LifeInMultipleChoice

Almost like someone would say they booby trapped the devices. The intent was clear as you stated.

So would you classify them as an improvised explosive device instead? That the department of homeland security says are used by "criminals, vandals, terrorists, suicide bombers, and insurgents"

That wouldn't be a good look either

"stress that booby-traps associated with objects in normal civilian daily use are prohibited, and that booby-traps must not be used in association with protected persons, protected objects (such as medical supplies, gravesites and cultural or religious property) or internationally recognized protective emblems or signs (such as the red cross and red crescent).[3] Several manuals further specify that booby-traps must not be used in connection with certain objects likely to attract civilians, such as children’s toys."

A cell phone is a normal civil daily use item and would attract use by civilians.

This specifically would come from Rule 80, pertaining to booby traps. https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule80

The disguising of a military weapons in the form of common civilian used equipment to trick your opponent is a war crime.

It was a war crime in 2008 when a bomb was disguised as a spare tire in an SUV used to kill the head of Hezbollah’s international operations, whether we agree the target needed to be taken out or not. A drone strike would be "lawful" a car bomb is not.

A cell phone is common civilian equipment. This isn't "whatever I think."

Thank you!

Thank you kind soul. May the road always rise up to meet you

I was a war crime, I can't find any way to even debate it not being.

I imagine costs would be the main thing driving down consumption if anything. Until we subsidize alternatives like we do meat, and the prices of meat alternatives are cheaper, people will have incentives to eat real meat.

It would cost us less to subsidize them long term, and it would lower costs of meat... And help the environment. Wins all around, yet people will vote blindly against it.

I didn't see what he said, I should hunt myself but can someone re-recommend a way I can see said footage without going on Twitter. If not, I'll pass on giving their advertisement companies views

I imagine they would just arrest him and hand him over for protection. Any member who allowed it would be breaking their oath and supporting an enemy of the state at that point would they not?

Edit: I meant prosecution, not protection, but apparently people understood

Yeah, the article specified they didn't want to shut down NOAA but split it up and commercialize it. We know they want that because for profit companies will put profits over all else.