red cross wont be getting my money!

[Ozzy Fudd]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/10161136.stm

 

i dont mind treating them, but training them in first aid and giving them medical supplies?!

[Shuck.]

Talk about ******* in the wind!

 

Simple answer I suppose, upgrade to 7.62 and we'll have less stragglers

[Breastman]

No wonder the Taliban can't shoot straight, they must be ******* themselves laughing at us the whole time

 

Mark

[Mungler]

Ah, but by remaining impartial they still get to go anywhere (and this includes hostile territory) and they are respected as being neutral and don't get shot at (well that's the theory anyway).

 

Might come in useful if they had to attend to or recover our wounded from enemy territory don't you think?

 

Ah thinking, such a scarcity these days....

[henry d]

Using the same logic you won`t support our medics out in Afghanistan, as they are patching up the taliban too ?

[Breastman]

Ah, but by remaining impartial they still get to go anywhere (and this includes hostile territory) and they are respected as being neutral and don't get shot at (well that's the theory anyway).

 

Might come in useful if they had to attend to or recover our wounded from enemy territory don't you think?

 

Ah thinking, such a scarcity these days....

 

Great in theory! I've never heard of it happening though and from listening to the crack pots in Luton town centre a few weeks back ANYONE/THING baring a red cross is fair game :o

 

 

Using the same logic you won`t support our medics out in Afghanistan, as they are patching up the taliban too ?

 

Rendering first aid to save a life, no problem (To an extent ). Training them how to fix themselves (which would negate the need for the above theory to be put into practice ) and giving them equipment paid for by UK residents, big problem!

 

Mark

[poontang]

Did you know that the flag of the Red Cross was instigated at the 1864 Geneva Convention? It's the reversal of the Swiss flag, in honour of Henry Dunant, the founder of the Red Cross, and a Swiss national.

 

Just thought i'd throw that in.

[docholiday]

Did you know that the flag of the Red Cross was instigated at the 1864 Geneva Convention? It's the reversal of the Swiss flag, in honour of Henry Dunant, the founder of the Red Cross, and a Swiss national.

 

Just thought i'd throw that in.

 

 

Nice one

[Ozzy Fudd]

Ah, but by remaining impartial they still get to go anywhere (and this includes hostile territory) and they are respected as being neutral and don't get shot at (well that's the theory anyway).

 

Might come in useful if they had to attend to or recover our wounded from enemy territory don't you think?

 

Ah thinking, such a scarcity these days....

 

yes, i have been thinking, and if you'll look at my intitial post youll see i said i have no problem with them giving aid to injured fighters, HOWEVER i do not like the fact they are training them and giving them medical supplies, which id say opens up a can of worms when it comes to aiding and abbetting alqueda/taliban??

 

perhaps youd better engage that brain today mung, bit slow on the uptake....

 

 

Using the same logic you won`t support our medics out in Afghanistan, as they are patching up the taliban too ?

 

read the above, patching up not a problem, but training and supplying is not on in my book

[poontang]

yes, i have been thinking, and if you'll look at my intitial post youll see i said i have no problem with them giving aid to injured fighters, HOWEVER i do not like the fact they are training them and giving them medical supplies, which id say opens up a can of worms when it comes to aiding and abbetting alqueda/taliban??

 

Aiding and abetting?

 

How do you work that one out?

 

The ICRC are a non political, neutral organisation, working under the terms of the Geneva Convention. They could just as well be accused of aiding and abetting coalition forces if they were to treat their wounded, or give them medical supplies.

 

What they are doing for the Taliban may not go down too well in the West, but if they were to take sides they would lose all credibility and soon become targets themselves.

[Fatcatsplat]

As well as the red cross, there is a red crescent for muslim countries - Humanitarian aid is humanitarian aid, regardless of whose side you're on. Helmet is now on for the onslaught of the bellends!!

[Ozzy Fudd]

Aiding and abetting?

 

How do you work that one out?

 

The ICRC are a non political, neutral organisation, working under the terms of the Geneva Convention. They could just as well be accused of aiding and abetting coalition forces if they were to treat their wounded, or give them medical supplies.

 

What they are doing for the Taliban may not go down too well in the West, but if they were to take sides they would lose all credibility and soon become targets themselves.

 

aiding = to provide support for or relief to

 

abetting = to encourage, support, or countenance by aid or approval, usually in wrongdoing

 

courtesy of the dictionary, so by providing medical training and medical supplies they are aiding and abetting the taliban, THATS how i worked it out. as for the geneva convention, i didnt think the taliban were fighting under the terms of it?

 

anyway as for not taking sides, as ive said in every post, grab the wounded, pick up the bits and sew them back together, thats fine, I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THAT, thats what the red cross do! BUT training and providing medical supplies to insurgents who are trying to kill British troops isnt on imo, doesnt seem very impartial to me. going by the posts here i suppose most of you guys must support NORAID as well...

[poontang]

aiding = to provide support for or relief to

 

abetting = to encourage, support, or countenance by aid or approval, usually in wrongdoing

 

courtesy of the dictionary, so by providing medical training and medical supplies they are aiding and abetting the taliban, THATS how i worked it out. as for the geneva convention, i didnt think the taliban were fighting under the terms of it?

 

anyway as for not taking sides, as ive said in every post, grab the wounded, pick up the bits and sew them back together, thats fine, I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THAT, thats what the red cross do! BUT training and providing medical supplies to insurgents who are trying to kill British troops isnt on imo, doesnt seem very impartial to me. going by the posts here i suppose most of you guys must support NORAID as well...

 

Oh dear, what a **** poor argument.

 

It seems your main concern is the ICRC providing medical training and giving medical supplies to the 'enemy'. The problem with that of course is that the Taliban are NOT the enemy as far as the ICRC are concerned. As a neutral organisation they work impartially with WHOEVER needs their help. Like it or not, as a humanitarian organisation that's what they do. As FCS has said they will be working closely with the Red Crescent organisation, who work under the same rules as the Red Cross, and will undoubtedly treat coalition troops in the same way the Red Cross would treat the Taliban.

You're right in the fact that the Taliban don't fight under the terms of the Geneva Convention but that has nothing to do with how the Red Cross operate. They don't decide on who they should/shouldn't help, they will treat/help ANYONE in need. That is the ONLY way they can operate in a warzone, if they were seen to be taking sides how long do you think they would last behind Taliban lines? It's only by their impartiality that thousands of allied troops survived in Nazi POW camps, when they were allowed to visit, monitor conditions, and deliver food/medical supplies. If they weren't totally impartial do you think the Nazi's would have allowed them access?

[Ozzy Fudd]

It seems your main concern is the ICRC providing medical training and giving medical supplies to the 'enemy'. The problem with that of course is that the Taliban are NOT the enemy as far as the ICRC are concerned. As a neutral organisation they work impartially with WHOEVER needs their help.

 

well done poontang, only took me to post the same thing 3 times for you to almost understand what i was saying, you must be having a good day today i dont give two hoots who they work with or what they view each party as, this is the simple answer

 

providing medical treatment to ALL parties in a warzone = impartiality

 

getting involved and actually training them and giving them supplies = taking sides, NOT impartiality.

 

maybe its just the fact that ive had/have friends/family serving out there that annoys me, but perhaps youd like to really think about my point before you try to be a **** again, especially with the amount of current/ex forces members on this site who've had to fight against these guys and arent just keyboard warriors who dust the odd clay

[Mungler]

And I quote:

 

"We treat and train people on the basis of medical necessity as an impartial organisation, regardless of race or politics."

 

I don't think that I could consider giving medical training and treatment as aiding and abetting the enemy. That is unless they have a magic sponge and any taliban fighter who has been hit by a bullet gets some of the magic red cross sponge and springs back into front line action.

 

The thing about fighting is that it has to stop at some point. Could be 1 week, it could be 10 years, but stop it will and then dialogue will have to start of some description. Like the situation in Ireland.

 

So, as long as they ain't supplying them bullets or intel then I still think the likes of the Red Cross and Médecins Sans Frontières have a role to perform if only to have contact and dialogue with those who currently are the enemy. They won't be the enemy forever. Indeed, it wasn't that long ago we were in with the Taliban and supplying them with all sorts, but that was back when Russia was our enemy; but oh yes, Russia's not our enemy any more now is it?

Edited May 27, 2010 by Mungler

[Bleeh]

There are a select, educated few, on this forum who know better than to get involved in this argument.

[poontang]

well done poontang, only took me to post the same thing 3 times for you to almost understand what i was saying, you must be having a good day today i dont give two hoots who they work with or what they view each party as, this is the simple answer

 

providing medical treatment to ALL parties in a warzone = impartiality

 

getting involved and actually training them and giving them supplies = taking sides, NOT impartiality.

 

maybe its just the fact that ive had/have friends/family serving out there that annoys me, but perhaps youd like to really think about my point before you try to be a **** again, especially with the amount of current/ex forces members on this site who've had to fight against these guys and arent just keyboard warriors who dust the odd clay

 

Oh dear oh dear, your arguments get weaker and weaker every time you post, perhaps it's the vodka?

 

The fact that the ICRC (which includes the Red Crescent) give basic first aid training and medical supplies to the Taliban is NOT taking sides. It just reinforces their impartiality. British forces treat Taliban casualties alongside their own troops in field hospitals, does that make them 'traitors' in some way? I think not. What it does show is the humanitarian side to the conflict. You say you agree with the Red Cross treating the Taliban but not training them to treat themselves. Surely it's better for them to give basic first aid training and supplies so they can concentrate on civilian casualties and free up beds in British field hospitals?

 

I don't really understand where you're trying to go with your last paragraph. You don't know me and you don't know who i know so don't try and be clever. It doesn't wash with me.

 

Oh, and as for the 'keyboard warrior' comment

 

 

GROW UP!!!!

[Ozzy Fudd]

Oh dear oh dear, your arguments get weaker and weaker every time you post, perhaps it's the vodka?

 

The fact that the ICRC (which includes the Red Crescent) give basic first aid training and medical supplies to the Taliban is NOT taking sides. It just reinforces their impartiality. British forces treat Taliban casualties alongside their own troops in field hospitals, does that make them 'traitors' in some way? I think not. What it does show is the humanitarian side to the conflict. You say you agree with the Red Cross treating the Taliban but not training them to treat themselves. Surely it's better for them to give basic first aid training and supplies so they can concentrate on civilian casualties and free up beds in British field hospitals?

 

I don't really understand where you're trying to go with your last paragraph. You don't know me and you don't know who i know so don't try and be clever. It doesn't wash with me.

 

Oh, and as for the 'keyboard warrior' comment

 

 

GROW UP!!!!

 

:hmm:

 

so thats the basis of your argument is it? me and my mates mucking about during a days shooting? your arguments just get better and better poontang, but bearing in mind i wasnt actually sat at a keyboard when that pic was taken then the argument that im a keyboard warrior doesnt really work too well ya **** :o

 

oh here we go, the old "you dont know me, you know nothing about me, i was ex sas and took out 50 north vietnamese with and old flintlock musket loaded with cherry pips so dont get clever with me sonny jim ill kick your *** like i did atilla the huns" :(

 

yes, i dont know you, and you dont know me, and im sorry if me being clever is going right over your head... but i really have to laugh at the idiocy in this -

 

Surely it's better for them to give basic first aid training and supplies so they can concentrate on civilian casualties and free up beds in British field hospitals?

 

yes, thats right, while were at it why not give them body armour too, so they dont even get to the hospitals in the first place, and while were at that give them better guns, so that we can fill the hospitals up with british soldiers instead

 

right, im away to the pub, have fun lads

[Mungler]

Surely it's better for them to give basic first aid training and supplies so they can concentrate on civilian casualties and free up beds in British field hospitals?

 

yes, thats right, while were at it why not give them body armour too, so they dont even get to the hospitals in the first place, and while were at that give them better guns, so that we can fill the hospitals up with british soldiers instead

 

 

 

Yes that's right. That's exactly what the Red Cross do. Damn them and their humanitarian and gun running operations.

[poontang]

:o

 

so thats the basis of your argument is it? me and my mates mucking about during a days shooting? your arguments just get better and better poontang, but bearing in mind i wasnt actually sat at a keyboard when that pic was taken then the argument that im a keyboard warrior doesnt really work too well ya **** :( No, you were out shooting fridges from the hip dressed head to toe in dpm

 

oh here we go, the old "you dont know me, you know nothing about me, i was ex sas and took out 50 north vietnamese with and old flintlock musket loaded with cherry pips so dont get clever with me sonny jim ill kick your *** like i did atilla the huns" Strange you should come up with that scenario, it never even crossed my mind. But then i'm not a walting fantasist.

 

yes, i dont know you, and you dont know me, and im sorry if me being clever is going right over your head... but i really have to laugh at the idiocy in this - Clever? I must have missed that bit.

 

Surely it's better for them to give basic first aid training and supplies so they can concentrate on civilian casualties and free up beds in British field hospitals? Why is that so hard for you to comprehend? Or would you rather Taliban casualties are treated by British medics in British hospitals? I would suspect the military would prefer not to have a Taliban fighter in a bed next to a British squaddie. What do you reckon? I guess you don't give a damn about civilians either?

 

yes, thats right, while were at it why not give them body armour too, so they dont even get to the hospitals in the first place, and while were at that give them better guns, so that we can fill the hospitals up with british soldiers instead That's pathetic. Or is that you being 'clever' again? Either way it's not worthy of a reply.

 

right, im away to the pub, to fix people with my 1000yd stare and regale them with tales of how i single handedly beat off a whole battalion of fridge freezers have fun lads Thank you, i'm sure we will

[tweedledee]

maybe best to let this one go ozzy

[Cranfield]

Once again meaningful debate descends into personal insults and dummy spitting.

Good try Mungler, but it was doomed from the start.