Paul Vallely, Prof in Public Ethics, Uni of Chester
It’s not a straightforward situation, there are two different moral imperatives. One is that you shouldn't kill and the other is if you put ppl in extreme situations and ask them to act on your behalf, you can’t be as judgmental as you would be about a case of an ordinary murder in the street.
The thing that keeps soldiers fighting isn’t love of democracy or Queen and country or the other things ppl say. It’s loyalty to the little troop of ppl around them that they trained with and they would put their lives on the line for the other ppl in that group in the way that they know the others would do for them, and that sense of loyalty, that sense of solidarity. It sums up in a phrase is sacred band of brothers and the word sacred is not incidental there, it gives something really deep in the human psyche. So that kind of loyalty will make you rush out and draw fire so that your colleagues can escape to safety, but it would also make you feel you need revenge for the wrongs that have been done to your colleagues.
Edgar Jones, Prof History of Medicine and Psychiatry, King’s College London
British troops in Afghanistan are not allow to fight until the Taliban attack them and that puts them under psychological pressure. It’s almost like fighting with one arm tied behind your back. If the soldier feels he’s been treated fairly by the rules of engagement but the dice is loaded against him, that can build up a sort of resentment and a feeling this very dangerous task is being made more difficult than it should be, and you can see that will lead to frustration, feeling of impotence and a lowering of morale.
Rob Driscoll, Former Marine Sergt.
You couldn't shoot until you’re shot at. We have to positively ID a threat then that threat would then have to become a threat to us. So in theory, we would positively ID a Taliban fighter with a weapon and until he pointed the weapon at us, under those rules of engagement we weren't able to return fire or protect ourselves. ［這真的很白痴哎］
Dr. Gwen Adshead, Consultant, Forensic Psychotherapist
Almost more in common of gang violence in a way than it does with a type of regular homicide. The young men in gangs often talking this about taking out members of opposite gangs, and certainly have s pride and a satisfaction in taking out other guys and would have no question of holding. Rules don’t apply. Knowing that may be wrong in the eyes of others but from their own perspective in terms of the code of the gang warfare, there is a type of honour to it. Of course in theory armies fighting other armies are not like gangs, but I guess many ppl would way those classical rules of war and notions of two armies meeting and playing by rules has gone out the window a long time ago.
CT: Do you recall the circumstances?
RD: I remember the day very well. We've been out on patrol, we've actually been engaged on that patrol, we had to, essentially we withdrew from that area and we were unable to complete our task because it would have meant going forward into an area we knew they were a lot of Taliban, so I was in the CP when events unfolded and I was relieved when ultimately the Taliban insurgent died, it did mean that we wouldn’t have to mobilise a medical evacuation helicopter. Tactically, they would’ve done anything to incur more injuries on our side of troops if they could shoot a helicopter down, wow, then we would've handed them the trophy. The insurgent that Sergt. AB shot had already been shot by a Apache helicopter, so he would’ve been pretty badly hurt……
We had been dehumanised so much because of that barbaric nature of the Taliban. I mean these guys won’t shoot you and then give you a noble burial, they would hang you up in a tree, crucify you and cut off your testicles and put them in your mouth, that’s the nature of the ppl we are dealing with, and how would you deal with an enemy like that. They saw all kind of laws and all kind of behaviour as weakness. Do we walk around being the weak security force or do we have to project an air of Taliban masculinity. It’s a huge adaptation that every single marine or every single combat soldier that has dealt with the Taliban would’ve had to go for it. I think we had to almost equalise their brutality within the laws imposed on us, which is very hard.
Matt Carr, War on Terror Specialist
No matter what the British army or the British govt ot the British population thinks of the Taliban, the Taliban or various faction fighting within the Taliban do not see themselves as murdering terrorists or how they see themselves there are all kinds of rationale for what they are doing. But the overall justification for the kind of method they used, they’re the weaker side, therefore, they’re obliged to use whatever methods can get them results.
The thing is once one side starts breaking the rules, there’s always a danger that the other side will too. This is happened throughout the history of warfare, and it’s always accelerated if there’s an obvious cultural disconnect between folks.
Paul Vallely
We have to share the responsibility as a society, politicians who made the decisions have to share the responsibility, but they don’t end up in court like Blackman. And man who sitting at a computer in America sending bombs into Pakistan killing more ppl than Blackman did, he’s not in court, politicians aren’t in court, we are not in court, Blackman is in court. It’s hard not to feel that he’s a scapegoat.
Phil Shiner, Human Right Lawyer
Assuming that it’s correct that Taliban committed atrocities, isn’t that the strongest reason as to why we should not go down to that level, isn’t that a compelling argument that we, our strong democracy we observe the rule of law, we’re much more likely to win the battle for heart and minds if we stand firm and observe the basic principles of laws of war and human rights law.
Our War http://movie.douban.com/subject/6714106/ 裡完全說明問題。。。
