who should be prosecuted by the icc

swapna wrote:icc = international criminal court, based in the hague, the netherlands.

should it not, and will it ever prosecute those who routinely, and habitually murder and abuse the human rights of the black people of your country? will the court bring to justice the mayors, the police chiefs, the governors, and the legislators who pass laws that allow the ownership and carrying of guns? is this not state complicity in crimes, many of which are racially motivated?

does your country encourage  and perpetuate a culture of violence by its invasion of foreign countries, and the extrajudicial killings it carries out in those countries? who gave those orders to kill? should that person and his generals not be prosecuted by the icc, no matter what their skin colour? slobodan mlasovic and radko maladic were.

your stance should be uncompromising: that it be illegal for anyone, including police officers to carry or own a gun.

your life is under threat every day.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

swapna wrote:icc = international criminal court, based in the hague, the netherlands.

should it not, and will it ever prosecute those who routinely, and habitually murder and abuse the human rights of the black people of your country? will the court bring to justice the mayors, the police chiefs, the governors, and the legislators who pass laws that allow the ownership and carrying of guns? is this not state complicity in crimes, many of which are racially motivated?

does your country encourage  and perpetuate a culture of violence by its invasion of foreign countries, and the extrajudicial killings it carries out in those countries? who gave those orders to kill? should that person and his generals not be prosecuted by the icc, no matter what their skin colour? slobodan mlasovic and radko maladic were.

your stance should be uncompromising: that it be illegal for anyone, including police officers to carry or own a gun.

your life is under threat every day.

i agree with the intent behind much in your post, but i do not agree with disarming police officers, simply based on ground realities. police officers can only be disarmed after guns, especially semiautomatic weapons, have been significantly eliminated in the general population. that is not going to happen for a very long time (or ever) in the US i am afraid. given that the ownership of guns is sanctioned by the american constitution, and given that we have a democratic form of govt, how do you propose to disarm the general public?

do you really think the ICC has the balls to start prosecuting american government officials? is there ever a history of them undertaking such efforts? they don't even have the balls to prosecute the most egregious state violators of human rights, saudi arabia, let alone western democracies.

garam_kuta wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

swapna wrote:icc = international criminal court, based in the hague, the netherlands.

should it not, and will it ever prosecute those who routinely, and habitually murder and abuse the human rights of the black people of your country? will the court bring to justice the mayors, the police chiefs, the governors, and the legislators who pass laws that allow the ownership and carrying of guns? is this not state complicity in crimes, many of which are racially motivated?

does your country encourage  and perpetuate a culture of violence by its invasion of foreign countries, and the extrajudicial killings it carries out in those countries? who gave those orders to kill? should that person and his generals not be prosecuted by the icc, no matter what their skin colour? slobodan mlasovic and radko maladic were.

your stance should be uncompromising: that it be illegal for anyone, including police officers to carry or own a gun.

your life is under threat every day.

i agree with the intent behind much in your post, but i do not agree with disarming police officers, simply based on ground realities. police officers can only be disarmed after guns, especially semiautomatic weapons, have been significantly eliminated in the general population. that is not going to happen for a very long time (or ever) in the US i am afraid. given that the ownership of guns is sanctioned by the american constitution, and given that we have a democratic form of govt, how do you propose to disarm the general public?

do you really think the ICC has the balls to start prosecuting american government officials? is there ever a history of them undertaking such efforts? they don't even have the balls to prosecute the most egregious state violators of human rights, saudi arabia, let alone western democracies.

just another museum like the UN ?

swapna wrote:

garam_kuta wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

swapna wrote:icc = international criminal court, based in the hague, the netherlands.

should it not, and will it ever prosecute those who routinely, and habitually murder and abuse the human rights of the black people of your country? will the court bring to justice the mayors, the police chiefs, the governors, and the legislators who pass laws that allow the ownership and carrying of guns? is this not state complicity in crimes, many of which are racially motivated?

does your country encourage  and perpetuate a culture of violence by its invasion of foreign countries, and the extrajudicial killings it carries out in those countries? who gave those orders to kill? should that person and his generals not be prosecuted by the icc, no matter what their skin colour? slobodan mlasovic and radko maladic were.

your stance should be uncompromising: that it be illegal for anyone, including police officers to carry or own a gun.

your life is under threat every day.

i agree with the intent behind much in your post, but i do not agree with disarming police officers, simply based on ground realities. police officers can only be disarmed after guns, especially semiautomatic weapons, have been significantly eliminated in the general population. that is not going to happen for a very long time (or ever) in the US i am afraid. given that the ownership of guns is sanctioned by the american constitution, and given that we have a democratic form of govt, how do you propose to disarm the general public?

do you really think the ICC has the balls to start prosecuting american government officials? is there ever a history of them undertaking such efforts? they don't even have the balls to prosecute the most egregious state violators of human rights, saudi arabia, let alone western democracies.

just another museum like the UN ?

sir/madam, do you have no independent opinion? reminder: ask about keith jarrett.

garam_kuta wrote:

swapna wrote:

garam_kuta wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

swapna wrote:icc = international criminal court, based in the hague, the netherlands.

should it not, and will it ever prosecute those who routinely, and habitually murder and abuse the human rights of the black people of your country? will the court bring to justice the mayors, the police chiefs, the governors, and the legislators who pass laws that allow the ownership and carrying of guns? is this not state complicity in crimes, many of which are racially motivated?

does your country encourage  and perpetuate a culture of violence by its invasion of foreign countries, and the extrajudicial killings it carries out in those countries? who gave those orders to kill? should that person and his generals not be prosecuted by the icc, no matter what their skin colour? slobodan mlasovic and radko maladic were.

your stance should be uncompromising: that it be illegal for anyone, including police officers to carry or own a gun.

your life is under threat every day.

i agree with the intent behind much in your post, but i do not agree with disarming police officers, simply based on ground realities. police officers can only be disarmed after guns, especially semiautomatic weapons, have been significantly eliminated in the general population. that is not going to happen for a very long time (or ever) in the US i am afraid. given that the ownership of guns is sanctioned by the american constitution, and given that we have a democratic form of govt, how do you propose to disarm the general public?

do you really think the ICC has the balls to start prosecuting american government officials? is there ever a history of them undertaking such efforts? they don't even have the balls to prosecute the most egregious state violators of human rights, saudi arabia, let alone western democracies.

just another museum like the UN ?

sir/madam, do you have no independent opinion? reminder: ask about keith jarrett.

what am I missing?

garam_kuta wrote:

swapna wrote:

garam_kuta wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

swapna wrote:icc = international criminal court, based in the hague, the netherlands.

should it not, and will it ever prosecute those who routinely, and habitually murder and abuse the human rights of the black people of your country? will the court bring to justice the mayors, the police chiefs, the governors, and the legislators who pass laws that allow the ownership and carrying of guns? is this not state complicity in crimes, many of which are racially motivated?

does your country encourage  and perpetuate a culture of violence by its invasion of foreign countries, and the extrajudicial killings it carries out in those countries? who gave those orders to kill? should that person and his generals not be prosecuted by the icc, no matter what their skin colour? slobodan mlasovic and radko maladic were.

your stance should be uncompromising: that it be illegal for anyone, including police officers to carry or own a gun.

your life is under threat every day.

i agree with the intent behind much in your post, but i do not agree with disarming police officers, simply based on ground realities. police officers can only be disarmed after guns, especially semiautomatic weapons, have been significantly eliminated in the general population. that is not going to happen for a very long time (or ever) in the US i am afraid. given that the ownership of guns is sanctioned by the american constitution, and given that we have a democratic form of govt, how do you propose to disarm the general public?

do you really think the ICC has the balls to start prosecuting american government officials? is there ever a history of them undertaking such efforts? they don't even have the balls to prosecute the most egregious state violators of human rights, saudi arabia, let alone western democracies.

just another museum like the UN ?

sir/madam, do you have no independent opinion? reminder: ask about keith jarrett.

wtf? i thought, and I still think it's my original...rarely I am terse, and this one takes the cake. what am I missing?

btw, you don't like ahmed jamal ? why?

and why keith jarret? why not musiri subramaniyam iyer? or ariyakkudi ramanuja iyengar? or vasantha kokilam, huh?

The ICC has been accused of bias and as being a tool of Western imperialism, only punishing leaders from small, weak states while ignoring crimes committed by richer and more powerful states.[198][199][200] This sentiment has been expressed particularly by African leaders due to an alleged disproportionate focus of the Court on Africa, while it claims to have a global mandate; until January 2016, all nine situations which the ICC had been investigating were in African countries.[201][202]

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

swapna wrote:icc = international criminal court, based in the hague, the netherlands.

should it not, and will it ever prosecute those who routinely, and habitually murder and abuse the human rights of the black people of your country? will the court bring to justice the mayors, the police chiefs, the governors, and the legislators who pass laws that allow the ownership and carrying of guns? is this not state complicity in crimes, many of which are racially motivated?

does your country encourage  and perpetuate a culture of violence by its invasion of foreign countries, and the extrajudicial killings it carries out in those countries? who gave those orders to kill? should that person and his generals not be prosecuted by the icc, no matter what their skin colour? slobodan mlasovic and radko maladic were.

your stance should be uncompromising: that it be illegal for anyone, including police officers to carry or own a gun.

your life is under threat every day.

i agree with the intent behind much in your post, but i do not agree with disarming police officers, simply based on ground realities. police officers can only be disarmed after guns, especially semiautomatic weapons, have been significantly eliminated in the general population. that is not going to happen for a very long time (or ever) in the US i am afraid. given that the ownership of guns is sanctioned by the american constitution, and given that we have a democratic form of govt, how do you propose to disarm the general public?

do you really think the ICC has the balls to start prosecuting american government officials? is there ever a history of them undertaking such efforts? they don't even have the balls to prosecute the most egregious state violators of human rights, saudi arabia, let alone western democracies.

swapna wrote:

garam_kuta wrote:

swapna wrote:

garam_kuta wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

i agree with the intent behind much in your post, but i do not agree with disarming police officers, simply based on ground realities. police officers can only be disarmed after guns, especially semiautomatic weapons, have been significantly eliminated in the general population. that is not going to happen for a very long time (or ever) in the US i am afraid. given that the ownership of guns is sanctioned by the american constitution, and given that we have a democratic form of govt, how do you propose to disarm the general public?

do you really think the ICC has the balls to start prosecuting american government officials? is there ever a history of them undertaking such efforts? they don't even have the balls to prosecute the most egregious state violators of human rights, saudi arabia, let alone western democracies.

just another museum like the UN ?

sir/madam, do you have no independent opinion? reminder: ask about keith jarrett.

what am I missing?

grey cells, testicles.

swapna wrote:
what am I missing?
grey cells, testicles.

garam_kuta wrote:

swapna wrote:
what am I missing?
grey cells, testicles.

what happened? ah, i see...reading those old posts on your senility, sterility and misogyny?

poor sod...so much rage over an unknown indian who has made it here, lived in the upper east, manhattan and in ritzy palo alto -let me complete it for you; before manhattan, I worked downtown new haven but lived off whitney avenue.

Now, I am not surprised at all at your contempt and loathing; infact, it's  expected of any joe blow on the street who had all the entitlements back home by exploiting the minority status*, but having miserably failed here, deeply disappointed/betrayed by the family of personal expectations, now living in denial, with only hostility and hatred, anxious about the next monthly check from uncle sam... aiyO paavam da

*but cleverly managed to blend in socially with a hindu name