Muslim monopolies.) Besides, Islamic extremists who are willing to load ambulances marked with a Red Crescent with exploixes for use as VBIRD's aren't going to think twice about shooting down a Medevac helicopter with a Red Crescent.
Reply
 
 
-1 # argonaut 2011-11-22 17:27
I do agree it would solve the problem of the propraganda of the Taliban.

Frank is correct though the toughest sell would be the US citizens who would say it was because Obama wants to convert us to Islam.

Also, it may stop "some" of the locals from shooting at the helicopters, but I don't believe it would stop the majority.

I would proffer we need our own propaganda campaign, highlighting how the helicopters save all faiths, and not just our military, but the Taliban choose to kill wounded Afghans and Nato forces. Even the uneducated recognize that morality of not killing someone who is no longer a threat.
Reply
 
 
+5 # Larry Wood 2011-11-22 12:16
Check out Netflix: The Anderson Platoon done in 1966. There is a scene showing a dustoff with redcrosses and two 7.62 M60s mounted in the gunner's and crew chief's positions. One each side. I think the issue of arming the medevacs should be left to the unit commander, not a politically motivated general officers. Scrub the crosses off the Blackhawks, and arm the birds.
Reply
 
 
+4 # Steven Scott 2011-11-22 12:58
I was under the impression the Geneva Conventions were for uniformed combatants, witch the Taliban are not. There is no enemy of the United States in Afghanistan wearing a uniform. Therefor they have no Geneva Convention rights, or expectations thereof. Even if a medivac chopper had red cross's and mini guns, it would not be a violation of the Geneva Conventions. I personally feel they qualify as partisans and should be executed as such. Why should we bother to play by any rules or enemies don't play by.
Reply
 
 
0 # shea 2011-11-22 17:17
Thank you Michael for the valuable insight, but isn't this the way most of the Army mentality is anyway, and has been for years ? It does not appear to be about the most intelligent and clever way to win a battle or defeat an enemy, it seems to be more of several serious disconnects of policy and mismanagement decisions intended to actually prolong the conflict. Matthew hoh has suggested that we are in Afghanistan simply because of the profits that can be made there from a war and occupation. Any thoughts? Stay safe. Think twice about heading into Mexico,, you can hang out right here in the states and hunt bad guy/cartel members all day long in several comfy American cities.
Reply
 
 
+3 # oenghus 2011-11-22 20:23
The Geneva Convention only applie to the signatories. These were countries such as the US, Great Britan and others. The Taliban and al Queda and all other non national organizations were, and are not, signatories. Technically they can be shot on the spot if they are involved in armed conflict and not in uniform of some national military. In practice it is better to capture them and learn what they know.
Reply
 
 
+1 # Tom Shook 2011-11-23 10:04
So what about the Crossed Swords of 10th Mountain Division. How do they deal with locals with that on their sleeve?
Reply
 
 
+1 # roger 2011-11-23 11:50
It's very easy for anyone with an understanding of people to recoginise that culturally we are different to the people we are fighting.

A while ago....Richard the Lionheart's tactical skills and military training played a substantial role in the capture of Acre in 1191 by the Crusaders. But Richard the Lionheart was ruthless and after the capture of the city he marched 2,700 Muslim soldiers onto the road of Nazareth and in front of the Muslim army positions, had them executed one by one.

Go have a look at pictures depicting Richard the Lionheart...suc h as..http://www.military-art.com/mall/more.php?ProdID=16606
and you'll see how easy it is to 'get the message'. Maybe the obvious is just too difficult for military commanders to understand sometimes?
Reply
 
 
+1 # budgenator 2011-11-26 18:06
Take off the crosses and arm the dustoffs, there is nobody there that follows the convention anyways.
Reply
 
 
+1 # Daver 2011-11-27 01:48
Odd, the hand sign of the Boy Scouts, and the "OK" sign are on it. Not sure about the other two, although one is used by Texas Longhorns fans, who are, admittedly, in league with the devil. Fleur de Lis, ankh...
But the faint background of an American arm smashing a cross onto Afghanistan with a Muslim sword cutting off the top is interesting. Perhaps this is distributed by the Taliban?
Reply
 
 
-1 # guest 2011-12-01 22:23
The one next to the "exploding butthole" patch of the 13th COSCOM is international sign language for "I Love You". Beside that is OK as well as the sign language for the letter Y, then the Boy / Cub Scout pledge for "Scout's Honor". At least they got the swastika right and not the Native American symbol. Then again, the swastika has been around for many millennium.
Reply
 
 
0 # RE: Mark of the Beast: Evil Symbols in AfghanistanDoug 2012-04-09 17:42
Go Longhorns
Reply
 

Add comment

Due to the large amount of spam, all comments will be moderated before publication. Please be patient if you do not see your comment right away. Registered users who login first will have their comments posted immediately.


Security code
Refresh

Reader support is crucial to this mission. Weekly or monthly recurring ‘subscription’ based support is the best, though all are greatly appreciated.  Recurring and one-time donations are available through PayPal or Authorize.net.

supp

supp

subscribe

You can now help support the next dispatch with bitcoins:

Donate Bitcoins

My BitCoin QR Code

This is for use with BitCoin apps:

189