"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.
"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.