5 ms·

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 save

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.

trollman5000 5y ago
Sounds like you could just use the Red Cross symbol to lure unsuspecting victims to your location.
throwaway894345 5y ago
Is there even a single documented case where this has happened?
- CobrastanJorji 5y ago
  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://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolo_hospital_airstrike https://www.irishtimes.com/news/us-admits-bombing-red-cross-warehouses-1.401624 https://www.irishtimes.com/news/us-admits-bombing-red-cross-... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1523489/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1523489/
  - trollman5000 5y ago
    We're talking about video games causing this, retard. One of your examples was an apparent mistake. One was done before video games. And one was done by Israelis.
  - Vaslo 5y ago
    So there were video games in 1935 that caused the Dolo air strike? I think the issue is around why (or whether) video games cause this, not if there were ever assholes who tried to bomb them.
    - addicted 5y ago
      Except they aren’t claiming that it’s only video games. They’ve only mentioned it as one avenue of misuse.
      - throwaway894345 5y ago
        Is there any evidence at all that misuse from video games or any other kind of media have contributed to any of these fatalities?
        jagrsw 5y ago
        I guess the reasoning is as follows: Ignoring or being ignorant about visual signals associated with live/health threatening objects/situations (Red Cross sign, high voltage logo, radiation/pathogen/hazards logos etc.) undoubtedly cost(ed) lives in the past, and actions which are contributing to confusion about those signs should share some part of the blame, instinctively proportionally to their public influence. I think I can live with this approach, if we don't stretch it too far. It's not unthinkable to conceive a scenario in which this symbol is misinterpreted, loss of health or life or property follows, and the ignorance of the perpetrators cannot be pinpointed - maybe it'd be lack of proper education, maybe missing classes during military training, maybe seeing red-cross logo misused in games, maybe bad memory - the thing is that all of those explanations are IMO "reasonable", so we might want to do at least something about each of those (if possible).
    - MattRix 5y ago
      The claim is not only about video games. And it makes more sense to be proactive about protecting their brand, rather than only reacting once an issue arises. Also how would you even prove such a connection? What combatant is ever going to say “I’m sorry, I shot you because I thought you were the enemy’s medic and not the red cross due to decades of brand dilution”.
  - throwaway894345 5y ago
    Not seeing where videogames caused these...
    - MattRix 5y ago
      Are they supposed to wait until videogames cause an issue, and not be proactive? And how would you ever prove such a thing?
      - throwaway894345 5y ago
        > 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.
        mcguire 5y ago
        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 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.)
- pugworthy 5y ago
  I believe that's somewhat the point of the second sentence quoted earlier. They are saying they've got people dying while serving with the Red Cross - and perhaps an implication is that dilution of the symbol is one cause. Irrespective they are asking to be taken seriously - it's not Kleenex™ asking to not to use kleenex generically.
  - throwaway894345 5y ago
    I don't have a problem with people protecting their trademarks, whether Kleenex or RC. I just didn't think they were going to make the "trademark violations kill" argument. Kind of puts the MPAA's "You wouldn't steal a car..." marketing into perspective.
- aeturnum 5y ago
  They are not proposing a 1:1 relationship between use in games and medics being killed. That's not really how the meaning of symbols change. They are saying that using the medical symbol for game or media elements who are appropriate targets dilutes the clarity of the symbol. I think the argument is pretty straightforward and I'm not sure how one would "document" a symbolic dilution beyond suggesting that it will happen. Also, if you are asking for examples in media, they are extremely easy to find. Here's an example from a comic strip commenting on TF2: https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/217534009_hZ5oD/0/1050x10000/217534009_hZ5oD-1050x10000.jpg https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/217534009_hZ5oD/0/1050x100...
thrower123 5y ago
This only works with people who follow your rules of warfare. Otherwise, the red cross symbol just becomes a huge target painted on you.
- crooked-v 5y ago
  People do in fact generally (but not always) respect the neutrality of the Red Cross and Red Crescent organizations, including in current conflicts between the Taliban and the government of Afghanistan, where they've had access to prisoners from both sides and run landmine injury rehabilitation centers.
- mcguire 5y ago
  This is true. But not following the rules of war, particularly if you are the weaker side, is not a good idea.
camjohnson26 5y ago
They should probably create a more distinctive logo to avoid that, it’s a lot easier to think the Red Cross is public domain than something more distinctive.
- johncolanduoni 5y ago
  If they do that and all the ambulances, hospitals etc. change to the new symbol, that symbol will have the same problem in a few decades because it will be similarly omnipresent. Considering it’ll probably take about as long for all the equipment and buildings to relabel, it doesn’t seem like a practical solution.
  - harimau777 5y ago
    I don't think that's likely to be the case. A red cross has already become established a generic symbol for medical things. It is unlikely that would change if the Red Cross organization changed its logo.
- alisonkisk 5y ago
  While we're here, LIFEGUARD is also a trademark and they expect all pool watchers to pay the license fee for pool watching gear with that word on it.
  - camjohnson26 5y ago
    Maybe we need anti trust legislation for trademarks.
scarby2 5y ago
> 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. The red cross is used by the enemies medics. It's one of main allowed uses. The issue comes with a distinction not commonly used in video games, true medics using the red cross as a logo are designated non-combatants, while they are armed they are only to use their weapons in protection of themselves or their patients and under no circumstances are they to directly engage in offensive military operations. It's also part of the reason why combat medics in the US no longer use the symbol, without it they can act offensively Also the Taliban have no qualms about destroying an ambulance or shooting a medic.
- throw0101a 5y ago
  > Also the Taliban have no qualms about destroying an ambulance or shooting a medic. They've gone back and forth depending on their perception of how well the ICRC is doing its job: * Withdrawal: https://www.rferl.org/a/afghanistan-taliban-withdraws-icrc-security-guarantee/29435666.html https://www.rferl.org/a/afghanistan-taliban-withdraws-icrc-s... * Restoration: http://cms.trust.org/item/20181012103241-lymfx http://cms.trust.org/item/20181012103241-lymfx * https://www.npr.org/2019/09/16/761152686/taliban-lifts-ban-on-red-cross-pledges-to-protect-aid-workers https://www.npr.org/2019/09/16/761152686/taliban-lifts-ban-o...
lvs 5y ago
Article 19 of the First Geneva Convention covers all medical units, not just the Red Cross. It is just as illegal to target an enemy medic as it is to target a Red Cross medic. Both are war crimes.
- pvaldes 5y ago
  And the law will fall on offenders with the force of ten eider feather pillows
  - pindab0ter 5y ago
    While I like the play on words I don’t think we should be posting unsupported cynicism like this.
    - pvaldes 5y ago
      I think that the cynism here is fully supported. Was anybody prosecuted by the infamous 2007 attack to an ambulance in Baghdad shown by Wikileaks, (oh, yes... Manning of course. Silly me. I almost forgot) Was anybody jailed for the men and woman and children burnt alive by the "strictly forbidden under international laws" white phosphorus in Fallujah? noope Were the systematic bombing of hospitals and civil buildings in Gaza, Pakistan or Syria investigated? https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/israel-gaza-hospitals-targeted-amid-heavy-israeli-bombardment https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/israel-gaza-hospitals-tar... Was somebody prosecuted by what they did to Omran Daqneesh and his family?. Or by the annexation of Crimea? I could spent the next hour enumerating cases of war crimes written in flashing neon letters, solved with a path in the shoulder to the criminals. Is a fact that war crimes go often unpunished when commit by "the good guys".
shreyshnaccount 5y ago
And the military must receive training for it. If a soldier "throws a grenade" at a red cross, it's lack of training, not video games.
rozab 5y ago
If trained soldiers were instinctively doing what they have done before in video games, we would have FAR bigger problems than this

trollman5000 5y ago

Sounds like you could just use the Red Cross symbol to lure unsuspecting victims to your location.

throwaway894345 5y ago

Is there even a single documented case where this has happened?

CobrastanJorji 5y ago
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://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolo_hospital_airstrike https://www.irishtimes.com/news/us-admits-bombing-red-cross-warehouses-1.401624 https://www.irishtimes.com/news/us-admits-bombing-red-cross-... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1523489/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1523489/
- trollman5000 5y ago
  We're talking about video games causing this, retard. One of your examples was an apparent mistake. One was done before video games. And one was done by Israelis.
- Vaslo 5y ago
  So there were video games in 1935 that caused the Dolo air strike? I think the issue is around why (or whether) video games cause this, not if there were ever assholes who tried to bomb them.
  - addicted 5y ago
    Except they aren’t claiming that it’s only video games. They’ve only mentioned it as one avenue of misuse.
    - throwaway894345 5y ago
      Is there any evidence at all that misuse from video games or any other kind of media have contributed to any of these fatalities?
      - jagrsw 5y ago
        I guess the reasoning is as follows: Ignoring or being ignorant about visual signals associated with live/health threatening objects/situations (Red Cross sign, high voltage logo, radiation/pathogen/hazards logos etc.) undoubtedly cost(ed) lives in the past, and actions which are contributing to confusion about those signs should share some part of the blame, instinctively proportionally to their public influence. I think I can live with this approach, if we don't stretch it too far. It's not unthinkable to conceive a scenario in which this symbol is misinterpreted, loss of health or life or property follows, and the ignorance of the perpetrators cannot be pinpointed - maybe it'd be lack of proper education, maybe missing classes during military training, maybe seeing red-cross logo misused in games, maybe bad memory - the thing is that all of those explanations are IMO "reasonable", so we might want to do at least something about each of those (if possible).
  - MattRix 5y ago
    The claim is not only about video games. And it makes more sense to be proactive about protecting their brand, rather than only reacting once an issue arises. Also how would you even prove such a connection? What combatant is ever going to say “I’m sorry, I shot you because I thought you were the enemy’s medic and not the red cross due to decades of brand dilution”.
- throwaway894345 5y ago
  Not seeing where videogames caused these...
  - MattRix 5y ago
    Are they supposed to wait until videogames cause an issue, and not be proactive? And how would you ever prove such a thing?
    - throwaway894345 5y ago
      > 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.
      - mcguire 5y ago
        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 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.)
pugworthy 5y ago
I believe that's somewhat the point of the second sentence quoted earlier. They are saying they've got people dying while serving with the Red Cross - and perhaps an implication is that dilution of the symbol is one cause. Irrespective they are asking to be taken seriously - it's not Kleenex™ asking to not to use kleenex generically.
- throwaway894345 5y ago
  I don't have a problem with people protecting their trademarks, whether Kleenex or RC. I just didn't think they were going to make the "trademark violations kill" argument. Kind of puts the MPAA's "You wouldn't steal a car..." marketing into perspective.
aeturnum 5y ago
They are not proposing a 1:1 relationship between use in games and medics being killed. That's not really how the meaning of symbols change. They are saying that using the medical symbol for game or media elements who are appropriate targets dilutes the clarity of the symbol. I think the argument is pretty straightforward and I'm not sure how one would "document" a symbolic dilution beyond suggesting that it will happen. Also, if you are asking for examples in media, they are extremely easy to find. Here's an example from a comic strip commenting on TF2: https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/217534009_hZ5oD/0/1050x10000/217534009_hZ5oD-1050x10000.jpg https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/217534009_hZ5oD/0/1050x100...

thrower123 5y ago

This only works with people who follow your rules of warfare. Otherwise, the red cross symbol just becomes a huge target painted on you.

crooked-v 5y ago
People do in fact generally (but not always) respect the neutrality of the Red Cross and Red Crescent organizations, including in current conflicts between the Taliban and the government of Afghanistan, where they've had access to prisoners from both sides and run landmine injury rehabilitation centers.
mcguire 5y ago
This is true. But not following the rules of war, particularly if you are the weaker side, is not a good idea.

camjohnson26 5y ago

They should probably create a more distinctive logo to avoid that, it’s a lot easier to think the Red Cross is public domain than something more distinctive.

johncolanduoni 5y ago
If they do that and all the ambulances, hospitals etc. change to the new symbol, that symbol will have the same problem in a few decades because it will be similarly omnipresent. Considering it’ll probably take about as long for all the equipment and buildings to relabel, it doesn’t seem like a practical solution.
- harimau777 5y ago
  I don't think that's likely to be the case. A red cross has already become established a generic symbol for medical things. It is unlikely that would change if the Red Cross organization changed its logo.
alisonkisk 5y ago
While we're here, LIFEGUARD is also a trademark and they expect all pool watchers to pay the license fee for pool watching gear with that word on it.
- camjohnson26 5y ago
  Maybe we need anti trust legislation for trademarks.

scarby2 5y ago

> 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. The red cross is used by the enemies medics. It's one of main allowed uses. The issue comes with a distinction not commonly used in video games, true medics using the red cross as a logo are designated non-combatants, while they are armed they are only to use their weapons in protection of themselves or their patients and under no circumstances are they to directly engage in offensive military operations. It's also part of the reason why combat medics in the US no longer use the symbol, without it they can act offensively Also the Taliban have no qualms about destroying an ambulance or shooting a medic.

throw0101a 5y ago
> Also the Taliban have no qualms about destroying an ambulance or shooting a medic. They've gone back and forth depending on their perception of how well the ICRC is doing its job: * Withdrawal: https://www.rferl.org/a/afghanistan-taliban-withdraws-icrc-security-guarantee/29435666.html https://www.rferl.org/a/afghanistan-taliban-withdraws-icrc-s... * Restoration: http://cms.trust.org/item/20181012103241-lymfx http://cms.trust.org/item/20181012103241-lymfx * https://www.npr.org/2019/09/16/761152686/taliban-lifts-ban-on-red-cross-pledges-to-protect-aid-workers https://www.npr.org/2019/09/16/761152686/taliban-lifts-ban-o...

lvs 5y ago

Article 19 of the First Geneva Convention covers all medical units, not just the Red Cross. It is just as illegal to target an enemy medic as it is to target a Red Cross medic. Both are war crimes.

pvaldes 5y ago
And the law will fall on offenders with the force of ten eider feather pillows
- pindab0ter 5y ago
  While I like the play on words I don’t think we should be posting unsupported cynicism like this.
  - pvaldes 5y ago
    I think that the cynism here is fully supported. Was anybody prosecuted by the infamous 2007 attack to an ambulance in Baghdad shown by Wikileaks, (oh, yes... Manning of course. Silly me. I almost forgot) Was anybody jailed for the men and woman and children burnt alive by the "strictly forbidden under international laws" white phosphorus in Fallujah? noope Were the systematic bombing of hospitals and civil buildings in Gaza, Pakistan or Syria investigated? https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/israel-gaza-hospitals-targeted-amid-heavy-israeli-bombardment https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/israel-gaza-hospitals-tar... Was somebody prosecuted by what they did to Omran Daqneesh and his family?. Or by the annexation of Crimea? I could spent the next hour enumerating cases of war crimes written in flashing neon letters, solved with a path in the shoulder to the criminals. Is a fact that war crimes go often unpunished when commit by "the good guys".

shreyshnaccount 5y ago

And the military must receive training for it. If a soldier "throws a grenade" at a red cross, it's lack of training, not video games.

rozab 5y ago

If trained soldiers were instinctively doing what they have done before in video games, we would have FAR bigger problems than this