We are quite good at them. We’re historically unstoppable when we get let loose against fascists and will do anything we can think of to be as mean as possible.
You’re going to have a hard time convincing Canadians living in an occupied country, whose main weapon is being able to hide in plain sight and deceive the enemy, or hop over the border and enact retribution on soft targets, that they must fight fair and just allow themselves to be occupied by the stronger aggressor.
Some war crimes like perfidy and indiscriminate killing will definitely happen in such a situation, and understandably so.
Ah yes, indiscriminate killing of civilians, a famously effective policy that’s going great for Russia right now. Legitimately valuable tactics tend not to be named atrocities in the first place. Only senseless acts of cruelty that make you the bad guy.
Now, if somebody wants to defend the indefensible a third time, you could say, like, guerillas aren’t going to wear uniforms and that’s technically a war crime itself. Sure, but it’s only coming out in a hypothetical future comment because “use of a marked minefield in a graveyard in contravention of article 7, subsection 1c” wasn’t what OP meant, and we all know it. OP meant rape and torture and smashing babies against trees. Maybe just one of the three, or maybe the works.
Yeah, sure, in the event of a US military invasion and occupation, feel free to climb onto the moral high ground and explain to Canadians, who are oppressed and victimized daily by enemy forces, why they should fight back only by the agreed rules laid down by state actors.
I suspect OP meant the kinds of things that Canada was accused of in past wars - like perfidy and murdering POWs - and not, in fact, raping and smashing babies into trees, or whatever the fuck else you’ve decided to imagine they meant. You know, the things that were historically attributed to Canadian troops, which you might know, if you actually based any of your opinion on actual historical fact.
The trees thing was Cambodia of course. Rape and torture were all kinds of people, including The British Empire (AKA Canada).
I’ll let readers decide what what was obviously meant. I’m not sure killing in “creative” ways from further down can be twisted into something more generous, regardless of how much you try.
When people make this comment about Canada and the Geneva Conventions they are referring primarily to Canada’s conduct in WW1 and WW2, and in particular their treatment of POWs (i.e. killing POWs). There may also be reference to events like Canadian soldiers switching cans of food thrown to German soldiers with explosives.
Canada has had other incidents, particularly in Somalia with the airborne, who were disbanded.
These are facts that can be discovered with a little research. The other things you mentioned are things that you may wish to associate with Canada, but unfortunately for you Canada’s war crimes typically involve treatment of POWs and perfidy, not rape and ‘smashing babies against trees’.
And associating Canada to the British Empire is a pretty hamfisted way to try to implicate Canada in the colonial and imperial adventures of the British Empire that spans centuries and predates her.
It’s very explicit that you don’t have to agree with the rules of war, nor do your opponents, for them to exist and apply. You think the people currently jailed in the Hague were fighting in otherwise-clean wars?
I shine the light where there’s roaches, basically.
None of what you’re saying is original, and past generations of people like you are the reason the blanket prohibitions on genocide, sexual violence and torture had to be committed to paper. Why would I choose to water that down? I pick the thing you don’t want said out loud.
Edit, since you did: Except killing isn’t a war crime, which is what this conversation is about.
I’m gonna give Canada a free pass on any war crimes they commit this time
Canadians dusting off the old checklist.
Geneva Suggestions.
Remember, it’s not a war crime the first time!
“Geneva Conventions” really can interpreted two ways.
That checklist is due for an update.
I’m working on mine. It oddly has more nipple torture than our previous list.
Nipple Torture with beavers?
Canada Geese
Oh boy, here I go war criming again.
New war crimes are added every time Canada is tested so yeah we will be fine about those old ones.
We are quite good at them. We’re historically unstoppable when we get let loose against fascists and will do anything we can think of to be as mean as possible.
War crimes aren’t cool, it doesn’t matter how mad we all are.
It’s awful that this is so upvoted.
You’re going to have a hard time convincing Canadians living in an occupied country, whose main weapon is being able to hide in plain sight and deceive the enemy, or hop over the border and enact retribution on soft targets, that they must fight fair and just allow themselves to be occupied by the stronger aggressor.
Some war crimes like perfidy and indiscriminate killing will definitely happen in such a situation, and understandably so.
Ah yes, indiscriminate killing of civilians, a famously effective policy that’s going great for Russia right now. Legitimately valuable tactics tend not to be named atrocities in the first place. Only senseless acts of cruelty that make you the bad guy.
Now, if somebody wants to defend the indefensible a third time, you could say, like, guerillas aren’t going to wear uniforms and that’s technically a war crime itself. Sure, but it’s only coming out in a hypothetical future comment because “use of a marked minefield in a graveyard in contravention of article 7, subsection 1c” wasn’t what OP meant, and we all know it. OP meant rape and torture and smashing babies against trees. Maybe just one of the three, or maybe the works.
Yeah, sure, in the event of a US military invasion and occupation, feel free to climb onto the moral high ground and explain to Canadians, who are oppressed and victimized daily by enemy forces, why they should fight back only by the agreed rules laid down by state actors.
I suspect OP meant the kinds of things that Canada was accused of in past wars - like perfidy and murdering POWs - and not, in fact, raping and smashing babies into trees, or whatever the fuck else you’ve decided to imagine they meant. You know, the things that were historically attributed to Canadian troops, which you might know, if you actually based any of your opinion on actual historical fact.
The trees thing was Cambodia of course. Rape and torture were all kinds of people, including The British Empire (AKA Canada).
I’ll let readers decide what what was obviously meant. I’m not sure killing in “creative” ways from further down can be twisted into something more generous, regardless of how much you try.
When people make this comment about Canada and the Geneva Conventions they are referring primarily to Canada’s conduct in WW1 and WW2, and in particular their treatment of POWs (i.e. killing POWs). There may also be reference to events like Canadian soldiers switching cans of food thrown to German soldiers with explosives.
Canada has had other incidents, particularly in Somalia with the airborne, who were disbanded.
These are facts that can be discovered with a little research. The other things you mentioned are things that you may wish to associate with Canada, but unfortunately for you Canada’s war crimes typically involve treatment of POWs and perfidy, not rape and ‘smashing babies against trees’.
And associating Canada to the British Empire is a pretty hamfisted way to try to implicate Canada in the colonial and imperial adventures of the British Empire that spans centuries and predates her.
It’s OK.
The regime doesn’t recognize international laws.
So, we play Calvin ball.
It’s very explicit that you don’t have to agree with the rules of war, nor do your opponents, for them to exist and apply. You think the people currently jailed in the Hague were fighting in otherwise-clean wars?
If you rape an American, you’re just a rapist.
but the us doesn’t recognise the icc.
Neither does [insert African dictatorship].
No rape.
But creatively ending lives of Nazi invaders.
If I kill an American I’m a murderer.
If I kill a Nazi, no I didn’t.
Oh, “creative”, huh. Rape can be a form of torture. It’s the exact same sick, sadistic thing.
Why u so obsessed with rape? Jfc.
I never mentioned anything to suggest rape at all and you’re all like, oh, rape rape, rapey rape.
Wtf.
I just gonna kill some fucking nazis. Without fulfilling your sexual fantasy or trauma or whatever the fuck you’re on about of Nazi war crime rape.
OK?
I shine the light where there’s roaches, basically.
None of what you’re saying is original, and past generations of people like you are the reason the blanket prohibitions on genocide, sexual violence and torture had to be committed to paper. Why would I choose to water that down? I pick the thing you don’t want said out loud.
Edit, since you did: Except killing isn’t a war crime, which is what this conversation is about.
You’re fucked.
I never mentioned anything you said
You’re the one inferring something I never implied.
Shine that light on yourself.
Maybe you’ll find something in there.
Now, go play nice with Hitler.