You have literally just quoted me proving my point, you have even underlined it. Read it again and think, crying out loud.
There was no inference at all and I’m a tad puzzled you even drew that conclusion. I’m saying whatever he has done can’t be any worse because there is no worse. Innocents were killed by all sides. This isn’t justifying his action for Christ sake. Work on your comprehension.
ah, ok...fair enough i have misinterpreted what you were saying. Apologies. I read it to be you thought what he had done, was not as bad as a terrorist....i was trying to argue its exactly like that of a terrorist.
The inference is that the people shot on that day were not innocents. It’s the same with the Hillsborough victims. To shift responsibility it’s argued that they were in some way to blame for what happened. The people shot that day were on a civil rights march so by being there they share some responsibility for what happened.
The same argument would not be used if it was a terrorist attack on say a peace rally. We wouldn’t blame the people attending. We wouldn’t be arguing that IRA command should take more responsibility than the person setting the bomb. There is no qualification with respect to a terrorist attack whereas we have a lot of qualification over this attack on unarmed civilians.
I accept you may not have meant this but that is the message I got.
What the hell are you talking about man, you would have to show me where I said our military doesn’t need standards. Do you or do you not believe if we prosecute this soldier it is right to try and prosecute every murderer during the troubles. They have all left misery to victims families.
Yes or no it’s pretty straightforward.
I personally think that terrorists should be prosecuted.
I also, think, actually, I also know that our armed forces have a standard to adhere to.
So the two things are completely unrelated.
We shouldn't prosecute terrorists for revenge, we should prosecute for the crimes they committed.
We shouldn't choose whether we prosecute soldiers, because of what we decide to do with terrorists, we prosecute our people if we think they have broken the law because WE don't agree with them shooting or killing inoccent people.
We should want justice for innoccent people in both cases, but it's not a competition, nick one on one side, balance it with one from the other.
If our soldiers murder people, nail them for it.
The moral side of the argument speaks for itself in relation to murder. I don’t think anyone can hand on heart say the govt. the law or the police have been busting a gut to bring murderers to justice since the GFA was signed .
Why this guy gets special treatment as opposed to a multitude of barbaric behaviour doesn’t smell right.
I accept that's not what you meant but your statement has enough ambiguity in it to be interpreted as what the soldier has done can't be worse than the killing of innocent people.There was no inference at all and I’m a tad puzzled you even drew that conclusion. I’m saying whatever he has done can’t be any worse because there is no worse. Innocents were killed by all sides. This isn’t justifying his action for Christ sake. Work on your comprehension.
That's a different argument.
A bigger one imo would be why he has got away with it for so long, if the evidence is there.
It should go higher, there is no doubt.The moral side of the argument speaks for itself in relation to murder. I don’t think anyone can hand on heart say the govt. the law or the police have been busting a gut to bring murderers to justice since the GFA was signed .
Why this guy gets special treatment as opposed to a multitude of barbaric behaviour doesn’t smell right.