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.

At least there’s only 2/3rds of a white house to burn down this time.

And maple syrup to slow down invaders.

I never said I would.

Did you?

Oh, wait, no, look at prole and canadaplus, definitely a collaborator because they didn’t say they weren’t, but they definitely are because they like talking about war crimes and rape so much and are defending Nazis instead of defending Canada.

Now, you are a collaborator and rapist because i said you are.

Literally the original comment of this thread:

I’m gonna give Canada a free pass on any war crimes they commit this time

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.

Not my fucking comment you dimwit.