The implication being that her “candies” violate international treaties regarding warfare. Probably not because they are explosives, but because they are explosives designed to look like candy.
Although most of Sue’s inventions would probably violate at least one of the Geneva Conventions in terms of “extensive destruction and appropriation of property not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly”, disguising a weapon as candy would carry the additional risk of the weapon being mistaken for candy and eaten.
I think you mean “confectional warfare.”
Who’s Geneva again? I think those candies are bombs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions
The implication being that her “candies” violate international treaties regarding warfare. Probably not because they are explosives, but because they are explosives designed to look like candy.
Although most of Sue’s inventions would probably violate at least one of the Geneva Conventions in terms of “extensive destruction and appropriation of property not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly”, disguising a weapon as candy would carry the additional risk of the weapon being mistaken for candy and eaten.
Sorry, I thought I was replying to you.
Wow, that’s a pretty obscure reference, I’m impressed.
Hey Dave, I think you missed an “Un” in “Conventional”