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?
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.)
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.
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.