And isn't it ridiculous that citizens are expected to put up with them for a year? What genius came up with that plan? All the slaughter and mayhem that can be enacted in a years time ..
Ah, I see. Makes sense. Thanks. Still, look at all the damage that has been wrought by these morons. It's A LOT to expect people to wait so long, imo. Especially when we have the Constitution, which is more important and more significant than any War Powers stuff.
maybe, but the assertion behind the LoW theory is that there are legal ramifications for acting to conduct war without certain conditions being established.
I agree to the extent that the more people whose eyes are open, the better. But if you're dealing with a particularly thick or disinterested or hypnotized group, then it could take decades. And with all due respect, the constitution has survived both of those things in the past. It would be up to the people to make sure it continues to be respected.
I think that is the last thing we want when working towards saving the republic though. While always an option the less mayhem, loss of life, chaos and destruction the better control of the outcome for those working to put control of gov back in the hands of the people.
I've been grappling with this a lot over the past several days.
I think there is some MAJOR miscommunication and poor articulation of the reality.
"In other words, the illegitimate government has to be in power for a year before the Military can lawfully remove them."
See? That just makes no sense whatsoever. (moreover, I am still looking for how and why the actual texts are being interpreted as 1 year).
However, let's reframe this:
Agents acting on behalf of and at the behest of a foreign power undermined a nation's election. That's an act of war, if it removes the legitimate government.
Those agents are thus "enemies" and now control the nation's govt. However, they have NOT declared themselves as "enemies" and are pretending to still serve their nation, instead of a foreign power that is at war with the nation. Thus, they are in the position of "spies".
In the Law of War, (and Geneva Convention?) there are internationally agreed upon rules about when a nation's military can attack or go against its OWN people or OWN government, without being held accountable for war crimes.
(i.e. a military acting on home soil (*not in enemy territory) to oust its own government might be open to international war law violations)
(This is where I still cannot find the link, but) the assertion is that the agents who are in fact foreign belligerents (they serve the enemy power) must make themselves known as such agents in order to NOT be spies and not be treated as "unprivileged belligerent combatants). Apparently, according to LoW or GC, they have one year period to do this.
After one year, the GC stipulations that a military cannot act against its OWN people on home territory no longer pertain after a 12 month period of occupation, from the time hostilities cease.
The idea here is that the White Hats can act against the foreign agents (Biden, et al) without any fear of reprisals under intl law regarding warfare and warcrimes, once that one year period is up.
They COULD act earlier, but under the GC (apparently) they would be open to accusation of war crimes for acting on home soil against their OWN govt and people.
In other words, until its clear that the Black hats are agents for CCP etc, then any action by the WHite hats may contravene international law regarding how and in what way war can be justified.
That's what I understand so far.
WHY there is this one year period no one has been able to show me yet. (Where in the GC does it say this? or in Law of War manual it says this? No one has pointed it out yet. all the LoW says is "the application of the GC shall cease ONE YEAR after cease of hostilities"
Still looking into it, but if it Does make sense, I think they way some people phrase it or explain it confuses the real issues.
The assertion is, military cannot simply conduct war without a certain properly recognized legitimate basis, and that basis cannot be established while the (secret) agents are still pretending to be good guys.
Thanks for this. You've obviously done your research and thought it through. If you find those references to the one year stipulation, I hope you'll let us know.
Maybe I'm just ornery, but I don't even want "us" to be under the GC or other 'global' agreements. America for Americans. America makes and lives by it's own rules / laws. No less than the writer of the Declaration of Independence AND our Fourth President (Jefferson) said, ..." That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government ... " so why are we worried what some bureaucrats half way around the world - living in place and cultures most Americans will never see - care about?
It's the part that comes after "HOWEVER" that I don't really understand. I read the Articles of the GC but I'm still confused. Any explanations for us not so bright pedes?
This is all confusing regardless of our level of being "bright", pede.
All we're allowed to know is Patriots are in control, and the Plan has been in the works for a long time...NCSWIC, and God Wins. So, I trust the Plan and my heart
What I still need is some clear pointers to where in the Geneva Conventions it says "Enemy Combatants have one year to declare themselves" etc.
Others seem to feel crystal clear on all of this, and I think there may be something to it, but the lack of direct hard evidence (i.e. simple places where certain assertions are based on) makes me wonder...
I trust or find Patel Patriot to be 1000 times more credible than JS.
One of the thing that irks me about the whole "LoW - one year" thing is that there seems to be a whole lot of assertions and conclusions being made without any clear evidence, quotes or factual backup (from anons or elsewhere), which feels like the opposite of Patel Patriot, who points always to evidence, quotes, facts and then draws some conclusions, but always contextualizes or qualifies them. (So far, anyway)
I also follow Patel. I find it interesting that he seemed to come out of nowhere and has this deep understanding of Devolution. And he still distances himself from Q. I wouldn't be surprised if he was put here by the White Hats.
Where are people getting this bizarre notion? That’s not what it says at all. It says that occupying forces in a territory must continue to adhere to the Geneva Conventions rules that apply during wartime for a year following the end of military conflict. It says nothing about this weird idea of a one-year time limit before an illegitimate government can be removed.
If folks are having trouble understanding this, it’s not because you’re “not so bright”—It’s because this made-up nonsense has nothing to do with the text of the manual.
WHAT in the GC prevents the US military from arresting or acting against the occupying force (biden, etc)? What constraints are there such that IF and WHEN GC no longer applies, the US military (White Hats) are now free to act without being open to accusation of war crimes, etc?
Also, if Biden is the Occupying power (as an agent of CCP China), they STILL have effective control of the territory, don't they? If not, when did it cease?
If Biden (CCP) took control of the USA, its government, institutions etc, covertly through an act of war (rigging the election), when did 'military operations' cease? Jan 20?
If so, isn't that when occupation began? So, doesn't that occupation still stand today?
Maybe we focused on the wrong portion, and this all hinges on Biden et al losing control, or at least the perception of having lost control to the outside observer, before moves can be made.
It explains Q's need for more people to be awake.
It explains why things happen behind the scenes, but nothing yet has been an overt signal that the end game of The Plan has arrived.
There's just too many variables to pin down what is actually happening and what's supposed to happen. And some of this was by design so it wouldn't be too easy for the enemy to discern.
I dunno. For me, I find the Devolution series very compelling and convincing, whereas the LoW theory just doesn't do it for me.
One interesting thing is that these two theories both overlap. I think some people see the overlap, and jump to the conclusion that the latter must be true because of x, y and z.
For me, the only real thing that eludes me (and I'm yet to see any concrete analysis in the way Patel Patriot works devolution) is the whole "cannot act for one year" theory. That things got more holes than a plastic sack of potatoes.
Other elements, well, they make lots of sense, and are supported by PP's analysis.
A) that we are at war B) that the regime is illegitimate C) that TIMING of action by the Good Guys is a factor, etc.
I thought that way 24 hours ago. (See my comments to numerous posts yesterday on this topic).
Now, I'm reassessing. There are still pieces missing from the puzzle (pieces that I think proponents conveniently ignore) - and the way the ideas are articulated do a great disservice to the theory - so yeah, it might be nonsense masquerading as a logical idea (hey, Covid19, right?) but the question is, why do so many people get caught up in it, then?
I'd be interested in discussing it with an unbiased, objective mind. I suggest you take a listen to this podcast (juan o'savin) and tell me what you think. I'd like to pin this down one way or another. Either pin down exactly where the theory is based, and whether that basis is false, or pin down where it is based, and whether that basis is real. (PS. Not a fan of O'Savin at all, quite suspicious, but this podcast seemed to illuminate some of the core ideas of the theory much better than random posts on GAW.)
"According to the military law manual, the illegitimate government must be in power before the military can legally remove them"
It's bold assertions like this that so few appear to rationally question or to empirically back up, that makes the whole thing suspicious to me.
It's a convoluted assertion at best. Maybe that's the implication or upshot of the LoW manual, but it certainly doesn't say it. So, if that's the implication, why not state HOW that works?
They don't they just say "it is so. according to (blah) govt must be in power one year before...." without actually pointing to where it says it, or HOW that works. Sigh.
Remember; Biden does not sit at the Resolute Desk. And his speeches and pressers are done in an adjacent building to the WH on a movie set-stage with fake oval office windows.
I just hope nobody is disheartened when the datefagging doesn't turn up anything huge and overt.
Although all the talk about Russia/Ukraine and China/Taiwan has been ramping up suddenly and could actually be a sign they are trying to run a cover by trying to control the news cycle.
Are you absolutely certain of that? So no, I can't speak for "the world" but I personally know lots of Americans who are ready for that precise thing, as long as tribunals, executions, or long prison sentences are handed out to the occupiers.
And isn't it ridiculous that citizens are expected to put up with them for a year? What genius came up with that plan? All the slaughter and mayhem that can be enacted in a years time ..
Only applies to covert hostile belligerent occupation my fren. If action was overt defense could go “hot” and be immediate.
Ah, I see. Makes sense. Thanks. Still, look at all the damage that has been wrought by these morons. It's A LOT to expect people to wait so long, imo. Especially when we have the Constitution, which is more important and more significant than any War Powers stuff.
It was meant to be this way. To wake up the normies as much as possible.
maybe, but the assertion behind the LoW theory is that there are legal ramifications for acting to conduct war without certain conditions being established.
Agreed, but how many would die and would the constitution survive open conflict and civil war?
Sometimes you have to show people...
I agree to the extent that the more people whose eyes are open, the better. But if you're dealing with a particularly thick or disinterested or hypnotized group, then it could take decades. And with all due respect, the constitution has survived both of those things in the past. It would be up to the people to make sure it continues to be respected.
I think that is the last thing we want when working towards saving the republic though. While always an option the less mayhem, loss of life, chaos and destruction the better control of the outcome for those working to put control of gov back in the hands of the people.
I pray true but I'm gonna say this is another #datefag.
I've been grappling with this a lot over the past several days.
I think there is some MAJOR miscommunication and poor articulation of the reality.
"In other words, the illegitimate government has to be in power for a year before the Military can lawfully remove them."
See? That just makes no sense whatsoever. (moreover, I am still looking for how and why the actual texts are being interpreted as 1 year).
However, let's reframe this:
Agents acting on behalf of and at the behest of a foreign power undermined a nation's election. That's an act of war, if it removes the legitimate government.
Those agents are thus "enemies" and now control the nation's govt. However, they have NOT declared themselves as "enemies" and are pretending to still serve their nation, instead of a foreign power that is at war with the nation. Thus, they are in the position of "spies".
In the Law of War, (and Geneva Convention?) there are internationally agreed upon rules about when a nation's military can attack or go against its OWN people or OWN government, without being held accountable for war crimes.
(i.e. a military acting on home soil (*not in enemy territory) to oust its own government might be open to international war law violations)
(This is where I still cannot find the link, but) the assertion is that the agents who are in fact foreign belligerents (they serve the enemy power) must make themselves known as such agents in order to NOT be spies and not be treated as "unprivileged belligerent combatants). Apparently, according to LoW or GC, they have one year period to do this.
After one year, the GC stipulations that a military cannot act against its OWN people on home territory no longer pertain after a 12 month period of occupation, from the time hostilities cease.
The idea here is that the White Hats can act against the foreign agents (Biden, et al) without any fear of reprisals under intl law regarding warfare and warcrimes, once that one year period is up.
They COULD act earlier, but under the GC (apparently) they would be open to accusation of war crimes for acting on home soil against their OWN govt and people.
In other words, until its clear that the Black hats are agents for CCP etc, then any action by the WHite hats may contravene international law regarding how and in what way war can be justified.
That's what I understand so far.
WHY there is this one year period no one has been able to show me yet. (Where in the GC does it say this? or in Law of War manual it says this? No one has pointed it out yet. all the LoW says is "the application of the GC shall cease ONE YEAR after cease of hostilities"
Still looking into it, but if it Does make sense, I think they way some people phrase it or explain it confuses the real issues.
The assertion is, military cannot simply conduct war without a certain properly recognized legitimate basis, and that basis cannot be established while the (secret) agents are still pretending to be good guys.
Thanks for this. You've obviously done your research and thought it through. If you find those references to the one year stipulation, I hope you'll let us know.
Maybe I'm just ornery, but I don't even want "us" to be under the GC or other 'global' agreements. America for Americans. America makes and lives by it's own rules / laws. No less than the writer of the Declaration of Independence AND our Fourth President (Jefferson) said, ..." That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government ... " so why are we worried what some bureaucrats half way around the world - living in place and cultures most Americans will never see - care about?
Wouldn't that get things moving on nicely. Add some long awaited excitement to this movie.
It's the part that comes after "HOWEVER" that I don't really understand. I read the Articles of the GC but I'm still confused. Any explanations for us not so bright pedes?
This is all confusing regardless of our level of being "bright", pede.
All we're allowed to know is Patriots are in control, and the Plan has been in the works for a long time...NCSWIC, and God Wins. So, I trust the Plan and my heart
I'm still not convinced, but at least some core ideas were clarified for me by listening to this video of Juan O'Savin.
Generally, I do not support or like o'Savin. I'm quite suspicious of him. Nonetheless, this podcast did clarify some of the ideas.
https://rumble.com/vsvc1c--jan-17-2021-juan-o-savin-w-spaceshot76-jan-20th-legal-marker-next-phase-is.html
What I still need is some clear pointers to where in the Geneva Conventions it says "Enemy Combatants have one year to declare themselves" etc.
Others seem to feel crystal clear on all of this, and I think there may be something to it, but the lack of direct hard evidence (i.e. simple places where certain assertions are based on) makes me wonder...
Thanks for your reply. I also don't trust Juan O'Savin but I'll listen to the interview.
Yeah. Me too. Meanwhile (I haven't listened to this yet, but: )
https://rumble.com/vsyhvd-patel-patriot-devolution-power-hour-11922.html
also
https://rumble.com/vsz5ev-patel-patriot-interviews-iet17-on-the-low-manual-and-more.html
I trust or find Patel Patriot to be 1000 times more credible than JS.
One of the thing that irks me about the whole "LoW - one year" thing is that there seems to be a whole lot of assertions and conclusions being made without any clear evidence, quotes or factual backup (from anons or elsewhere), which feels like the opposite of Patel Patriot, who points always to evidence, quotes, facts and then draws some conclusions, but always contextualizes or qualifies them. (So far, anyway)
I also follow Patel. I find it interesting that he seemed to come out of nowhere and has this deep understanding of Devolution. And he still distances himself from Q. I wouldn't be surprised if he was put here by the White Hats.
Where are people getting this bizarre notion? That’s not what it says at all. It says that occupying forces in a territory must continue to adhere to the Geneva Conventions rules that apply during wartime for a year following the end of military conflict. It says nothing about this weird idea of a one-year time limit before an illegitimate government can be removed.
If folks are having trouble understanding this, it’s not because you’re “not so bright”—It’s because this made-up nonsense has nothing to do with the text of the manual.
I dunno, I just read it and it says
Page 770.
On 769, it mentions
So we know one reason why they've gone insane with covid controls at least.
OK. Let's take this then.
WHAT in the GC prevents the US military from arresting or acting against the occupying force (biden, etc)? What constraints are there such that IF and WHEN GC no longer applies, the US military (White Hats) are now free to act without being open to accusation of war crimes, etc?
Also, if Biden is the Occupying power (as an agent of CCP China), they STILL have effective control of the territory, don't they? If not, when did it cease?
If Biden (CCP) took control of the USA, its government, institutions etc, covertly through an act of war (rigging the election), when did 'military operations' cease? Jan 20?
If so, isn't that when occupation began? So, doesn't that occupation still stand today?
Hey man, I was just showing you it did say it, after you asked where.
I haven't read enough of it for any of that context.
Danke, Panzer.
Just trying to generate discussion and actually work my way through this rather hot topic.
Maybe we focused on the wrong portion, and this all hinges on Biden et al losing control, or at least the perception of having lost control to the outside observer, before moves can be made.
It explains Q's need for more people to be awake.
It explains why things happen behind the scenes, but nothing yet has been an overt signal that the end game of The Plan has arrived.
There's just too many variables to pin down what is actually happening and what's supposed to happen. And some of this was by design so it wouldn't be too easy for the enemy to discern.
Hmmmm...
I dunno. For me, I find the Devolution series very compelling and convincing, whereas the LoW theory just doesn't do it for me.
One interesting thing is that these two theories both overlap. I think some people see the overlap, and jump to the conclusion that the latter must be true because of x, y and z.
For me, the only real thing that eludes me (and I'm yet to see any concrete analysis in the way Patel Patriot works devolution) is the whole "cannot act for one year" theory. That things got more holes than a plastic sack of potatoes.
Other elements, well, they make lots of sense, and are supported by PP's analysis.
A) that we are at war B) that the regime is illegitimate C) that TIMING of action by the Good Guys is a factor, etc.
I thought that way 24 hours ago. (See my comments to numerous posts yesterday on this topic).
Now, I'm reassessing. There are still pieces missing from the puzzle (pieces that I think proponents conveniently ignore) - and the way the ideas are articulated do a great disservice to the theory - so yeah, it might be nonsense masquerading as a logical idea (hey, Covid19, right?) but the question is, why do so many people get caught up in it, then?
I'd be interested in discussing it with an unbiased, objective mind. I suggest you take a listen to this podcast (juan o'savin) and tell me what you think. I'd like to pin this down one way or another. Either pin down exactly where the theory is based, and whether that basis is false, or pin down where it is based, and whether that basis is real. (PS. Not a fan of O'Savin at all, quite suspicious, but this podcast seemed to illuminate some of the core ideas of the theory much better than random posts on GAW.)
Interested? Two minds are better than none.
"According to the military law manual, the illegitimate government must be in power before the military can legally remove them"
It's bold assertions like this that so few appear to rationally question or to empirically back up, that makes the whole thing suspicious to me.
It's a convoluted assertion at best. Maybe that's the implication or upshot of the LoW manual, but it certainly doesn't say it. So, if that's the implication, why not state HOW that works?
They don't they just say "it is so. according to (blah) govt must be in power one year before...." without actually pointing to where it says it, or HOW that works. Sigh.
Remember; Biden does not sit at the Resolute Desk. And his speeches and pressers are done in an adjacent building to the WH on a movie set-stage with fake oval office windows.
I think we're in control...
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
Page 769
Link doesn't work.
Sorry…phonefagging. Search “law of war manual” and you’ll get the DOD link.
Worked for me, it's a PDF download.
Hey maybe we'll get a two-fer? Take down the resident's illegal government and that of the CCP. How many battle groups are in the South China Sea??
I just hope nobody is disheartened when the datefagging doesn't turn up anything huge and overt.
Although all the talk about Russia/Ukraine and China/Taiwan has been ramping up suddenly and could actually be a sign they are trying to run a cover by trying to control the news cycle.
Why did we not know this all along? Seems like a massive oversight.
Not going to happen. World i snot ready for the military to take over the US
The rest of the world would welcome Huckleberry Hound taking over the US. El Kabong could be VP.
That is one sure way to make sure they are never seen together. lol
Are you absolutely certain of that? So no, I can't speak for "the world" but I personally know lots of Americans who are ready for that precise thing, as long as tribunals, executions, or long prison sentences are handed out to the occupiers.