Posted on 10/26/2017 11:44:34 AM PDT by Innovative
Almost every veteran I know, including myself, has a negative story about the Red Cross.
Well, then, in the interest of being open-minded,
I’d like to know what the Red Cross proposes calling someone who sets caged people on fire.
For the record.
What would you call them, Red Cross?
What’s that?
I can’t hear you.
How would you describe them, that wouldn’t de-humanize them?
What’s that?
No answer, for all those listening?
Just one term will do.
p.S.:
Try “misguided” or “confused,” and thousands of ghosts will rise up to haunt you and damn you for eternity.
So, choose your term carefully.
I know some cool.places for those who approved this measure to go for vacations: Yemen, Somalia, Iraq, Afganistan, Syria, and North Korea. Fun to see how any one of them who survives vacations to all those places would still feel, especially the women and the homosexuals.
I know they called an end to the looking a few years after WWII ended.
I read a book, and there's a movie from it, about a guy who was horribly tortured by one Japanese soldier in particular. He was #6 on the list but went free after they ended the search. The U.S. soldier (airman) forgave him and they met again years later. The soldier was also an Olympic runner. Unfortunately, I can't remember the name of the book.
“The organization is concerned about rhetoric that “dehumanizes” “
so did the red cross say anything about the dehumanizing caused by burning and drowning people in cages, blowing heads off with det cord, throwing live children into dough mixers, etc.?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.