I just don't buy a lot of the law of war. You have to let the foreign powers occupy? What in the hell kind of sense does that make.
"Yes please rape our men women and children, but only for 1 year! No more!...I have an army on standby but...you know...it's the law of war that you get to pillage anyways."
I don't think that's the type of foreign occupation that will occur. Currently we're under foreign occupation by Xiden being a foreign controlled asset and it's been, what, 11 months so far...
The one year thing is a stretchy interpretation, to explain the timing. I don't buy the 1-year thing either. (Even if it turns out to be true, it's dopey.)
But the correlation of Q posts to military Law of War manual is so spot on, it's a proof in itself.
Ha, ha! Good question! I guess it could be proof merely that the author of Q knows the law of war manual. That said, the content of the relevant post numbers point to justice coming. Whether Q truly represents an effort to save the country might have no relation to the skill with which Q is written.
Personally, I believe Q is working to save the country and punish the infiltrating DS/cabal, mostly because if Q were controlled by the cabal, Q would not be needed.
I was mostly speaking to the value of that video series as highlighting the correlation to the LoW manual.
Reread it. Intervention at any point before one year results in having to follow the GC rules….One year and one day equals no GC rules if I understood correctly?
Yeah, but like others, I don’t understand the occupying one year part. How does that make any sense? Why should a foreign invader or the puppets thereof even be allowed to occupy one day?
It's how the rulebook has been written and there is a certain type of thinking behind it. In order to understand it better, you will need to read parts of the manual. I think it comes down to that it's best to have rules (even though they can be somewhat arbitrary at first sight) than no rules at all.
Just imagine how you would go about coming up with rules for wars. Sounds easier than it actually is. It's easy to think of rules but you have to think them through all the way to what it's consequences will be in real life on the ground. It's not just a mental exercise with some easy to follow rules like a game of chess.
It's actually very difficult to come up with these rules because you can't just say "war is not allowed" end of story. You need to permit war but also restrict it.
This part of the manual talks about this:
11.2.1 Military Occupation as a Fact. Military occupation is a question of fact.
The legal consequences arising from the fact of occupation (i.e., that this fact is the basis for both rights and duties) illustrates how the law of war may be viewed as both permissive and restrictive in nature.
I just don't buy a lot of the law of war. You have to let the foreign powers occupy? What in the hell kind of sense does that make.
"Yes please rape our men women and children, but only for 1 year! No more!...I have an army on standby but...you know...it's the law of war that you get to pillage anyways."
I don't think that's the type of foreign occupation that will occur. Currently we're under foreign occupation by Xiden being a foreign controlled asset and it's been, what, 11 months so far...
I think we will be disappointed if we think the military just rolls in at the 12 month mark.
100% agreed at this point. I'm done date fagging.
I fucking love this comment xD. The whole damn comment chain.
The only datedfag thing that must happen is Q saying "midterms are safe." If we're screwed in 2022 Nov then...?
Almost like it was designed as a backdoor…
The one year thing is a stretchy interpretation, to explain the timing. I don't buy the 1-year thing either. (Even if it turns out to be true, it's dopey.)
But the correlation of Q posts to military Law of War manual is so spot on, it's a proof in itself.
A proof of what though?
Ha, ha! Good question! I guess it could be proof merely that the author of Q knows the law of war manual. That said, the content of the relevant post numbers point to justice coming. Whether Q truly represents an effort to save the country might have no relation to the skill with which Q is written.
Personally, I believe Q is working to save the country and punish the infiltrating DS/cabal, mostly because if Q were controlled by the cabal, Q would not be needed.
I was mostly speaking to the value of that video series as highlighting the correlation to the LoW manual.
I like your response largely. I’m in the opposing camp on Qs benevolence but hey Ho.
I agree that the cross references to the manual are fiendishly clever.
I agree. It’s very counterintuitive.
It's the next stage of GeorgeNews and IngersollLockwood larping.
Edit: Love it when the downvotes confirm I'm over the target (Edit is 10 days after original post, FYI.)
Reread it. Intervention at any point before one year results in having to follow the GC rules….One year and one day equals no GC rules if I understood correctly?
Yeah, but like others, I don’t understand the occupying one year part. How does that make any sense? Why should a foreign invader or the puppets thereof even be allowed to occupy one day?
Exactly. We wouldn't stand for it 1 min in our own houses.
Geneva Convention
When a power wins they occupy. They won. Now we are winning.
It's how the rulebook has been written and there is a certain type of thinking behind it. In order to understand it better, you will need to read parts of the manual. I think it comes down to that it's best to have rules (even though they can be somewhat arbitrary at first sight) than no rules at all.
Just imagine how you would go about coming up with rules for wars. Sounds easier than it actually is. It's easy to think of rules but you have to think them through all the way to what it's consequences will be in real life on the ground. It's not just a mental exercise with some easy to follow rules like a game of chess.
It's actually very difficult to come up with these rules because you can't just say "war is not allowed" end of story. You need to permit war but also restrict it.
This part of the manual talks about this:
11.2.1 Military Occupation as a Fact. Military occupation is a question of fact.
The legal consequences arising from the fact of occupation (i.e., that this fact is the basis for both rights and duties) illustrates how the law of war may be viewed as both permissive and restrictive in nature.