-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Why the US wants no part of the ICC
- Thread starter charrison
- Start date
HappyPuppy
Lifer
And I/we should worry about anything Belgium wants/thinks why?
Everybody and their brother is trying to get a photo-op.
As an aside, how do the propose to take Tommy Franks into custody in order to try him?😀 I can just see the Belgium army invading the United States, declaring martial law and taking Franks, stripped naked and hands bound with nylon hand restraints, into custody. This is material for a movie. Oops, the book was written a long time ago.
Everybody and their brother is trying to get a photo-op.
As an aside, how do the propose to take Tommy Franks into custody in order to try him?😀 I can just see the Belgium army invading the United States, declaring martial law and taking Franks, stripped naked and hands bound with nylon hand restraints, into custody. This is material for a movie. Oops, the book was written a long time ago.
BaliBabyDoc
Lifer
Yes but Kissinger deserves it . . . I don't think Franks does.
LilBlinbBlahIce
Golden Member
They can only be arrested if they come to Belgium, that's why there was that big hoo hah when Sharon was (rightfully IMHO) declared a war criminal by a Belgian court.
LilBlinbBlahIce
Golden Member
The Shabra and Shatila massacres of unarmed Palestinian refugees by Lebanese Christian Militants who were let in by the invading Israeli army (who did not intervene to stop the killing). Even an Israeli court found Sharon indirectly responsible in that he knew what could happen and did nothing to prevent it.
LilBlinbBlahIce
Golden Member
I don't know, but it would make sense to try the leaders of the militants, I don't think they could track every single person involved. I have no sympathy for Sharon, his actions in the occupied territories are enough to have him thoroughly investigated for war crimes IMO.
BaliBabyDoc
Lifer
Call them freedom waffles.
LilBlinbBlahIce
Golden Member
LOL!
Corn
Diamond Member
So, essentially what you are saying is that even though Sharon had no direct control over the murderers and that they acted on their own accord, simply because he didn't prevent the murders from happening, the murderers are not responsible, but Sharon is, right?
I expect the chief of police in say, Detroit, to be tried and held responsible for murder. It is a known fact that murder is going to happen, possibly even this very second, but since it is not being prevented, he is responsible and should be tried as a murderer, and the real murderer is not responsible.
LilBlinbBlahIce
Golden Member
Originally posted by: Corn
So, essentially what you are saying is that even though Sharon had no direct control over the murderers and that they acted on their own accord, simply because he didn't prevent the murders from happening, the murderers are not responsible, but Sharon is, right?
I expect the chief of police in say, Detroit, to be tried and held responsible for murder. It is a known fact that murder is going to happen, possibly even this very second, but since it is not being prevented, he is responsible and should be tried as a murderer, and the real murderer is not responsible.
No one said that. The people who purpetrated the crime are directly responsible. An Israeli court found Sharon indirectly responsible. And yes, if the chief of police knew when a murder was going to happen, who was going to commit it, and then allowed his officers to open the gate to the persons house and stand around without intervening, he would be responsible for murder. I think any other court would have found Sharon directly responsible, I don't think the Israeli's were ready to accept that a Jew might be responsible for war crimes.
LilBlinbBlahIce
Golden Member
I was responding to the second part, the part that goes:
So, essentially what you are saying is that even though Sharon had no direct control over the murderers and that they acted on their own accord, simply because he didn't prevent the murders from happening, the murderers are not responsible, but Sharon is, right?
I expect the chief of police in say, Detroit, to be tried and held responsible for murder. It is a known fact that murder is going to happen, possibly even this very second, but since it is not being prevented, he is responsible and should be tried as a murderer, and the real murderer is not responsible.
That's why I quoted it. Maybe you need to polish up on your readig skills. Buy Hooked on Phonics and pull your head out of your ass.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
