zlacker

>>Tomte+(OP)
> In an increasingly uncertain world, this protective use of the red cross emblem has become more and more important. In the past ten years, there have been 162 fatalities among Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement personnel including two Canadians.

I don't understand how these two sentences are related and the article doesn't explain it as far as I can tell. They seem to be vaguely insinuating that video games appropriating the red cross logo have caused these deaths, which is surely an absurd claim but I can't figure out what else they might mean.

EDIT: A lot of defensive responses. To be clear, no one is impugning the Red Cross or disrespecting the work they're doing. I merely don't understand the reasoning in TFA.

>>throwa+b4
IF you are in combat and you see a red cross vehicle, it is important for your first reaction being "that is not where the enemy is" vs firing at it.

This saves lives, and protects those who run into danger zones to save people.

If we slap red cross symbols on people with medical equipment that you see in video games, it'll just dilute the meaning and maybe next time someone sees a vehicle with the red cross symbol they'll think "oh, that's just the enemy's medics" and throw a grenade that way.

If I understand correctly the red cross will treat anyone regardless of the side they came in with.

>>Justsi+I6
Is there even a single documented case where this has happened?

>>throwa+O7
Of Red Cross buildings/vehicles/personnel being bombed? Lots of them. Here are the first three I found on Google.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolo_hospital_airstrike

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/us-admits-bombing-red-cross-...

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1523489/

>>Cobras+U8
Not seeing where videogames caused these...

>>throwa+ha
Are they supposed to wait until videogames cause an issue, and not be proactive? And how would you ever prove such a thing?

>>MattRi+qe
> Are they supposed to wait until videogames cause an issue

I'm asking "are they insinuating that appropriation of their trademark contributed to the deaths that they cited".

> And how would you ever prove such a thing?

Presumably *if* they are alleging a causal relationship between trademark appropriation and violence against personnel they have some reason to suspect that the causal relationship exists.

>>throwa+6h
The logos of the Red Cross, among a few others, are specifically mentioned in international law, including the Geneva Conventions. Firing on vehicles or personnel displaying the logos is, unless they do some very specific bad things, a war crime.

There are a number of incidents mentioned in the post and in this thread where Red Cross workers were injured or killed by combatants. Do I have any reason to believe any of them involve "appropriation of their trademark contributed to the deaths"? No, although I would believe that the defense in most cases would be "a mistake was made". But the Red Cross (and a lot of other people) have good reason to defend those logos.

International Humanitarian Law (https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/home):

"Rule 25. Medical personnel exclusively assigned to medical duties must be respected and protected in all circumstances. They lose their protection if they commit, outside their humanitarian function, acts harmful to the enemy."

"Rule 28. Medical units exclusively assigned to medical purposes must be respected and protected in all circumstances. They lose their protection if they are being used, outside their humanitarian function, to commit acts harmful to the enemy."

"Rule 29. Medical transports assigned exclusively to medical transportation must be respected and protected in all circumstances. They lose their protection if they are being used, outside their humanitarian function, to commit acts harmful to the enemy."

"Rule 59. The improper use of the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions is prohibited."

(The Red Cross logos are such distinctive emblems.)