Only once.

Post #35,662 by Brandioch 4/16/02 4:39:57 PM Reply	Only once. You can't let the Red Cross into a combat zone when combat is on going because they get in the way. Maybe the dumb ones do. Think of it as Darwinism in action. On the other hand, the Red Cross has has workers in most wars since WWII that I'm aware of. You'd think that by now, they would have learned how to not get shot. Yea, they wear the red cross on white tunics to identify themselves but the Palestinine terrorist have repeatedly demonstrated that they will disguise themselves as non-combatants. Did you hear about the Red Cresent ambulance that was caught hauling explosives? Did you hear about the suicide bomber that disguised herself as a pregnant woman? I note your change in subject matter. What started out as reasons why the Red Cross shouldn't be in a combat zone ended up as examples of Palestinians disguising themselves. So, the Red Cross shouldn't be allowed in a combat zone because Palestinian terrorists might disguise themselves as Red Cross workers?
Post #35,668 by rsf 4/16/02 5:05:47 PM Reply	I'll spell it out for you The Red Cross will be most effective if they can get into the combat zone while the injured are still alive. There is a high probability that Palestinian combatant are likely to use disguise themselves as Red Cross workers and/or use Red Cross workers as human shields or hostages (hell, they use there own kids as human shields so I don't think they'll give a flying f' if any Red Cross workers get killed). Ergo, if you let the Red Cross workers into while the fighting continues, the IDF will either have to compromise their fighting ability (for fear of killing a Red Cross worker) or the IDF will have to accept the political fallout that will come when Red Cross workers get killed. The safest thing for the IDF to do is to keep them out because a Palestinian death doesn't cost as much politically as a Red Cross worker death. Note: The situation here is much different than in past wars where the sanctity of the Red Cross non-combatant status was held in high regard (for the most part). For example, in WWII, one of our subs sunk a Japanese hospital ship that had the Red Cross symbol painted on the side of the ship. It was a night attack, in the fog, and with the way the ship blew up, the crew was sure the ship was carrying munitions. However, because the US couldn't prove that it was in fact carrying arms, the sub commander was court martialed and the US paid reparations to the Japanese government (during the war too!). Ray
Post #35,689 by Brandioch 4/16/02 7:16:28 PM Reply	Try spelling it out again. Ergo, if you let the Red Cross workers into while the fighting continues, the IDF will either have to compromise their fighting ability (for fear of killing a Red Cross worker) or the IDF will have to accept the political fallout that will come when Red Cross workers get killed. Really? I don't suppose you know the history of the Red Cross. Do you think that they just blindly run across fire zones? Seems to me they've been in enough wars to have learned by now. For example, in WWII, one of our subs sunk a Japanese hospital ship that had the Red Cross symbol painted on the side of the ship. It was a night attack, in the fog, and with the way the ship blew up, the crew was sure the ship was carrying munitions. However, because the US couldn't prove that it was in fact carrying arms, the sub commander was court martialed and the US paid reparations to the Japanese government (during the war too!). Hmmm, so, what you're saying is that, in the past, the enemy has disguised himself as belonging to the Red Cross. But that's what you're saying he might do now. But in the past, we didn't keep the Red Cross off the battlefield (well, lately we have, along with reporters). But now it is different because now the enemy might do the same thing the enemy did in the past when things were the same. So, things are the same which means that things are different. Could you try explaining that, one more time? You see, you accept certain limitations when you are one of the "good" guys.
Post #35,696 by rsf 4/16/02 7:45:02 PM Reply	I can't comment beyond this post What I wrote in the previous post was clear enough for all of us to understand. You might not like it but I'm sure you understood it. Or you will if you think about it a little more. Sorry, but I'm a little to busy to play a cat and mouse game with this topic. Ray
Post #35,707 by 3) 4/16/02 9:47:16 PM Reply	Intention does matter There really is a difference between a mistake in the fog and dark and using an ambulance to transport explosives. Yes, it is moraly worse to target civilians than to target combatants and kill civilians in the process. Worst of all is to deliberately place your civilians in harm's way as SOP. It shows that you think your enemy cares more about your people than you do. If you even consider that it is possible for your enemy to care more about your people than you do, and you do not step down, you are no leader, just a thug. I am not a man, I am a free number.
Post #35,716 by Brandioch 4/16/02 11:06:39 PM Reply	Yep. Yes, it is moraly worse to target civilians than to target combatants and kill civilians in the process. You are, of course, familiar with the poem "The Walrus and the Carpenter". It's a shame I don't follow that morallity.
Post #35,774 by inthane-chan 4/17/02 2:01:16 PM Reply	Actually, he's got a point. Y'see, he left out this little bit - It is morally worse to target combatants and kill civilians in the process than to target combatants and actively attempt to avoid civilians in the process, putting yourself at greater risk. Now, as towards whether or not the Israeli military did so - we'll probably never know the truth and be certain of it. Methinks that the press corps needs some new technology - something akin to the Predator drones, sans weaponry. I've been reading David Brin's The Transparent Society and quite frankly, it's starting to appeal to me on a lot of levels... "He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." - Friedrich Nietzsche
Post #35,778 by hnick 4/17/02 2:54:49 PM Reply	Drones aren't the technology we need... What we need would be something more like Heinlein's Fair Witness. Journalism is pretty much dead these days. The hacks that we have are intrested in selling paper or air-time. There is no doubt in my mind that reporters or their editors would go for the "entertainment" value of tanks and bulldozers crushing houses and maybe even people (yeah! just think of the ratings!!) rather than attempt to show an unbiased well analyzed narrative of what actually happened. Hey, they have the special FX of an Arnold movie without the cost (to them, of course...) Reporters are pretty useless. They could just as usefully bring in lawyers with the troops. my .02 Hugh
Post #35,784 by Ashton 4/17/02 3:59:22 PM Reply	Exactly! 'Fair Witness' is dead-on. But WHO amongst us ???
Post #35,805 by inthane-chan 4/17/02 5:03:30 PM Reply	Ah, but drones are just the start... ...if EVERYBODY has drones, and not just the press corps, and enough pictures get out and around, then statistically an image of what has really happened is creatable. That's the premise of The Transparent Society - everybody observes everybody else, no secrets. "He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." - Friedrich Nietzsche
Post #35,806 by hnick 4/17/02 5:06:15 PM Reply	Doesn't matter... wouldn't work Fair Witnesses would not work in our society because an unemotional strictly factual account is not exciting to the masses and would not sell paper/air-time. And because the trade would not be valued, it would be fairly difficult to get an intelligent, educated person to train and dedicate their life to such a discipline. Just cause I can spec it doesn't mean I can implement it... Pity, Hugh
Post #35,811 by Ashton 4/17/02 5:54:16 PM Reply	An important minority* would value them, but (* a handful among the minority who now even vote, that is) it's moot: only those on a course to genuine adulthood might apply for training.. Even then.. they would have to cultivate abnormal characteristics, present in only a small sampple of the species. Which current handful of genuine 'adults' - might train them? See? - not ready yet. Ashton

Welcome to IWETHEY!