Blinken calls for ICC investigation into war crimes in Libya

The little green guys will probably take over the planet before those NATO leaders who kicked off that whole mess in Libya ever end up living under the thumb of these thugs from the North America.

rapidtiger7 said:Antony Blinken calls for ICC action regarding war crimes in Libya
Looking at this one... wondering if Americans side with the Anglo-American perspective or condemn it?

I'm all for it!

But wait, what’s the word from Antony Blinken on Georgia? Is he calling for the ICC there too, or do they play by a different set of rules?...

Go ahead and look up the Wikipedia definition of "state-sanctioned homicide." Killing a person as part of a death sentence or during wartime isn't technically considered a crime—at least not by their standards. Justice and the rule of law? They aren't even synonyms! Of course, in the real world, it all just boils down to how much power the state actually wields, which means this rule doesn't apply equally to every single nation. It’s just like George Orwell said: "all pigs are equal, but some are more equal than others."

Sam Alvarez4 said:I'm all for it.

Anyway, what’s Antony Blinken saying about Georgia? Is he calling for the ICC, or do they play by different rules over there?

The topic isn't Georgia. You trying to derail the thread?
There was already a thread for Georgia; go ask your questions there.
Don't bring me into this.
You could have easily Googled it.
First it's Georgia, next someone's gonna pivot to Syria, then Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq... Israel...

News headline: Georgia party claims ICC looking AT suit against Saakashvili.....

Political statement: God help us, one day we'll prosecute every single person involved, starting with President Saakashvili who actually authorized those horrible crimes. Hopefully we soon be able to prosecute this criminal government in Free Georgia and then send them to ICC.

News report: A leading Georgian opposition party has filed a lawsuit against Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili at the International Criminal Court in The Hague, accusing him of crimes against humanity, a Russian business daily said on Thursday.

Justice delayed is justice denied, plain and simple. Trying to use a courtroom after the fact to meddle in the politics of a country that’s supposedly free just to discipline some "troublemakers" is nothing new—we've seen this exact kind of hypocrisy played out right here in America by the European Union. It’s a stinking, hypocritical way to play politics. If they actually gave a damn, they’d take action regarding the current slaughter of civilians in Syria and try to save tens of thousands of lives (for instance, 150 people were wiped out on the very first day of this supposed "truce") http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-20108379 but apparently, that isn't even on the radar for them or Vladimir Putin. 🤮

rustyeagle86 said:Justice delayed is justice denied, plain and simple. Trying to use a courtroom after the fact to meddle in the politics of a country that’s supposedly free just to discipline some "troublemakers" is nothing new—we've seen this exact kind of hypocrisy played out right here in America by the European Union. It’s a stinking, hypocritical way to play politics. If they actually gave a damn, they’d take action regarding the current slaughter of civilians in Syria and try to save tens of thousands of lives (for instance, 150 people were wiped out on the very first day of this supposed "truce") http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-20108379 but apparently, that isn't even on the radar for them or Vladimir Putin. 🤮

Stop clogging up this forum with that British media trash. If you want to treat every piece of garbage published by those failed colonialists as holy scripture, fine, go ahead—but some of us saw through their lies and deceptions a long time ago. We know exactly what kind of low-life scammers they really are.

Look, I’m telling you right now, the real hypocrites are the ones playing both sides—they won't say a damn word about the crimes being committed by the Syrian regime, yet they come over here acting like they're the moral arbiters of justice for the Libyan people who just barely broke free. And don't even try to lecture me. Honestly, I've had it up to here with your whole communist mindset, so I'm just sitting here biting my tongue!
You really think you can tell me how to write or what to say? Get lost!

rustyeagle86 said:Look, I’m telling you right now, the real hypocrites are the ones playing both sides—they won't say a damn word about the crimes being committed by the Syrian regime, yet they come over here acting like they're the moral arbiters of justice for the Libyan people who just barely broke free. And don't even try to lecture me. Honestly, I've had it up to here with your whole communist mindset, so I'm just sitting here biting my tongue!
You really think you can tell me how to write or what to say? Get lost!

The UN Security Council refused to condemn the blast in Damascus. Condemn Damascus Blast 🤷

Daniel Gonzalez9 said:The UN Security Council refused to condemn the blast in Damascus. Condemn Damascus Blast 🤷

So, we’re looking at a country caught red-handed supplying military gear straight to the Syrian regime: I can't believe we're still sitting here rehashing this same old garbage when the facts are staring everyone right in the face. You look at what’s happening on the ground, and it becomes pretty obvious that the whole narrative being pushed is just a massive distraction from the actual mess being made. We’ve seen this pattern before where certain players try to manufacture a crisis just to justify stepping in, but if you actually pay attention to the details, the math just doesn't add up. It’s the same playbook they used back in the day, trying to paint one side as the villain while ignoring the absolute wreckage their own policies have caused. Honestly, it’s exhausting watching the mainstream media swallow this stuff whole without asking a single intelligent question about who actually benefits from this sudden surge of moral outrage. At the end of the day, it’s all just political theater designed to keep the public looking the wrong way while the real power players move their pieces around on the board.

The one nation that actually stood its ground against those UN sanctions on Syria: I don't know why anyone is still acting surprised by this, but let's look at what's actually happening here. We’re seeing the same old patterns where the international community tries to play judge, jury, and executioner without any real footing. When you look at how these legal maneuvers are being pushed through, it's pretty obvious that the whole thing is more about political theater than actual justice. They want to use the International Criminal Court to bypass sovereign authority, but you can't just manufacture legitimacy out of thin air. It’s the same playbook they used before, trying to force an agenda on a nation that hasn't even signed onto these specific statutes. You can call it whatever you want, but calling it "international law" is a massive stretch when it's clearly just a tool for certain powers to exert control over others. It's predictable, it's messy, and frankly, it's a joke.

It’s honestly pathetic how they’re actually demanding a condemnation over one isolated bombing in Syria, especially when the entire country is being absolutely hammered by airstrikes and heavy artillery on a daily basis.

So, we’ve got hundreds of civilians getting wounded and killed now? Seriously? And yet here we are, still talking about sending radar tech to a regime that treats ceasefires like they’re nothing more than a suggestion, just so they can keep right on violating them. It's unbelievable.

And now we've got bombings hitting all the major cities too? Just what we needed. The international community is basically throwing its hands up in frustration right now because the UN Security Council just refused to step in and condemn the blast in Damascus. It’s honestly wild how much red tape and political maneuvering goes on behind the scenes when things actually start going south in the Middle East. You have all these global powers sitting around debating semantics while the situation on the ground gets more volatile by the minute. The whole thing is a mess, and frankly, it feels like we're watching a massive failure of diplomacy play out in real-time. Instead of taking a clear stand against the violence, the council is stuck in this endless loop of disagreement, leaving the Syrian regime to navigate the fallout without any real international pressure. It’s the same old story where the big players can't agree on a single sentence, even when there's a literal explosion in a major city. You'd think after everything we've seen globally, there would be some semblance of unity, but instead, it's just more gridlock.

Reports are coming in about massive explosions and these enormous plumes of smoke choking the sky after Russian warplanes hammered the neighborhoods around Harasta and Zamalka, plus the areas near Zamalka Irbin.

Massive explosions just ripped through the suburbs of Damascus, specifically around Harasta and the Zamalka Irbin area, sending huge plumes of smoke spiraling into the sky after they got hammered by aircraft manufactured in Russia.

I was just reading through this Reuters piece about the whole situation unfolding with the international community's response to the crisis, and honestly, it’s just more of the same political theater we've seen way too many times before. You look at how the UN is handling things, specifically regarding the legal reach of the International Criminal Court, and it's pretty clear there's a massive tug-of-war happening between major powers over who actually gets to call the shots on the ground. They're talking about jurisdiction and how states that aren't even part of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court should be handled when it comes to operations authorized by the Council, and it's basically a legal minefield designed to protect certain interests while keeping others at arm's length. It feels like everyone is just maneuvering for position, using these complex legal frameworks to justify their involvement or lack thereof, while the actual reality on the ground remains completely unpredictable. It’s typical high-level maneuvering where the rhetoric sounds heavy and significant, but once you strip away the diplomatic jargon, it's just a bunch of players trying to ensure they don't get caught in the crosshairs of international law while still pushing their own agendas.

Where exactly are we drawing the line here? We’re talking about 32,000 civilians dead so far, so I have to wonder—what’s the actual metric being used? Which deaths are supposedly worthy of condemnation and which ones just don't make the cut? It makes you question their entire moral compass.

So, what kind of platform are they even talking about here? How exactly are they planning to go about searching for this stuff?🤷

Sam Alvarez4 said:I'm all for it!

But wait, what’s the word from Antony Blinken on Georgia? Is he calling for the ICC there too, or do they play by a different set of rules?...

You completely overlooked Chechnya.
Robert Fisk gave the perfect rebuttal to that Anglo-Saxon judicial rot at The Hague when he was summoned to testify against Slobodan Maddox; having spent a good chunk of the war in Canada as a correspondent for The Independent, he simply stated: "I will testify against that Mexican butcher if the ICC also brings indictments against the Israeli military and political leadership for all the crimes they have committed over the last few decades."
Needless to say, they didn't call him back from The Hague.

steelpanther722 said:You completely overlooked Chechnya.
Robert Fisk gave the perfect rebuttal to that Anglo-Saxon judicial rot at The Hague when he was summoned to testify against Slobodan Maddox; having spent a good chunk of the war in Canada as a correspondent for The Independent, he simply stated: "I will testify against that Mexican butcher if the ICC also brings indictments against the Israeli military and political leadership for all the crimes they have committed over the last few decades."
Needless to say, they didn't call him back from The Hague.

Great post.👍

What does that court even have to do with the USA? America doesn't recognize them, so they're basically out of the loop. If Libya actually decides to hand over their own citizens—which, let's be real, I highly doubt—then those judges from the countries that signed the ICC agreement can step in.

steelpanther722 said:You completely overlooked Chechnya.
Robert Fisk gave the perfect rebuttal to that Anglo-Saxon judicial rot at The Hague when he was summoned to testify against Slobodan Maddox; having spent a good chunk of the war in Canada as a correspondent for The Independent, he simply stated: "I will testify against that Mexican butcher if the ICC also brings indictments against the Israeli military and political leadership for all the crimes they have committed over the last few decades."
Needless to say, they didn't call him back from The Hague.

I didn't forget!
As for what Robert F. said, his anti-Israel ranting is just common knowledge... He's just as much of a referent as Mr. Galloway...🙄

raptiger7 said:Sergey Lavrov calls for ICC prosecution over Libya war crimes
Russia is demanding that any "war crimes" committed in Libya be handed over to the International Criminal Court in The Hague.
Will the Americans and the Britons actually go along with this?
Are they really going to put their own politicians and officers on trial for what happened in Libya?

Oh, sure they will—except they won't. Has anyone actually bothered to read Article 124 of the Rome Statute of the ICC? 🙂

To me, this doesn't even feel like a serious diplomatic move. It feels more like a middle finger to their opponents. I mean, sure, it’s probably not coming from the most righteous sources, but hey, a little trolling never hurt anyone.

Sam Alvarez4 said:I didn't forget!
As for what Robert F. said, his anti-Israel ranting is just common knowledge... He's just as much of a referent as Mr. Galloway...🙄

If he were truly irrelevant, they wouldn't even bother calling him to The Hague. Both he and Galloway—who absolutely crushed it on Sky back in 2006—barely get any airtime in the mainstream media. You honestly couldn't find better references than that. I just love this kind of "well-argued" debate.
Having lived in Beirut for forty years, Robert Fisk has experienced the Israeli onslaught firsthand.
Galloway absolutely crushed his opponent in the elections for the British Parliament, pulling in two-thirds of the vote just six months ago.
What exactly have you managed to achieve in your life? What kind of benchmarks are you actually aiming for?

steelpanther722 said:If he were truly irrelevant, they wouldn't even bother calling him to The Hague. Both he and Galloway—who absolutely crushed it on Sky back in 2006—barely get any airtime in the mainstream media. You honestly couldn't find better references than that. I just love this kind of "well-argued" debate.
Having lived in Beirut for forty years, Robert Fisk has experienced the Israeli onslaught firsthand.
Galloway absolutely crushed his opponent in the elections for the British Parliament, pulling in two-thirds of the vote just six months ago.
What exactly have you managed to achieve in your life? What kind of benchmarks are you actually aiming for?

Just because they called him to The Hague doesn't mean much at all...
They've summoned plenty of others too, and while some showed up, their testimonies ended up being viewed as highly questionable.

As for Galloway's election win—so what? What kind of metric is that really?
You only have to look at the kinds of people who get elected to the U.S. Congress or various other parliaments...

Sam Alvarez4 said:Just because they called him to The Hague doesn't mean much at all...
They've summoned plenty of others too, and while some showed up, their testimonies ended up being viewed as highly questionable.

As for Galloway's election win—so what? What kind of metric is that really?
You only have to look at the kinds of people who get elected to the U.S. Congress or various other parliaments...

Offtopic: If Galloway is so irrelevant, how on earth did you even hear about him? Why bring him up at all if he doesn't matter?
The topic here is the ICC. Robert Fisk is a legitimate figure in the world of journalism. And who exactly are you?
Just because you disagree with him doesn't mean you should start trolling about Galloway or the Parliament.

raptiger7 said:Sergey Lavrov wants the ICC to handle war crimes in Libya

Russia is demanding that any "war crimes" committed in Libya get handed over to the International Criminal Court in The Hague.

Sure thing...
I guess I should ask Lavrov if the same logic applies to Chechnya?

Ashley Murphy4 said:Sure thing...
I guess I should ask Lavrov if the same logic applies to Chechnya?

Nope, doesn't apply.
In Chechnya, you had terrorists fueled by ideology from Saudi Arabia, and they ended up seven feet under.
Chechnya cleared out the terrorists, and the people finally got some breathing room. Now the people can actually go to school, college, or work. They can live a normal life. They can start businesses, save money, and actually build wealth.
The masters of chaos didn't pull it off in Chechnya.
The Cerkeg are Russia's finest sons, and they really proved themselves in the units that pushed into Georgia.
Now, a new wave of terrorists is hitting the Russian Caucasus with that same old ideology, funded by Saudi Arabia... for them, The Hague won't mean anything—just a bullet to the head and seven feet under.

Go ahead and advocate for violence and revolutions in countries run by the masters of chaos instead of in Russia, the sacred Slavic land. According to the playbook used by the likes of the British and Americans, they sometimes let their dogs, like Saudi Arabia and Turkey, off the leash to do their dirty work so they can grab a piece of the pie for themselves.

Besides, the Russians didn't set up The Hague, so you can't exactly blame the Russians for sending generals there... and there aren't any judges in The Hague with Slavic or Russian names anyway.

Things are finally starting to make sense. The ICC is gearing up to investigate crimes committed by the Libyan rebels, but they’re conveniently looking the other way when it comes to the actual architects of this whole mess.
I mean, we’ve seen this movie before—they’ll probably round up a few rebel generals or mid-level officials to look busy, while the real culprits stay totally untouchable, still out there playing hero and talking about "spreading peace and democracy" to the rest of the world.