What's new

Angry India tells US 'times have changed' after diplomat spat

LOL, we have here a camel piss desi yankee who acts more yankee thaan a real yankee....at least we earn a living out of a honest day's work compared to the "aid" in exchange to aa drone up your @ss" that you folks are subjected to.
Well, don't get all excited on Cow Juice.....

Your MFN folks are getting 'Probed'!
 
You just said what don't know a thing about what others are saying? = /

I meant the attorney does not know what the US govt. P.R is saying , the P.R does not know what the Attorney is saying . Both are talking two different things make things a whole lot harder for them to justify their act
 
Of course, remove the barricade like threaten the life of US embassy station in India and remind everyone in the US the Libya incident that caused the life of Stevenson Ambassador assigned to Libya.

The Benghazi attack was carried out as an act of revenge for killing Abu Yahya Al-Libi - the second to the leader of Al-Qaida. It was the failure of the decade.

Yet, Mrs. Rice had the audacity to lie that the attack was in retaliation of the low-budget stupid movie.
 



Depend on how Indian want to take it up to another notch by scotching the US embassy and teach US a lesson not to humiliated India.
 
@DesiGuy

She cannot be arrested for breaking US local laws , thats a given , check below
She was a counselor Officer ...

Relevant clause is Article 41 which states,

1. Consular officers shall not be liable to arrest or detention pending trial, except in the case of a grave crime and pursuant to a decision by the competent judicial authority. (Grave crime is usually defined as Murder, Rape, Robbery etc. )

2. Except in the case specified in paragraph 1 of this Article, consular officers shall not be committed to prison or liable to any other form of restriction in their personal freedom save in execution of a judicial decision of final effect.


3. If criminal proceedings are instituted against a consular officer, he must appear before the competent authorities. Nevertheless, the proceedings shall be conducted with the respect due to him by reason of his official position and, except in the case specified in paragraph 1 of this Article, in a manner which will hamper the exercise of consular functions as little as possible.

Article 72 does discuss customarily favored treatment beyond the limits of the Convention. This could be what infuriates Indian officials so much.

privilege that consider exists under Article 72.
 
The Benghazi attack was carried out as an act of revenge for killing Abu Yahya Al-Libi - the second to the leader of Al-Qaida. It was the failure of the decade.

Yet, Mrs. Rice had the audacity to lie that the attack was in retaliation of the low-budget stupid movie.



Situation in Libya was chaotic with no sitting in government and rebel with Al Quida affiliate run wild. US ambassador in a very dangerous situation with many anti US sentiment ran deep in that region.

That you even ask the question...



You make a claim US abuse India diplomat, you need to provide the evidence to prove your point. That why I ask the question.
 
I meant the attorney does not know what the US govt. P.R is saying , the P.R does not know what the Attorney is saying . Both are talking two different things make things a whole lot harder for them to justify their act

Let's wait for a few more days. All what we know is that the Indian diplomat lied while she was filling the application of her nanny.
 
I will when you lay off your camel piss drinking and your goat humping.
I will when you lay off your camel piss drinking and your goat humping.
So you do admit you have a Cow Piss drinking problem!
Curious Stinky Head Shaker, is their Cow Piss Anonymous, similar to alcohol anonymous in your land of 'Open Defecation'?!
 
Back
Top Bottom