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

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Danube

Banned
Dec 10, 2009
613
0
0
This is aiding the enemy - simple as. Their donations would drop for sure if this got a lot of exposure. "Oh lets help patch up the cretins shooting at out boys so they can get to the lines".
 

CitizenKain

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2000
4,480
14
76
This is aiding the enemy - simple as. Their donations would drop for sure if this got a lot of exposure. "Oh lets help patch up the cretins shooting at out boys so they can get to the lines".

I'd love to see the rightwingers protest the Red Cross, that would go over well. Maybe next time there is a disaster in a red state they'll stay out. Where do you children get internet access unsupervised throughout the day?
 

Noobtastic

Banned
Jul 9, 2005
3,721
0
0
For those who don't know it is a war crime for combatants to use red cross symbols or staff as a deterrent.

If the Red Cross protects the Taliban from NATO, they can't bitch and whine when USAF drops 2,000 lb JDAM on their ass.

Same deal with the UN.

this latest administrative decision is just another example of aid organizations capitulating to the demands of raging muslims.

Just as they capitulated to the bigoted demands that the star of david be excluded as a protected emblem.
 

JoshGuru7

Golden Member
Aug 18, 2001
1,020
0
0
This idea has some potential. Hosting the training sessions on US military bases would probably have been a little too obvious, anyway. Tracking devices in the medical kits is a much better strategy.
 

Kappo

Platinum Member
Aug 18, 2000
2,381
0
0
When dealing with terrorists who butcher the innocent and enforce a brutal tribal religion?

Yes, even them. FWIW, the more exposure they get to modern ways of living (minus weapons), the better off everyone is.

I have no problem with them teaching them how to administer first aid.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Wounded or maimed troops take up more resources than dead ones. That's why modern AP land mines are designed to maim rather than kill, and why unexploded cluster munitions aren't designed to break down in the environment- they become mines.

Caring for wounded comrades is a lot more difficult than leaving dead bodies behind... and wounded insurgents may well seek additional care down the road leading to the possibility of capture and interrogation...

The Red Cross doesn't really care about any of that, anyway... they're pretty much non-partisan wrt saving people's lives... and today's Afghan insurgent could easily become tomorrow's peaceful civilian, if he had a govt he could respect and support- you know, one that wasn't rotten to its core...
 

Double Trouble

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,272
103
106
I understand the position of the red cross as a "neutral party", that's the way it's always been. Still, there's just something very wrong and unsavory about seeing some of my donated money and the resources provided by the people of this country used to help and support the people who are trying to kill our fathers/brothers/children.

The red cross should try harder to distinguish between civilians in need of help and enemy combatants who are injured. The former should be helped, the latter should not.
 

CitizenKain

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2000
4,480
14
76
For those who don't know it is a war crime for combatants to use red cross symbols or staff as a deterrent.

If the Red Cross protects the Taliban from NATO, they can't bitch and whine when USAF drops 2,000 lb JDAM on their ass.

Same deal with the UN.

this latest administrative decision is just another example of aid organizations capitulating to the demands of raging muslims.

The USAF already has a stunning record of dropping bombs on innocents. They must train with the Israelis.
 

shortylickens

No Lifer
Jul 15, 2003
82,854
17,365
136
When dealing with terrorists who butcher the innocent and enforce a brutal tribal religion?

Actually yes. They are proving how neutral they are in the affairs of the world by helping ANYONE, with medical training and supplies. I respect that.

Of course, if I had a jihad motherfucker within 10 feet of me I'd probably try to kill him. But I also acknowledge the freedom of the Red Cross to save his life is a more important principle than anything else.
 

cubeless

Diamond Member
Sep 17, 2001
4,295
1
81
we just need to be sure that no one we don't want the supplies to be used on lives long enough to need a bandaid... if we don't manage to kill someone how can you be against giving them a chance to get patched up???