"NATO decided that, if it is determined that the attack ... was directed from abroad, it shall be regarded as an action covered by Article 5"
Attacking a diplomat abroad is attacking the origin country. NATO will back Italy. If things escalated to a point, we will nuke India.
My country is US and we are part of NATO and we will stand behind our ally. Attacking diplomatic immunity and holding our ally's diplomat hostage are very serious offense, and if things escalated to that point, we will nuke you. Go ahead, take hostage of that Italian diplomat and we'll see...
He is not under the jurisdiction of your court. Who care about the contempt of your court. Even if he killed all your supreme court judges, he still has diplomatic immunity. That's how diplomatic immunity works. Understand?
Who care about your supreme court. If you disregard the diplomatic immunity and hold the Italian diplomat hostage, we NATO will nuke you back to stone age. There will be no supreme court in India.
Sure, Indian fishermen acting like pirates have every right to go near a ship and the merchant's guards have every right to defend against any threat.
As you claimed there's no record, how do you disapprove those actions didn't happen? You are just twisted words to justify holding the two...
The French diplomat didn't have diplomatic immunity. You fool.
And that episode shows India is a banana republic with **** poor judicial system. That guy was framed by his Indian wife and the whole nation jumped on him. Poor guy.
That's because India feels it's invincible in taking the diplomat hostage. There are consequences to its actions. If things escalated to that point, nuking India is one of the consequences.
The diplomat has just helped the release of two Italian nationals held illegally in Indian jail for over a year. He's done his job nicely. Thank you come again.