# Red Cross in Afghanistan gives Taliban first aid help



## R933ex (26 May 2010)

Not sure if this has been posted but...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/south_asia/10161136.stm


----------



## vonGarvin (26 May 2010)

Providing first aid care to all wounded irrespective of nationality, side, etc is what one would expect of the ICRC, as well as with our own troops.  Having said that, my question is this: is providing training to them going beyond?

I ask, because I don't know.


----------



## gcclarke (26 May 2010)

I would hardly consider this to be out of line with their principles or values. Specifically, the seven basic principles are: 

Humanity 
Impartiality 
*Neutrality*
Independence 
Voluntary Service 
Unity 
*Universality*

Emphasis mine. More details here.


----------



## vonGarvin (26 May 2010)

Understood; however, would not training, even first aid training, be considered military training?  (Again, playing the role of advocate for Lucifer here)


----------



## armyvern (26 May 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Understood; however, would not training, even first aid training, be considered military training?  (Again, playing the role of advocate for Lucifer here)



Well, my mom's got her first aid course ... and she's never served a day.


----------



## The Bread Guy (26 May 2010)

The Red Cross' mandate is to treat ALL sides the same, and ensure the reasonable treatment of ALL fighters, so this isn't a surprise.  IMHO, if they're training people who would be protected by wearing the Red Cross/Red Crescent/Red Whatever-the-symbol-of-the-week-is, they're not training *combatants*, per se.  Re:  "neutrality", it appears they read that to mean "help any side that asks", not "don't help anybody lest it look like we take sides".   

Now, since it appears the Taliban don't recognize the protection of the Red Cross symbol, it seems ironic at least.  

I'd be happy to hear more from anyone with more legal expertise.


----------



## The Bread Guy (26 May 2010)

Some excerpts from this piece:



> Jim Davis says it's "disgusting" that the Red Cross would teach Taliban fighters how to save the lives of their wounded comrades on the battlefield. Maureen Eykelenboom says it's the right thing to do.





> 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?"
> 
> ...





> Ms. Eykelenboom, whose 23-year-old son Cpl. Andrew Eykelenboom -- an army medic -- was killed by a Taliban suicide bomber in 2006, says Andrew treated battle-wounded insurgents in Afghanistan, so why shouldn't the Red Cross?
> 
> "They're still humans. And maybe by giving them that kind of training and support, there's the potential that they could be better humans," she says.
> 
> ...


----------



## FastEddy (27 May 2010)

It all makes perfectly good sense. Treat, Train and supply the Taliban injured or other wise.

Therefore, in doing this we are enabling their return to a Combat roll, just to remind you IED's. RPG's, Mortar and Rocket Attacks and the ever so popular Suicide Bombers.

Sounds like a good plan. Now when they come begging for their annual contribution funds.
I guess you could almost say, we are enabling them to Attack and Kill us by our contributions.
Now I know there you that will say, this is the wrong way to look at this.

Regardless of all the High Fluting Legal and Moral Crap, I'm sorry, If it Quacks like a Duck, Waddles like a Duke, looks like a Duck. You can call it what ever you want. But to me its a God Damn Duck and wrong.

If any of you Red Cross people out there are reading this, you'll never get another dime from me.


----------



## bdave (27 May 2010)

> Ms. Eykelenboom agrees that the ICRC's actions raise some difficult questions for Canadians, but says the only way out of the Afghan war is for all sides to treat each other with more humanity, not less.



I think our side has shown it is treating the Taliban very humanely, except for the few bad apples that have tortured and whatnot.
The Taliban follow no such rules.  They behead civilians and kill their own. If the Taliban were following the Geneva convention, I'd understand...but they don't.

That being said:



			
				FastEddy said:
			
		

> It all makes perfectly good sense. Treat, Train and supply the Taliban injured or other wise.
> 
> Therefore, in doing this we are enabling their return to a Combat roll, just to remind you IED's. RPG's, Mortar and Rocket Attacks and the ever so popular Suicide Bombers.
> 
> ...



I agree with this.


----------



## George Wallace (27 May 2010)

Let's see now.  It doesn't place any real strain on an organization to remove the dead from the battlefield, but for every wounded soldier it takes four others out of the battle as care givers.  Then we have to look at the amount of people and resources it takes to give proper medical treatment and facilitate recovery.   The numbers increase as we move along the chain.  That is a real strain on our side.  So far it doesn't seem to have been on the Taliban.  Perhaps this is a underhanded way of putting an extra strain on their operations.


----------



## The Bread Guy (27 May 2010)

I'm OK with the Red Cross continuing to do this if their mandate is to ensure the saving of lives on ALL sides.  That said, at the local Red Cross branch, you can ask to have your donations earmarked - I'll continue my practice of donating to LOCAL programs only (in our city, breakfast clubs mostly) when people start pouring in $ for big Katrina-Haiti scale disasters.



			
				TN2IC said:
			
		

> Teach the Taliban first aid.. ISAF sniper dream!   ;D
> 
> Think about it folks?


It would be interesting to see how many Taliban medics wear the Red Cross/Crescent/Diamond - or how many vehicles it'll mark with same.


----------



## rmc_wannabe (27 May 2010)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> It would be interesting to see how many Taliban medics wear the Red Cross/Crescent/Diamond - or how many vehicles it'll mark with same.



Kind of hard to operate as guerrilla fighters when you have a big F off arm band telling everyone you're providing medical support. Might as well use a big neon sign that says " TALIBAN INSURGENTS RIGHT HERE!"  ;D


----------



## The Bread Guy (27 May 2010)

...in one of the stories about this:


> .... (Red Cross spokesman Christian Cardon) said the three-day courses also were an opportunity to show participants the need to abide by the Geneva Conventions that govern the conduct of war ....


Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight....


----------



## Tank Troll (27 May 2010)

Teaching First aid to the Civilians is still in a round about way helping the Taliban as that is where they go for help. How ever that being said I'm good with it. Teaching the Taliban direct is a different can of worms.

The Taliban have no regard for the Geneva convention as it doesn't fit in with the Koran, so hoping they will see this a acceptance of the Conventions is a pipe dream


----------



## vonGarvin (27 May 2010)

Tank Troll said:
			
		

> The Taliban have no regard for the Geneva convention as it doesn't fit in with the Koran


Have you even read the Koran?  Do you even realise what it says?  If you think that the Taliban really know what it says either, and if you think that they are applying its teachings correctly, then you are sadly mistaken.  

They have no regard for the Geneva convention for their own reasons. 

Edit to add:
Chapter 2, Verse 190: "Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, *but do not transgress limits; for Allah loves not transgressors*."  (emphasis added)
(Yes, this is from the Koran)


----------



## GAP (27 May 2010)

> An ICRC statement said the organisation had provided basic training and first aid kits to about 70 members of the "armed opposition" last month.
> 
> The ICRC said that it had also provided training to civilians.
> 
> ...



The Red Cross has always done that (they did it in Viet Nam and a whole host of other conflicts also). I may not agree with it, but that's THEIR mandate, and in the long run, if they teach the civilians how better to take care of themselves, it achieves one our goals, no? 

Do we, the "West" not treat injured Taliban on the battlefield? Personal excesses aside, I think the ICRC try to maintain a neutral distance from either side....


----------



## SeanNewman (27 May 2010)

One wonders if they have a module that explains "When you throw acid on school girls' faces, you must immediately conduct a scene survey and state "I am a first aider, do you need assistance?""


----------



## leroi (27 May 2010)

But the Red Cross isn't neutral; they've been excluding Israel from joining for years: http://www.wrmea.com/archives/december01/0112051.html


----------



## Tank Troll (27 May 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Have you even read the Koran?  Do you even realise what it says?  If you think that the Taliban really know what it says either, and if you think that they are applying its teachings correctly, then you are sadly mistaken.
> 
> They have no regard for the Geneva convention for their own reasons.
> 
> ...



Yes I have read the koran that is why I said it doesn't fit with it's teachings. Not all of the taliban are illiterate allot of them are educated some of them Highly educated

But yes they mostly have no reguard for the Geneva convetions for their own reasons


----------



## vonGarvin (27 May 2010)

Tank Troll said:
			
		

> Yes I have read *the Koran,* that is why I said it doesn't fit with *its * teachings.  Not all of the *Taliban* are illiterate, *alot* of them are educated; some of them *are highly* educated.


There, *fixed* up your attempt to fool me into thinking that you were illiterate.   >

Anyway, don't confuse the Taliban and Islam.  Islam, Christianity and Judaism are collectively known as Abrahamic religions, with very similar morals.  Make Jesus human in Christianity, and you basically have Islam (with some other details thrown in).


----------



## Fusaki (27 May 2010)

TV,

You corrected "allot" (i.e. _to parcel out_) to be "alot," which is not a word in the english language. 

I think you're looking for "a lot." >

I obsessive compulsively cannot pass faults...  ;D


----------



## vonGarvin (27 May 2010)

Wonderbread said:
			
		

> TV,
> 
> You corrected "allot" (i.e. _to parcel out_) to be "alot," which is not a word in the english language.
> 
> I think you're looking for "a lot." >


Nobody likes Wonderbread, which is why we buy Dempsters!

(PS: Thank you)


TV


----------



## jollyjacktar (28 May 2010)

If the ICRC make more inroads reaching out to the Taliban with this teaching perhaps there might be a positive spin off it.  Perhaps they might be more inclined to respect the Red Cross/Red Cresent and those work under it.  As I see it, this does seem to keep in line with the original intent of the ICRC and why is was created in the first place.  Perhaps they might humanise the animals somewhat.


----------



## GAP (30 May 2010)

Red Cross defends helping Taliban treat casualties
Article Link

The International Committee of the Red Cross is defending its practice of providing medical training and basic medical supplies to the Taliban in Afghanistan – saying it is in line with the ICRC’s mandate not to discriminate between different sides in a conflict.

In the latest situation report issued Tuesday the Red Cross disclosed that in April its workers “reached over 100 Afghan security personnel, over 70 members of the armed opposition, taxi drivers involved in the transport of wounded people, first-aiders and its own staff.”

That prompted plenty of quizzical and some critical comments in the international media and among bloggers – and some grumbling among Afghan officials. But an ICRC spokesman in Geneva said the practice is consistent with its obligation of neutrality and its mandate to provide assistance to all sides in conflict.The ICRC says it provides a three-day course that includes lessons in international humanitarian law, practical work with bandages and other basic medical techniques. It says the course is also a chance to remind all sides about respect for civilians and proper treatment of detainees.

Some critics have drawn a distinction between providing medical care to the wounded and training insurgents to do so. But the ICRC says it has provided similar training in Darfur, Sudan and to Hamas members in Gaza. ICRC spokesman Christian Cardon says it has been providing such training in Afghanistan for about four years to the Taliban as well as to Afghan police and civilian first-aiders. He added that the ICRC was not training the Taliban in surgical skills; the focus was on stabilizing those injured.

The ICRC says that roadblocks, fighting and mines have made access to hospitals very difficult – especially in provinces like Helmand and Kandahar in the south of Afghanistan.


----------



## FastEddy (30 May 2010)

GAP said:
			
		

> Red Cross defends helping Taliban treat casualties
> Article Link



Your all entitled to your opinions and reason

But as far as I'm concerned, if you even give a glass of water to a Known Taliban, you are GIVING COMFORT AND AID TO THE EMEMY, regardless of the Guise or Organization you belong to. Who's side are they on, Oh ! they don,t take sides, Well tell that to all the WIDOWS, MOTHERS, and FAMILIES of our fallen Service Men/Women.

Services and assistance to the general public is one thing, but the ENEMY .


----------



## Kat Stevens (30 May 2010)

Our, enemy, not the Red Cross'.


----------



## SeanNewman (30 May 2010)

FastEddy said:
			
		

> YourYou're all entitled to your opinions and reason



It's not about our opinions in the CF, it's about the rules of a neutral organization who sees no good guys or bad guys.

And even if it were the CF involved, it's not about opinions because we have rules, too.  

Canada has signed on to Hague/Geneva, so if you want to wear the flag on your shoulder to represent the values of Canada, you perform your duty to those rules and provide aid even to the enemy if possible.


----------



## Big Red (30 May 2010)

FastEddy said:
			
		

> But as far as I'm concerned, if you even give a glass of water to a Known Taliban, you are GIVING COMFORT AND AID TO THE EMEMY, regardless of the Guise or Organization you belong to. Who's side are they on, Oh ! they don,t take sides, Well tell that to all the WIDOWS, MOTHERS, and FAMILIES of our fallen Service Men/Women.
> 
> Services and assistance to the general public is one thing, but the ENEMY .



They are Canada's enemy, not the INTERNATIONAL Red Cross' enemy. ICRC is not on one side or the other.


----------

