• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

2026 US-Denmark Tensions/End of NATO

Again, that is why we placed the Iroquois where we did. Once the call goes out to them, they'll shut down the convoy before it gets 25km from the border. Deseronto hitting them in their western flank and Akwesasne in the center. Then those in Kahnawke will cross the border south of them and capture an empty Fort Drum from the rear. Game over.

This is a deeply unappreciated post.
 
My social media pages are ready for any and all possibilities in stands of solidarity for those who will fight and die on my behalf - Canadians.
Liberals willing to fight until the last Conservative sort of vibes ….
 
Why would it be a war crime? There’s no law of war against showing photos or videos or active combat. Now, prisoners of war are supposed to have some protection “from insults and public curiosity”. How that’s defined in modern times is not super clear. But nothing prohibits the broadcasting of combat footage.

I figured using incendiary weapons to burn people to death and livestreaming it to a target audience would be considered committing “Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment.”
 
I figured using incendiary weapons to burn people to death and livestreaming it to a target audience would be considered committing “Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment.”
That rule is applicable to civilians, prisoners, and otherwise hors de combat.
 
That rule is applicable to civilians, prisoners, and otherwise hors de combat.
Interesting. I found this on google.

Protocol I, Article 35(2)
It is prohibited to employ weapons, projectiles, or methods of warfare that cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering.

Does that mean we can technically employ weapons, projectiles, or methods of warfare that cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering against combatants, and record it to broad cast to their citizens?
 
Interesting. I found this on google.

Protocol I, Article 35(2)
It is prohibited to employ weapons, projectiles, or methods of warfare that cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering.

Does that mean we can technically employ weapons, projectiles, or methods of warfare that cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering against combatants, and record it to broad cast to their citizens?
Yup.

Welcome to 2026
 
Interesting. I found this on google.

Protocol I, Article 35(2)
It is prohibited to employ weapons, projectiles, or methods of warfare that cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering.

Does that mean we can technically employ weapons, projectiles, or methods of warfare that cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering against combatants, and record it to broad cast to their citizens?
You’d have to argue the suffering is “superfluous” or “unnecessary” rather than a shitty inevitable result of a weapon functioning as it necessarily must.

Historically this is where you see the prohibitions on expanding rounds, because this is based on the old Dum-Dum bullets that would cause ludicrously grievous wounds. Other examples include exploding bullets against personnel, poison, lots of ugly stuff. Incendiaries broadly have been argued to fall into this by some, but there’s no apparent consensus on that.

ICRC has a really great database on the customary and statutory international humanitarian laws; here’s the section on this one. https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule70
 
You’re making my point. I too think the Americans should make concessions to prevent further harm.
Theres only so much room in the garages of our 15 minute cities and rural barns to store abandoned Bradley’s and Abrams.
 
Back
Top