Both.  The Taliban has been worse overall though.  You give one 70% support.  The other 30%.

What some of you are failing to appreciate is that the neutrality of the Red Cross doesn't only benefit guerrillas and terrorists. That reputation also gets the Red Cross access to POWs and hostages that might not otherwise get medical attention. If these rebel forces couldn't trust and respect the Red Cross and its humanitarian mandate, if they came to see the Red Cross as just another tool of Western powers, they wouldn't grant the Red Cross access to treat their captives.

Even if the Taliban don't take prisoners, that reputation for neutrality has saved the lives of the prisoners of less ruthless paramilitary groups elsewhere in the world. Trust is an asset that's hard to rebuild once you throw it away.

I'm sure that while allied soldiers don't relish the idea of having to shoot the same insurgent twice, they don't mind the idea that they have a better chance of getting treated themselves if they should get wounded and taken prisoner.

Well I'll sleep easy knowing that Red Cross is helping the fight to kill our soldiers. I'd hate to see our enemies die.

I hope the Taliban is also getting some of our blood after getting shot with our bullets.

That's kinda lame though. I see your point but aren't Red Cross American (correct me if I'm wrong). Its like if a British company helped German troops during WWII.

There is an American Red Cross, but the Red Cross isn't American. It's an international movement of somewhat independant Red Cross/Crescent organizations that goes back to the founding of the International Committee of the Red Cross in Switzerland in 1863.

The International Committee of the Red Cross did work to ensure the health and welfare of POWs and civilians on both sides of WW II.

They would help british forces aswell, and they would probably kill more talibans, so the argument would work both ways. They are not british allies, they are there to treat any soldier from any side that needs help, doctors are obligated to treat anyone no matter what side they are on.

Some people should stop bitching about the red cross and remember they arent the ones that are shooting each others and started the war.

The Red/Cross doesnt get funded from the Taliban, and im sure they wouldn't help them if a doctor was beheaded on LIVE TV.

If America (and the free world) gets take out, then who the hell is gonna fund the Red Cross? Not the taliban.

@ Pastro243

Its always nice to see them supporting terrorism and 9/11.

Its pretty clear they dont support it.

And dont try to get me emo with 9/11, I could care less.

Not really.  Treating both sides the same no matter what horrible things one side does... is a tacit support.

Example.  I am a manager of a store.  It is my duty to treat all my employees equally.

One employee constantly sexually harasses the customers.  By not punishing him am I really treating everyone equally?

No, all I'm doing is showing that you can get away with whatever you want... and there will be no reprecussions.

In otherwords there is no motivation for said groups to change.  The Red Cross is a LOT more important to these guerilla/terrorist type groups then it is to countries like the USA and Europe.

This means... the Red Cross has a LOT of room to negoatite with this people and get they to tow the line when it comes to protecting civilians and such.  They don't use this though... instead going against their own principles by tacitly supporting the ways they go aggainst the Red Crosses own rules.