Red Cross spokeswoman equates Nato with the Taliban over civilian casualties

I think that if the Red Cross can't tell the difference between the Taliban and NATO, then they should be able to ignore the difference between my contributions and my lack of contributions. When they learn to distinguish between suicidal bombers attacking a market and a NATO bomb accidentally destroying a party, then they will get my money again.

The Monkey Tennis Centre: Red Cross spokeswoman equates Nato with the Taliban over civilian casualties: "The BBC has been making hay with the news that a US airstrike in Afghanistan last week apparently killed around 50 civilians, sending its reporters hiking through the mountains to collect first-hand accounts of the tragedy, and generally giving the incident the sort of coverage that it wouldn't give to a story about 50 civilians being killed by the Taliban.

It's no more than we've come to expect from the BBC, and the Western news media in general. But grudging credit where it's due: when Peter Allen of the Beeb's Radio Five Live interviewed Carla Haddad, a spokeswoman from the International Committee of the Red Cross, about the incident he at least attempted to make a distinction between civilians being accidentally killed by Nato forces, and the Taliban's deliberate targeting of civilians.

Haddad was having none of it. Despite being invited to do so by Allen, she refuses to accept that there's any difference between Nato's actions and those of the Taliban, instead falling back on platitudes about appealing to 'all parties' in the conflict, and generally doing a passable imitation of a greased weasel playing Twister."