- Reaction score
- 4,635
- Points
- 1,160
Liberals willing to fight until the last Conservative sort of vibes ….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 ….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.
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 bet they commit a whole bunch of war crimes. They probably won't talk to me about it though.Ask the Ukrainians.
I’d be disappointed if they didn’t. Have we taught them nothing?I bet they commit a whole bunch of war crimes….
I try, lol.This is a deeply unappreciated post.
That rule is applicable to civilians, prisoners, and otherwise hors de combat.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.”
Interesting. I found this on google.That rule is applicable to civilians, prisoners, and otherwise hors de combat.
Yup.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.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?
Every way in which the EU might unbind themselves would also unbind the US. In what way would they "regulate American tech" from afar and reach into the US? Are you proposing a cold turkey scenario where they endure whatever they must lose as a consequence?That harms their economies. Just threaten to let European companies ignore American patents, while regulating American tech tightly and launching anti-trust investigations. The ensuing stock and bond crash that follows the next day will have Republicans themselves calling for impeachment.
Is that actual tangible wealth destroyed, or losses on paper due to prices moving up and down?Maybe, but never estimate European resolve individually. Today the Danish pension fund dumped 100 million in US debt which played a part in over a trillion in US wealth being wiped out
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.
I love this poll.
49% aint badI love this poll.
With Liberals and NDP so willing to fight we should see a large representation of them joining the military. Right?
angusreid.org