Moral dilemma: Red Cross teaching Taliban first aid, providing medical kits

[yllus]

Tough call by the Red Cross. I don't think I would have made the same choice. While I can see some benefit in showing insurgents fighting under the banner of the Taliban mercy and compassion, I imagine 99 out of 100 of those treated do in fact grab their rifle and head right back out to fight our own soldiers.

Red Cross aid to Taliban reflects moral dilemma

The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) raised eyebrows on Tuesday when it announced it was giving first aid training and medical kits directly to the Taliban insurgency.

The move is part of a wider Red Cross effort to save lives in Afghanistan. The agency is teaching local doctors and Afghan security forces how to deal with weapon-related wounds. But in April it also provided basic first aid training and emergency medical kits to "over 70 members of the armed opposition," the ICRC said.

Although NATO says it supports the ICRC's humanitarian work, Britain's Guardian newspaper quoted an Afghan government leader in Kandahar on Tuesday saying the Red Cross -- or Red Crescent as it's known in South Asia -- should not be helping Taliban fighters because they do "not deserve to be treated like humans."

Mr. Davis, whose 26-year-old son Cpl. Paul Davis was killed in 2006, says he wouldn't go that far, but insists no outside agency should be teaching the Taliban how to heal its wounded.

"The Red Cross should be there to help civilians harmed in the fighting, but if the Red Cross is teaching the Taliban how to administer first aid to their fallen, well then they're helping the Taliban," he says. "I think that's disgusting. I wonder why they'd want to do that?"

Bill Lawlor, a spokesman and disaster management specialist with the Canadian Red Cross, says the agency fully supports the ICRC's decision, which is rooted in the long Red Cross history of neutrality.

"Our main objective in all Red Cross societies is to alleviate human suffering in any circumstance, whether it be a disaster, internal conflict or war," he says. "It's not a matter of taking any side.

"I certainly wouldn't take away from the concerns of families of fallen soldiers, but we have a long-standing reputation for neutrality. We uphold that to the best of our ability."

 

[CitizenKain]

People first, sides later.

 

[tk149]

The Red Cross/Crescent MUST maintain an aura of neutrality in order to be able to operate effectively wherever they are needed.

I may not like the idea of their aiding terrorists, but I understand why it is necessary.

 

[Jaskalas]

People first, sides later.

When dealing with terrorists who butcher the innocent and enforce a brutal tribal religion?

 

[nick1985]

Tough call on this one

 

[Fear No Evil]

The UN should probably arm them as well. We don't want this to be an unfair fight and don't want the UN to come across as non-neutral.

 

[Jaskalas]

The Red Cross/Crescent MUST maintain an aura of neutrality in order to be able to operate effectively wherever they are needed.

I may not like the idea of their aiding terrorists, but I understand why it is necessary.

Then perhaps they should not be terrorists. It gave me a moment of pause to consider, but there is no tough call to be made.

There is a distinct difference between a nation's army and these barbarians.

 

[Genx87]

And in other news 10 Red Cross members were beheaded for being infidels while the 20 people they helped rearmed and killed 30 people in an ambush.

I understand their stated goals. But if they want to stop the blood shed. One of the ways to let the opposition die quicker.

 

[joebloggs10]

The Red Cross believes in free will. They will save a life, ANY life, knowing that that person has the free will to choose how to live it. One of the tenets of true neutrality is that good and evil must be kept in balance and both deserve to exist. This is why Switzerland is NOT neutral but merely passive.

 

[rudder]

Simple solution. Aim for the head or chest and bomb them some more as they retreat. No need to first aid kits then.

 

[yankeesfan]

I agree with this move. It is actions like this that will weaken the insurgency movement in the long-term.

Perhaps it will make them question whether or not they are fighting for the right things.

 

[Schadenfroh]

Tough call on this one, the Red Cross likely needs to show neutrality, but I would not want to the be Red Cross worker that goes to the Taliban to train them and provide medical supplies. I have a feeling that one might end up on a beheading film....

This is a fuzzy area since terrorist groups are not nations and this is certainly an unconventional war.

Glad I do not have to make the call on this one. Although, I assume one can specify that their donation money not go to help the Taliban when one donates to The Red Cross?

One of the tenets of true neutrality is that good and evil must be kept in balance and both deserve to exist.

This one knows the D&D rules of True Neutral alignment.

 

[tk149]

Then perhaps they should not be terrorists. It gave me a moment of pause to consider, but there is no tough call to be made.

There is a distinct difference between a nation's army and these barbarians.

Scenario 1:
Red Cross: We'd like to help the innocent people in this village, but we won't aid the Taliban.
Taliban: Fvck you, you aid our enemies, the Great Satan. We'll shoot you on sight.

Scenario 2:
Red Cross: We're not taking sides. We'll aid you as long as you allow us to help others.
Taliban: Maybe we won't shoot you on sight then.


Which scenario is better? I personally prefer Scenario #1.

 

[CitizenKain]

When dealing with terrorists who butcher the innocent and enforce a brutal tribal religion?

You are going to have to be a little more particular on which side you are talking about here.

 

[PokerGuy]

The red cross should be helping civilians, not combatants. Why should the US or any other civilized country help fund the red cross when it turns around and uses that funding to help the enemy?

 

[Throckmorton]

The Red Cross's job is saving people, not fighting wars. Even if saving the lives of the guilty were immoral, if it allows them to save more innocent people then they're doing the right thing. If it causes just one Taliban extremist to say "Wait... maybe they aren't the Great Satan after all", even better.


Here's a rule of thumb when faced with ethical dilemmas: What would Picard do?

 

[tk149]

Here's a rule of thumb when faced with ethical dilemmas: What would Picard do?

Tea Earl Grey Hot!

 

[MovingTarget]

Considering the history of the Red Cross/Red Crescent, I don't see any conflict at all.

 

[cubeless]

"yes, please, we will use the supplies to aid our women and children... give us truckloads, please..."

 

[Lemon law]

Rotten Red Cresent, heaven forbid that a Taliban member might use such a kit to save the life of a wounded Nato soldier shot on the battlefield. Or a wounded Afghan civilian. Oh the horrors of it all.

War is supposed to be as inhumane as possible, so we cannot possibly allow anyone to be humane. So chant after me, kill, kill, kill them all.

 

[thraashman]

I agree with the Red Cross doing this. As a neutral group they can't pick sides. Also the Taliban isn't technically a terrorist group but an insurgency. Their aim is not to cause terror in the general public but to defeat the military force occupying the nation. I would see a conflict were they doing this with a group like Al Qaeda which is a terrorist organization.

 

[Schadenfroh]

Rotten Red Cresent, heaven forbid that a Taliban member might use such a kit to save the life of a wounded Nato soldier shot on the battlefield.

Maybe to patch the NATO soldier up to keep him / her alive long enough for the live beheading / hanging video...

 

[Noobtastic]

Sick.

The Taliban is complicit in using children as a deterrent and exploiting the ROE of NATO troops.

now the red crescent is further legitimizing this under a dubious claim of "neutrality."

most likely the taliban will simply take advantage of this and use red crescent facilities as launching sites, and when the aid centers get hit the taliban will play the victim.

Hamas does this same shit. International "aid" centers subsidize the lives of Gaza, and Hamas - the government of Gaza - only has to provide for their troops and administration services.

the whole point of fighthing the taliban is to turn people away from it. If the Red Crescent is going to subsidize civilians living under the taliban, they are more likely to stay with the taliban and support it as that is one of the many perks for membership.

You morons actually think this will somehow change the hearts and minds of taliban assholes?

God you guys are fucking retarded...

 

[Fear No Evil]

Rotten Red Cresent, heaven forbid that a Taliban member might use such a kit to save the life of a wounded Nato soldier shot on the battlefield. Or a wounded Afghan civilian. Oh the horrors of it all.

War is supposed to be as inhumane as possible, so we cannot possibly allow anyone to be humane. So chant after me, kill, kill, kill them all.

Sure Lemon Head, I'm sure thats happening a lot.. Have we EVER heard of an American soldier being captured and nursed back to perfect health by the taliban? Oh thats right, its the American media not reporting it..

As someone else said, if it ever has happened, it was to keep them alive long enough to torture/behead.

 

[rpanic]

How has the Red Cross treated conflicts in the past didn’t they help all sides during WW2 and help the Germans/Nazi even though they new about concentration camps and other atrocities?