Relatives of the pashas, who were sentenced to prison because of the February 28 trial, continue to make interesting statements.
Relatives of the pashas who were imprisoned say that "a distinction should be made" between the "28 February period" and the "28 February trial".
The relatives of the pashas, who were put in prison, first make a terrific confession. They say:
The period of February 28 is a troubled period in which grievances are experienced!
Yes, they admit that February 28 was a problematic period in which grievances were experienced.
Immediately afterwards, they claim that the bill of this period was issued to a few people by ignoring the rules of law.
It is possible to deduce from this confession that much more people should be punished than in the February 28 trial.
The claim that only a few people were "punished" is not a reasonable and logical claim.
Are the people defined as a few people who have nothing to do with February 28? Not of course!
Those who were punished are, so to speak, the names in charge.
In other words, those who direct the people under them by order and command so that many people become victims.
It is not possible to accept the accusation that the invoice was issued to only a few people due to this situation, which can be defined as the "chain of command".
Since February 28 is admitted to be a problematic period in which grievances are experienced, then shouldn't they also oppose the punishments given to those who caused these grievances?
If the names in the top row of the command level who were punished today had been punished without punishment, such an objection could have been justified.
But it is obvious that it would not be a logical approach to claim that the rules of law were not violated when those in charge of the water were punished!
Can the relatives of the pashas who were punished for the grievances they inflicted on February 28 say that there was no victimization?
They can't tell. They both admit the victimization and oppose the punishments given to the names who caused these grievances.
The views that a distinction should be made between the 28 February period and the 28 February case are also considered as an unsubstantiated opinion.
He stands before us.
We do not understand how it is desirable to distinguish between subjects that are complementary to each other!
And they say "it is necessary to make a distinction", have a heart!