Anyone who watch his stuff can give a review on how accurate his predications have been?
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (19)
sorted by:
Doesn't really make sense to me. You have to read Section 11 in its totality. It's about Military Occupation generally, and with respect to this situation, belligerent occupation of an enemy state. Geneva Convention stuff.. Starts at around 796 of this pdf:
https://dod.defense.gov/Portals/1/Documents/pubs/DoD%20Law%20of%20War%20Manual%20-%20June%202015%20Updated%20Dec%202016.pdf?ver=2016-12-13-172036-190
Per the DOD Law of War Manual, "the law of belligerent occupation would not apply to the use of military forces to control a State’s own territory, such as in cases of domestic emergency, insurrection, or non-international armed conflict."
I guess the argument is that we are at war with China? Or the "1871 Corporation" people keep talking about? Even then, the first marker being 11.3 doesn't make any sense, because that subsection is about the end of belligerent occupation, i.e., when there is no longer a dispute between the occupied and occupying states.
Maybe I am missing something but I just don't see how this applies.