New Health Packs

[GardenFreshmint]

They should tell that to every medical kit manufactur. because a red cross is what stands for FIRST AID.

 

[ríomhaire]

No, I don't think the Red Cross are claiming to 'own' the symbol, it's just when you see a red cross that's who you think of. It's fair enough that they do not want 'violence for fun', so to speak, associated with them. You have to see both sides of an argument!

Actualy, when I see a red cross I think of healing in general, not just the organization.

 

[homeobocks]

Medicine without limits?

No, "medecins sans frontiers" is the French branch of Doctors without Borders, or something.

Also, the symbol of the red cross is universal (maybe not in the Arab states, I don't know). Once something becomes like that, I feel that its organization no longer has the right to control it.

 

[605Scorpion]

The Red Cross carries quite a strong, negative connotation in the Arab States, thus why the Red Crescent must operate in lieu of the Red Cross there. I doubt the red plus carries the warm, fuzzy feel we've all come to look for when removing antlions from our bums. For Arabs, that is...

 

[Epsi]

Actually, the symbol of first aid is a white cross on a green background, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_aid for examples of that and another one. The red cross isn't a generic symbol of healthcare.

Although commonly associated with first aid, the symbol of a red cross is an official symbol of the Red Cross. According to the Geneva Conventions and other international law, it should only be used by official agencies of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent, and as a protective emblem for medical personnel and facilities in combat situations. They recommend the use of other symbols or colors as indicators for "first aid", such as the Star of Life.

 

[kupocake]

Actually, the symbol of first aid is a white cross on a green background, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_aid for examples of that and another one.

But "First Aid" is immediate and temporary aid, which isn't what health packs actually provide. It's probably just me, but a white cross on a green background would have me in mind of people healing bullet wounds with sticky plasters

I don't see that the Red Cross should be so upitty about this. In no way is their charity aquiring negative connotations by being associated with items in games when solely benefit people. Hell, if I was a charity being associated with a easy to use cure-all for all medical problems, i'd be pretty chuffed.

 

[Donut4000]

Medicine without limits?

It's Doctors Without Borders.....they will help anyone anywhere...Nice folk..

 

[agent_scarlet]

I agree with the red cross, its not a stupid request, it's critical that the meaning of the "red cross" isnt lost. It's a symbol of protection and, more importantly NEUTRALITY, red cross symbol does not have any aligence to any religion policital or social beliefs, only the intrest of aiding the sick and wounded in the Battlefield.

Some games like Battlefield 2, go further and abuse the red cross symbol, its clearly visible on the medic class's uniform, which if they are on the opposite team, you have to kill. But if I remember correctly, it's illegal to attack anyone with the red cross symbol on their uniform.

It doesnt make sense to use the symbol as well, the white cross with a green background actually means 1st aid.

What's stupid about this whole thing is the gaming industry has been using this symbol for years and the red cross are only now complaining about it.

 

[Donut4000]

<offtopic> I've just noticed I've gone from a member to a manhack....we're all bugs and aliens I see - been away for a bit; when did this happen....If I keep posting...what will I become?...eeeewww <\offtopic>

 

[Kirkburn]

I agree with the red cross, its not a stupid request, it's critical that the meaning of the "red cross" isnt lost. It's a symbol of protection and, more importantly NEUTRALITY, red cross symbol does not have any aligence to any religion policital or social beliefs, only the intrest of aiding the sick and wounded in the Battlefield.

Some games like Battlefield 2, go further and abuse the red cross symbol, its clearly visible on the medic class's uniform, which if they are on the opposite team, you have to kill. But if I remember correctly, it's illegal to attack anyone with the red cross symbol on their uniform.

It doesnt make sense to use the symbol as well, the white cross with a green background actually means 1st aid.

What's stupid about this whole thing is the gaming industry has been using this symbol for years and the red cross are only now complaining about it.

This is the correct interpretation of the whole situation.

It is a reasonable request by the Red Cross, and WILL PROBABLY SAVE LIVES.

This is NOT something to joke about.


[I'm putting this in bold so people actually read this before replying]

 

[Epsi]

That's really bad that BF2 does that. It's supposed to be realistic and you've got people wearing the red cross fighting and being shot at, both violations of the Geneva Convention. That's really bad!

 

[boglito]

This is the correct interpretation of the whole situation.

It is a reasonable request by the Red Cross, and WILL PROBABLY SAVE LIVES.

This is NOT something to joke about.


[I'm putting this in bold so people actually read this before replying]

I DISAGREE COMPLETELY! MY OPINION IS BIGGER THAN YOURS!

.bog.

I agree with the red cross, its not a stupid request, it's critical that the meaning of the "red cross" isnt lost. It's a symbol of protection and, more importantly NEUTRALITY, red cross symbol does not have any aligence to any religion policital or social beliefs, only the intrest of aiding the sick and wounded in the Battlefield.

Some games like Battlefield 2, go further and abuse the red cross symbol, its clearly visible on the medic class's uniform, which if they are on the opposite team, you have to kill. But if I remember correctly, it's illegal to attack anyone with the red cross symbol on their uniform.

It doesnt make sense to use the symbol as well, the white cross with a green background actually means 1st aid.

What's stupid about this whole thing is the gaming industry has been using this symbol for years and the red cross are only now complaining about it.

The Red Cross are acting like idiots.
Firstly, nobody cares that there are red crosses in computer games (except, obviously The Red Cross).
Secondly, red crosses are actually used by warring forces to mark medical facilities and personelle as unacceptable targets. Why that should be changed for a video game, I don't know.

There are a lot of people talking out of their rear ends here. I know this, firstly because it really is common knowledge, secondly because I was one of the medics/ambulance-chafeurs in my company, and the only reason why I didn't get to wear my red cross (yes, it was a red cross on a white background) was that my captain wanted to be able to use me as a common soldier (watch duty etc) which people that are protected by the red cross (not in any way to be mistanken for The Red Cross) are not allowed to be.

Blatant misuse of red crosses, or The Actual Red Cross?

So, you ask, why are The Red Cross complaining about the use of red crosses in movies and games? Monies, nothing else.

.bog.

[edit]
On the topic of BF2, what they do wrong is depicting the medic as a rambostyle multiwarrior that can even best the dirty terrorists (or fascist imperialists) with their shockpads. This is obviously not what medics do in an actual war-situation. If I had worn my red cross I would have had to replace my 7.62x51mm assault rifle with a 9mm peashooter to be used strictly in self defense. And, no, I wouldn't have had any shockpads to electrocute the rus... I mean the enemy with.
Snipped some incorrect info here and replaced it with this link that clearly details the medpacks used by the norwegian army, complete with how they look and what they contain. I never did get my medpack "sanitetsoldat", so I had to make do with nr II.
The link is a pdf, and it is pretty big. It's in norsk too, but everything is pretty self-explanatory. All items in the medpacks are pictured.
[/edit]

 

[Kirkburn]

Christ boglito, are you just not reading what is being said? Seriously, you're just making me angry.

I can't believe you actually suggested that this complaint is to do with money!


The symbol is supposed to represent illegal targets in war time. Games are ruining this view by slapping it everywhere. THAT is the point. They want this change in all games so the symbol is not misinterpreted as a fair target at any time.

Stop acting immaturely, please. I made my comment large because people weren't reading the thread properly before replying. Making things bold helps this. Most importantly IT WASN'T AN OPINION. Hopefully you will have read that.


I repeat, this is NOT something to joke about. If you are ever a member of a neutral medic 'faction' in war time, you will be thanking the Red Cross for this with your life.


Edit: regarding that picture you linked? What does that prove? It doesn't say whether it's the Red Cross or not anyway??

 

[Hyperion2010]

The "red cross" symbol has entered the public domain, they may claim it hasnt but its not like it is associated solely with them any more.

 

[boglito]

Christ boglito, are you just not reading what is being said? Seriously, you're just making me angry.

I based my previous oppinion on the OP which states "A recent mini article in PC Gamer UK told about the Red Cross asking games companies to stop using the international Red Cross symbol when indicating health was available." and some comments later stating things like "this could save lives" etc.

I can't believe you actually suggested that this complaint is to do with money!

Believe it baby. The Red Cross is a (largely) privately funded organisation. It seems to be very important to them to control the usage of what they seem to think is their trademark.

The symbol is supposed to represent illegal targets in war time. Games are ruining this view by slapping it everywhere. THAT is the point. They want this change in all games so the symbol is not misinterpreted as a fair target at any time.

That might be true if they only asked the emblem to be removed in cases where it is obviously is misused, which may be the case in bf2, and then only if the medic-class is marked with the red cross. Medpacks can not be aggressors, and as such there is no reason why they shouldn't be marked with the red cross, which ofcourse they often are in real life.

Stop acting immaturely, please. I made my comment large because people weren't reading the thread properly before replying. Making things bold helps this.

Your usage of large letters was extremely rude. It shouts out "I'm such an important person and I cannot be wrong!" I made my reply size 10 to point out to you that we do not want a forum where everybody uses large fonts because they feel they are right. Then I wrote a proper post with my opinions in it, with some factual evidence of actual usage of the red cross in the military.

Most importantly IT WASN'T AN OPINION. Hopefully you will have read that.

So, when you open your mouth, the unfailable truth falls out? Sorry, mate, BUT IT WAS AN OPINION. A quite flawed one at that.

I repeat, this is NOT something to joke about. If you are ever a member of a neutral medic 'faction' in war time, you will be thanking the Red Cross for this with your life.

The Red Cross are doing an important job and the red cross (and localized variants) has an important significance. I just happen to disagree with you and The Red Cross that red crosses in games ruin this significance.

Edit: regarding that picture you linked? What does that prove? It doesn't say whether it's the Red Cross or not anyway??

Do you think it is The Red Cross?"?"

.bog.

 

[Kirkburn]

If people took the large letters as an insult, I'm sorry. But you're the only one to have said so so far. People were making very stupid jokes on a very sensitive issue and I was attempting to put a stop to it.

The correct symbol for health/medipacs is the green cross, which is not a hard change for developers to implement, thus it is a fair and simple request for the Red Cross to make.


Is it to much of a stretch to think that the members of the Red Cross might have said this in an attempt to give them better protection in war time? If I was represented by a symbol that was supposed to represent neutrality and help, I wouldn't want that significance diluted in any way. Even if it is not actually worn by things you shoot in a game, putting in on any innappropriate things (i.e. places where they don't appear in real life) will dilute the significance.

We do agree on pretty much everything, I just think that if the Red Cross asks for such a simple request (which would probably save lives, I will not change on that view) why should we start insulting and arguing with them?


As to whether it is a Red Cross vehicle in that picture (which it could or could not be, for all I care), it has no bearing on the discussion at hand. Just because others might be making the same mistake doesn't suddenly make it okay - I hope you haven't been brought up to think otherwise!


[shooting at neutral targets in war-time is a serious war-crime, as has been mentioned, if I were the Red Cross I would make damn sure my personnel were as protected as possible!]

Edit: waitasec, wtf was wrong with the original so-called opinion I highlighted?? You haven't actually disagreed with it, as far as I can make out.

 

[boglito]

If people took the large letters as an insult, I'm sorry. But you're the only one to have said so so far. People were making very stupid jokes on a very sensitive issue and I was attempting to put a stop to it.

Well, I just don't think using larger font size is good when having a discussion. It is basically the same as shouting in an oral argument, and while that can be tempting from time to time it rarely brings the discussion further.

The correct symbol for health/medipacs is the green cross, which is not a hard change for developers to implement, thus it is a fair and simple request for the Red Cross to make.

I know that it is common for civilian healthequipment to be labeled with green crosses. In the military, though, I think the red cross is most common, due to its significance and visibility. That's why I find it sensible that "military" medical eqiupment in games also are labeled with red crosses.

Is it to much of a stretch to think that the members of the Red Cross might have said this in an attempt to give them better protection in war time? If I was represented by a symbol that was supposed to represent neutrality and help, I wouldn't want that significance diluted in any way. Even if it is not actually worn by things you shoot in a game, putting in on any innappropriate things (i.e. places where they don't appear in real life) will dilute the significance.

Firstly I do not believe that having ever so many red crosses in computer games will devaluate the symbol's significance in real life. Secondly, I do agree that it makes no sense to use the red cross out of context, but that's not what The Red Cross are protesting. They want all red crosses out of games (and movies!) no matter how relevant and true to real life their usage is.

We do agree on pretty much everything, I just think that if the Red Cross asks for such a simple request (which would probably save lives, I will not change on that view) why should we start insulting and arguing with them?

Well, we disagree on the "save lives" thing. I am 100% convinced that having red crosses on medpacks in, for example, Half-Life 2 (if there indeed are red crosses on medpacks in HL2, of which I am not sure) has no negative effect on the meaning of red crosses in an actual combat situation.

As to whether it is a Red Cross vehicle in that picture (which it could or could not be, for all I care), it has no bearing on the discussion at hand. Just because others might be making the same mistake doesn't suddenly make it okay - I hope you haven't been brought up to think otherwise!

It is indeed a military vehicle. The reason why I linked it (I also linked a pdf containing pictures and content of all medpacks used in The Royal Norwegian Army) is that if someone makes a game that for some reason would have Norwegian military ambulances in them then those ambulances would have red crosses. Because they do in real life.

[shooting at neutral targets in war-time is a serious war-crime, as has been mentioned, if I were the Red Cross I would make damn sure my personnel were as protected as possible!]

And as mentioned I do not believe for even one second that reasonable usage of red crosses in games have any negative effect on the safety of military medical personelle or personelle of The Red Cross.

Edit: waitasec, wtf was wrong with the original so-called opinion I highlighted?? You haven't actually disagreed with it, as far as I can make out.

I am unsure of which "so-called opinion" you are refering to, but the disagreement is:
1. You agree with The Red Cross who seem to think that having red crosses in videogames (no matter how relevant) has the potential to diminish the crucial effect of the red cross as a symbol in conflict-zones.
2. I mostly disagree with The Red Cross and think that only clearly unlawful usage of red crosses in games needs to be adressed. (One such example would be if medics in bf2 are labeled with red crosses.)
3. Furthermore I tend to believe that one reason why The Red Cross want to "monopolize" the red cross is because it is considered to be their commercial trade-mark, and as such has a considerable monetary value.
4. Aaaaand you seem to disagree with 3.

It's all oppinions, and they will be different.

.bog.

 

[Kirkburn]

Regarding the large text, I've never done that before, and I didn't like having to do it. You could have just told me that in sensible tones, and not taken it further, so we're just as bad as each other
The original view I upheld and highlighted, the one you originally had a go at me for, was the view put forward by the Red Cross. It is also one you haven't really disagreed with...
- It was the correct interpretation (by which I meant this is what the Red Cross were trying to say)
- It is a reasonable request (i.e. simple, easy to do), and may save lives (okay, sorry, opinion!)
- It is not something to joke about. Well, it's not.


(I can't see any mention of movies in the article(s), btw, it's only referring to games).

Okay, so we disagree as to whether it would have any effect. I get that. You haven't convinced me otherwise, and I won't be able convince you otherwise. However, the Red Cross is evidently on my side here, which I was trying to put forward. You say you are 100% convinced that it would have no effect - you have no data to back that view up, so it must only be based on opinion. I also have no data to back up my view, but I am not as much in need of it as I have never said I am certain in my view, just that it is likely it would help.

I'm not sure why you have such a negative view of the Red Cross and continually see them solely as a commercial enterprise - they have large numbers of volunteers workers. I also do not see the problem with protecting 'their' symbol, if they can.

It's a simple change, and I still don't understand why it's a problem for people to allow/accept it whether or not they think it will have an effect.


Can't we all just get along?

 

[boglito]

Regarding the large text, I've never done that before, and I didn't like having to do it. You could have just told me that in sensible tones, and not taken it further, so we're just as bad as each other

I somewhat agree, but in my experience slamming people in their face with their own obvious fallacies tend to bring their senses about and the argument back on track. What I mean by that is not that they change their oppinion to suit me, but they put their mind into a more focused state which leads to more interesting posts with which is easier to agree or agree to disagree. That's why I sometimes come into discussion swinging. And the discussion has been quite civil after that little shouting incident.

The original view I upheld and highlighted, the one you originally had a go at me for, was the view put forward by the Red Cross. It is also one you haven't really disagreed with...
- It was the correct interpretation (by which I meant this is what the Red Cross were trying to say)
- It is a reasonable request (i.e. simple, easy to do), and may save lives (okay, sorry, opinion!)
- It is not something to joke about. Well, it's not.

I feel that I have disagreed with most of that post (assuming you mean your post of 03-05-2006 03:35 PM).

(I can't see any mention of movies in the article(s), btw, it's only referring to games).

This is true, but The Red Cross are also going after movies that use the red cross. This is admittedly very old news, but one of the james bond movies starring timothy dalton has afghan rebels smuggling opium in sacks marked with red crosses. Obviously misuse of the red cross, but not something the afghan rebels would not be likely to do, which was part of the point of that scene. The Red Cross protested the usage. I didn't mention movies to bring any weight to my argument, I just did because it snuck into my mind that they do want to keep their emblem out of movies too.

Okay, so we disagree as to whether it would have any effect. I get that. You haven't convinced me otherwise, and I won't be able convince you otherwise. However, the Red Cross is evidently on my side here, which I was trying to put forward. You say you are 100% convinced that it would have no effect - you have no data to back that view up, so it must only be based on opinion. I also have no data to back up my view, but I am not as much in need of it as I have never said I am certain in my view, just that it is likely it would help.

Likely or not, it is impossible to collect data to support a claim in either direction. You are not going to see questionaires issued to muslim militiamen in sudan whether or not the usage of red crosses in computer games have an effect on their actions. I have my oppinion which I have expressed. I got a little fired up by your big font and by what I percieve as unreasonable claims by The Red Cross.

I'm not sure why you have such a negative view of the Red Cross and continually see them solely as a commercial enterprise - they have large numbers of volunteers workers. I also do not see the problem with protecting 'their' symbol, if they can.

It's not that I have a negative view of The Red Cross, it's just that in this particular case I find their request to be unreasonable, and probably not motivated by their need to protect. They are not a commercial enterprise, but they are dependent on private funding. I think that is the main reason why they are aggressive about protecting their "trademark", not because they truly believe that their personelle would be safer in the field if there were no red crosses in computer games.

It's a simple change, and I still don't understand why it's a problem for people to allow/accept it whether or not they think it will have an effect.

I just don't believe computer games should be changed to not resemble RL for what I preceive to be commercial reasons.

Can't we all just get along?

People should generally try harder to get along, but heated discussion on a forum is not a bad thing.

.bog.

 

[Kirkburn]

Heh, well do you have to do the whole quoting everything back at me? I know what I wrote

 

[boglito]

Heh, well do you have to do the whole quoting everything back at me? I know what I wrote

Hehe, it's just that I hate to adress specific points without quoting them. It makes me feel like things will get taken out of context completely derailing the thread, especially for other people than the actual person I'm answering.

.bog.

 

[Kirkburn]

Everyone's left this thread anyway
Ho-hum, back to studying piles. Concrete ones, not the other kind.

 

[colson]

Do you think anyone really gives a shit that there's a red cross on there enemy? If I was a terrorist intent on killing people I'm not going to care about the protection of a stupid red cross. It's just a symbol and offers no protection or significant value. Sure it is part of the gueneva convention but it war times do you think it actually is followed? All is fair in war as time has shown. Was using mustard gas in trenches illegal? Yes but that didn't stop anyone. Basically my point is it is useless to spend any time defending its meaning or purpose because no one really cares.

 

[99.vikram]

Ever since the Wolfenstein days, the cross has stood as a beacon of light to all gamers who were shit deep in trouble and desparate for health. The cross helped us. Now we must liberate the cross from the vile clutches of the *spits* Canadian Red Cross. :sniper:

It's part of gaming history, so we shouldn't have to change the health symbol.

 

[NeptuneUK]

they own legal rights to their symbol fair enough. BUT ITS A GOD DAMNED CROSS!!! A CROSS!!!!! YOU CANT COPYWRIGHT A CROSS!!!!!!!! nobody can use red crosses any more wah wah wah

 

[sinkoman]

Do you think anyone really gives a shit that there's a red cross on there enemy? If I was a terrorist intent on killing people I'm not going to care about the protection of a stupid red cross. It's just a symbol and offers no protection or significant value. Sure it is part of the gueneva convention but it war times do you think it actually is followed? All is fair in war as time has shown. Was using mustard gas in trenches illegal? Yes but that didn't stop anyone. Basically my point is it is useless to spend any time defending its meaning or purpose because no one really cares.

I highly doubt you've actually been in any sort of military action, based on your stereotypical views.

 

[99.vikram]

I highly doubt you've actually been in any sort of military action, based on your stereotypical views.

Yeah, because we're all ex-army here

But any self-respecting army will make sure not to hit red cross units in combat.

 

[sinkoman]

Yeah, because we're all ex-army here

But any self-respecting army will make sure not to hit red cross units in combat.

I don't need to have been in service to say that his comment was stupid, and something a five year old would say.

But yes, I agree. If you have any sort of a brain, you are going to lower your sights when you see that giant read cross right above that guys nose.

I mean, ffs, it doesn't matter if your adrenaline is pumping. You still have enough sense to notice that the punk you're trying to shoot in the face has a big "Court Martial" button on his forehead.

And it seems like nobody here actually sees this from the Red Cross' point of view.

I mean, sure, it's a stupid argument. They should just drop it and get on with thier lives, but I see what they're saying.

Some kid who joined the army because of video game influences, would think that they could just run up to a guy with the red cross on his arm and go "HEAL ME!!! HURRY!!!"....

... OR, shoot at somebody with a red X on his forehead, thinking that it'd put their "Medic" out of commision...

But I don't think ANYBODY is that dumb.

 

[colson]

I highly doubt you've actually been in any sort of military action, based on your stereotypical views.

Stereotypical? Have you took a look at the news lately? Canadian medics in Afghanistan are getting wasted all the time. It's a hard fact. The red cross doesn't protect them. Those terrorists don't care who they kill as long as they get rid of the invading forces. Hell they blow up there own people even. So by this fact and common sense, I have made the statement that they don't care because it's true. Do you think insurgents care about being court marshelled? Abviously not or they wouldn't go around blowing everyone up. Plus do these people even operate under gueneva convention policys? No because they use whatever they can against there enemies. Chemical warfare is banned but it has been used many times for example. Another example is how in world war 1 hospitals were often targeted by artillery strikes. Many innocent doctors, nurses, and patients under the so called protection of the red cross were killed proving yet again that it makes no difference.

 

[99.vikram]

Stereotypical? Have you took a look at the news lately? Canadian medics in Afghanistan are getting wasted all the time. It's a hard fact. The red cross doesn't protect them. Those terrorists don't care who they kill as long as they get rid of the invading forces.

Terrorism, by definition, aims to create terror. An army will never intentionally hit Red Cross units. Many wars (or games) don't involve terrorists, so the red cross symbol has a lot of significance.

Plus do these people even operate under gueneva convention policys? No because they use whatever they can against there enemies.

Sorry, bub, but cases of mutilation of bodies or killing POWs are rare, even during wartime (hence the news coverage).

Chemical warfare is banned but it has been used many times for example. Another example is how in world war 1 hospitals were often targeted by artillery strikes. Many innocent doctors, nurses, and patients under the so called protection of the red cross were killed proving yet again that it makes no difference.

How many decades ago?? And no, Saddam Hussein doesn't count as a legit leader.

 

[sinkoman]

Stereotypical? Have you took a look at the news lately?

Lol. You just proved exactly what I was trying to say, all by yourself.

Which was, you don't seem to be too good at drawing conclusions by yourself.

ZOMG YOU SAW IT ON THE NEWS SO IT MUST BE TRUE!!!

Canadian medics in Afghanistan are getting wasted all the time. It's a hard fact.

Facts to prove this fact?

Not to mention, "getting wasted" is a very broad term. Are they getting wasted late at night cause they can't stand the blood? Are they getting wasted on the battlefield? Are they getting wasted in hospitals? Are they getting wasted on the planes? On the ambulances?

WHAT is your definition of wasted, and where is your evidence to back up your definition? Is getting wasted having a few beers between runs through the wounded? Is it chucking a case of vodka as hard as you can? Is it burning weed? Smoking cigars? Smoking and drinking till you can't stand?

The red cross doesn't protect them. Those terrorists don't care who they kill as long as they get rid of the invading forces. Hell they blow up there own people even. So by this fact and common sense, I have made the statement that they don't care because it's true.

HAHAHAHAHHAAHHAAH!!!! You can't believe how ****ing hard i'm laughing right now, in my chair. I swear, i'm going to fall out of it1!!!

Do you ever draw your own conclusions? Or do you get the high profile news companies to draw them for you?

Do you think insurgents care about being court marshelled? Abviously not or they wouldn't go around blowing everyone up. Plus do these people even operate under gueneva convention policys? No because they use whatever they can against there enemies. Chemical warfare is banned but it has been used many times for example. Another example is how in world war 1 hospitals were often targeted by artillery strikes. Many innocent doctors, nurses, and patients under the so called protection of the red cross were killed proving yet again that it makes no difference.

I love how you use a past example to prove a present point.

And I don't think you realise that there are cases where the red cross aids the "terrorists"...

But what is YOUR definition of terrorist? Iraqi soldiers? (wrong). Afghan soldiers? (wrong).

If your definition of terrorist is...

one who uses political violence, social threats or coordinated attacks closely related with unconventional warfare in manner of conduct and operation

Then, what the hell are you talking about? Cause I know for a FACT (love your use of the word by the way), that we aren't fighting terrorists in Iraq, but rather soldiers and militia men.

 

[99.vikram]

Don't get personal, sinkoman.

 

[Asknoone]

Talk about de railing the thread. Locked.