At least there’s only 2/3rds of a white house to burn down this time.
I hope we don’t burn it down, it’s such a pretty building. It’s already been damaged enough by the megalomaniac.
I’d be OK if we just turned it into a Spirit Halloween for a season or something.
I wouldn’t put it past them to decide fuses are “woke” or some shit and it burns down on its own.
I mean, the burning of the Whitehouse was before the east wing was built in the first place.
I’m gonna give Canada a free pass on any war crimes they commit this time
Oh boy, here I go war criming again.
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.
Canadians dusting off the old checklist.
That checklist is due for an update.
I’m working on mine. It oddly has more nipple torture than our previous list.
War crimes aren’t cool, it doesn’t matter how mad we all are.
It’s awful that this is so upvoted.
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 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.
When did it stop being the British Empire?
Like, I’ll agree that it did, but it wasn’t before WWII. The Union Jack flew long after that, and many of the shitty domestic practices stayed too - just ask anyone Native.
If we’re saying yay rape or torture, that’s bad and dumb. If they’re saying yay kill the POWs, that’s also bad and dumb. Again, I’ll let people be their own judge.
New war crimes are added every time Canada is tested so yeah we will be fine about those old ones.
Canada, getting ready to invade, has amassed 90% of its population along its border with the United States. The longest unprotected border in the world.
They have a threatening lead on zamboni technology!
-Candian Bacon movie
“surrender pronto, or we bomb Toronto”
deleted by creator
That only works if said by someone who isn’t from the area.
deleted by creator
:: Flashbacks of the Boston Molasses Disaster ::
i can’t find this one on my bingo card
anyone else have it
Canada is a member of nato
So if a nato country is attacked…
Oof. Imagine Article 4’ing yourself.
tRump wanted out of nato, imagine taking the stupidity route out…
That’s the only route Trump knows.
Fair point
I think this is the speech in which he stated his support for NATO and Greenland.
If we’re talking 2026 bingo, I updated my card and this was on it
Europe, Canada, and Latin America against US.
US, Russia and Israel. Rest of the world will also (have to) take sides. Only China will stay neutral until it turns the tides at some point being the big winner of it all (similar to the US in WWII).
As a general rule if you see a headline from the Express you can assume it to be at best tangentially connected to reality.
Suspicious old me, I have to wonder, did Prime Minister Mark Carney know a head of time that if he sent any Military personnel to Greenland, Trump would impose another 25 percent tariff on Canada, like Trump is threatened to do with the four other countries that did? Canada did not send any soldiers to Greenland as a sign of solidarity, as I thought he would have. I wonder why?
Is it a threat to another country if you move your military further away from your border with them?
deleted by creator
did Prime Minister Mark Carney know a head of time that if he sent any Military personnel to Greenland, Trump would impose another 25 percent tariff on Canada,
I don’t think Trump’s tariffs on his country’s imports are as effective a threat as Trump thinks they are.
It would be terribly funny if now China and Russia step in to defend as well
It’s probably in their best interest to get the US to waste as much resources as possible there.
The Kremlin has already declared its support for US annexation of Greenland. Russia already knows the US has military bases in Greenland and both are NATO countries. Russia benefits more from the NATO collapse that would follow so they can freely swing at Europe.
This is the same “we stand with both” type of speech, just with an exaggerated tabloid interpretation.
Oh my God, could this be any worse?
The Americans (government) could stop this at any moment if they choose to.
All the troops will refuse illegal order, duh!
^is this needed? /s^
Hey, I’ve seen this one!
Oh yeah, let me try…hold on…nope, can’t.
Yes.
But also, headline is misleading.
deleted by creator
