Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Angry
Marty, You'd do well to read the overview of the findings again. Here is David Camerons speech.
It makes no reference to any "probability of Martin McGuinness supplying detonators for nail bombs on the day of the march...".
What David Cameron does say (quoting the report findings) is "In each case, the findings are clear. It does the same for Martin McGuinness. It specifically finds he was present and probably armed with a sub-machine gun but it concludes, and I quote, "we're sure that he did not engage in any activity that provided any of the soldiers with any justification for opening fire".
Yes, the day did "end badly". Innocent civilians were gunned down in cold blood by members of the British army. Whilst you may wish to argue the contrary your Prime Minister stated "There is no doubt, there is nothing equivocal, there are no ambiguities. What happened on Bloody Sunday was both unjustified and unjustifiable. It was wrong".
You appear to be prepared to attempt to somehow excuse or defend the actions of the soldiers on that day. David Cameron takes a very different view whereby he states unequivocally "You do not defend the British Army by defending the indefensible".
Wise words indeed. |
Which is exactly what i said in response to your statement of "which intentions" ,i think that answers your question .The IRA had every intention of turning that day into a very bad day for British troops and civilians ,the problem was that the soldiers being on edge,nervous ,scared or whatever opened fire first ,and yes i will defend the actions of the soldiers up to a point ,the same as you seem prepared to defend people fully prepared to blow the crap out of the soldiers
---------- Post added at 13:23 ---------- Previous post was at 13:06 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by tizmeinnit
I do not either but the law of the land sees it differently and we all have to abide by the law of the land or suffer the consequences whether you agree with them or not. Why should this man get preferential treatment? he should not imo
|
Marine A is not getting preferential treatment ,he has been court martialled for murder and found guilty .However his sentencing should bear in mind any extenuating circumstances the same as any sentencing in civvy would .War is a unique environment and comparing it to civvy street is ridiculous ,in some cases committing a relatively minor offence like theft will get you hard jail time because you wear a uniform instead of community service or a slap on the wrist because you wear a hoodie,do you think that fair