Here are links to the Geneva Convention Articles.
GC: https://www.icrc.org/en/doc/assets/files/publications/icrc-002-0173.pdf
I have seen people asking about the one year rule for the GC Articles. They seem to have reservations about it. Some people think it shouldn't apply in our situation, but these rules govern all conflict regardless of the situation or location. They are designed to protect humanity. They are international laws and the US did sign on to them.
If you look at page 153 of the GC link (Article 6), it says GC rules apply to both parties if involved in armed conflict until the close of military operations.
The next paragraph:
In the case of occupation (which is where it applies to us) "In the case of occupied territory, the application of the present Convention shall cease one year after the general close of military operations; however, the Occupying Power shall be bound, for the duration of the occupation.
Well, there never was any armed conflict, we were occupied (Biden as a foreign delegate of China). The clock started when Biden signed the EO's one year ago changing the rules of our country. Had patriots resisted and picked up arms against the Biden regime, the GC rules would continue to apply until one year after the close of military operations. So, it was good we didn't try to defend our nation via armed conflict. Q used the board to give us data, explain the takedown of the deepstate and encouraged us to stay peaceful bringing a close to GC rules for our occupied territory asap. (Jan 20th, 2022)
The one year rule was designed to protect human life and give time for conciliatory efforts and reach mutual agreements between the belligerent occupiers and occupied territory. If the occupied territory agrees to the occupying forces demands, all is good. In many instances the occupied territory is resistant to foreign invasions even if it is in their best interest. For example, the US can enter into war and occupy a foreign land for the purpose of overthrowing a dictator. The occupied territory may see us as a threat at first but when they see their living conditions improve after the fall of their dictatorial leader, concessions can be worked out within that one year window. Since living conditions improved, they are not living under tyranny any longer, the occupied territory would be inclined to accept the occupiers new laws. So this is why GC sets the one year timeline.
In the case for Biden, his approval ratings are plummeting, the occupied territory is not buying his bullshit and there will never be any concessions. This could be why Bidens approval rating are being discussed on a daily basis in the media. The people see this, they realize Biden will never win over the hearts and minds of the people and this gives the military (national guard) the right to step in and stop the grave breaches of GC committed by Biden.
In one of my last posts we covered what constituted grave breaches to the Geneva Convention Articles. (Page 52 Article 50 of the GC link)
• torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments;
• willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health;
• unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement of a protected person;
• willfully depriving a protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed in the GC
• taking of hostages
We can all agree that the Biden regime is guilty of all of these. There may have been a couple thresholds to cross, the GC one year timeline and a disapproval rating. What is the rating they are looking for? I don't know but some suggest it might be a 80% disapproval and this is speculatory. Our military may not be waiting for a specific number but wanted to get it as low as possible when we crossed the Jan 20th timeline. Making his disapproval rating known to the general public may limit any civil disobedience when Biden is removed. It also may be why so many polls are being conducted.
Biden is guilty of war crimes, based on the DOD Law of War Manual, Biden is considered a domestic terrorist by definition. This is why he has been calling us domestic terrorists, they like to use projection and blame you for the crimes they are guilty of.
I will get into more detail about the domestic terrorism claims in my next post. There are several avenues we could use to get rid of Biden, for example, using a international tribunal for his GC beaches is one. I think this option is for countries without a worthy military. I think we will do it ourselves. If Trump signed the Insurrection Act active military could be deployed on to our streets to stop the occupation. If he didn't sign it, using national guard and US Special ops might be the answer. Remember when Chris Miller placed special ops under civilian command? Given the reluctance of our DOD to cooperate with the Biden admin, this civilian authority may still stand, I'm still digging into that.
I'm going to end it here.
Stay safe my frens!!
God Bless you all!!
WWG1WGA!!!
J6 political prisoners quality for most of the abuses let alone what he has done to the country. J6 tortured or inhuman treatment ✅ J6 unlawful confinement of protected persons ✅ J6 willfully depriving them of rights of a fair and regular trial ✅ J6 Are hostages. 🇺🇸 biological experiments (thru 💉) ✅ 🇺🇸 causing great suffering or serious injury (lockdowns, losing jobs, sick and dying from 💉) ✅ 🇺🇸 whole pop. taken hostage thru lockdowns, mandates ✅
Yes sir, he is guilty of all of it. I didn't get into specific details, I though most people could figure it out but, thank you for listing them. My posts get long winded, I really do try to keep them short as I can.
I appreciate your post listing the GC infractions of the Biden Admin. Not long winded at all
Great post- I had missed the earlier posts and will be going back to read them when I’ve worked my way through the comments here.
"He" is guilty but exactly who is going to take the fall for all this?
Where is the real Biden?
I think the real Biden seen in photos with Bathhouse Barry 2017 has gone the way of McStain and Pappa Bush.
Since Killary is getting warmed up in the greenroom, they may remove Joe via the 25th Amendment and slide Heels-up Harris and Killary into the office.
Hillary gone too
Proof?
Look up side of beef on utube
I think there are shills about on the main ... Came here independently after seeing a comment chain there. Brought up dod aw of war manual and was torn down. Didn't even see this post until now.
Check my comment history
I remember this all circulating. There are people on site trying to memory hole. Thank you for your post.
Stolen election through foreign interference, treason, murder, human trafficking. All way worse than j6 or what theybare doing to those people.
so the J6 people's status changed from "protected persons" and then comsidered enemy combattants because they went DC (foreign soil) and entered a fed bldg (enemy territory)?
So that means occupation must have started before J6? If so, it's been longer than a year
The year is when they can take back country Anytime after
except that the "J6 political prisoners" are all actors or feds, that whole op was feds stepping over feds, while the Trump/Q operatives used the occasion to do whatever they did, of which the "Pelosi laptop" part of the op, I feel, is probably one of the least important, probably many prosecutable or precedent-setting or national-security-related things that we may never know about happened on J6.
I just had the nastiest thought, what if it turns out that the death-vaxx was forced on our illigitimately imprisoned J6 people. As if what is already being done to them is not nauseating enough. So wrong! Their rescue delay is very dangerous.
I pray they are divinely protected, and will be vindicated.
Thanks for the post. I'm still grappling with the one year rule.
For example, you wrote: If you look at page 153 of the GC link (Article 6), it says GC rules apply to both parties if involved in armed conflict until the close of military operations.
1, Article 6 does NOT say GC rules apply to both parties. Neither in paragraph 1, paragraph 2, paragraph 3 or paragraph 4. Article 6 deals with the beginning and end of application, not with WHO it applies to. Did you mean a separate article (if so, which one?)
2, You also state later in your post "Well, there never was any armed conflict, we were occupied"
How does this statement in 2, above, not contradict your previous statement?
As far as I understand it, the core premise behind this one year rule theory is that the non-occupying force (White Hats/US military) cannot act against the belligerent occupier (Biden/CCP) without being vulnerable to prosecution under the GC. Thus, a period for the GC application to expire is required for the White Hats to act without danger of violating international law. Do you concur?
Question: Because there was no armed conflict (or was there? - cyber attack? what defines "armed conflict"?), then occupation began Jan 6 when Biden/CCP took control over the US govt apparatus.
What exactly IN the Geneva Convention do the White Hats risk violating if they act against the Biden regime before the period of one year of application of the GC lapses? Can you point to the specific articles? Pages?
Clarifying this point would go a LONG way to validating the idea that there is no real choice for the White Hats but to wait out the one year period until GC application expires (For them).
To understand this, you MUST remove your agenda-you are too focused on one detail to be able to see the bigger picture.
Cyber invasions from foreign entities would be considered 'conflicts' because in this case, state sponsored operatives are doing the dirty deed of monitoring the machines, manipulating numbers and all this made possible because of domestic operatives facilitating the steal.
a cyber attack can be considered a WMD depending on the context and against the election system is an act of war.
Thanks. Not sure that I agree.
I got a lot from the o'Savin podcast on the bigger picture, but there are still holes.
Personally, I fully agree with you that "Cyber invasions from foreign entities would be considered 'conflicts' because in this case"
my minor question to the OP is, why does he contradict himself? "there never was any armed conflict" vs. "GC rules apply to both parties if involved in armed conflict until..."
Such contradictions matter.
Also, he incorrectly stated what Article 6 says (check it yourself).
I appreciate your suggestion: "To understand this, you MUST remove your agenda-you are too focused on one detail to be able to see the bigger picture"
I do appreciate that - your sincerity is apparent. However, I'd like to make a suggestion to you, too.
To make certain the theory is viable, you have to be able to provide empirical evidence and address discrepancies and holes, instead of relying on your firm belief to just dismiss and ignore any questions or holes when pointed out.
Case in point: You focused exclusively on the issue of "conflict", something I have NO issues with. Why? Why no straight answers? Quotes? Article numbers? Direct references? only "you have to see the big picture".
Its really telling that the one person encouraging intelligent discussion is being downvoted.
Agreed. You hate to see it..
Yet, he isn't asking for a discussion.....
Simply being contradictory, isn't the same as asking for clarification, or discernment...
Claiming there are "HOLES", where there are none, is the same as being a fact checker on FB claiming ""Missing context"".....
Those who have access to this site have access to ALL the same links and info as the rest of us who do comprehend, and have discernment....
The OP is only responsible for what he writes, not for what anyone else understands, misunderstands, or simply refuses to understand.....
The down votes are merited and valid.....
He's literally asking questions. You could answer them.
Why does anyone have to explain that "Armed Conflict" can take many forms, even Cyber War, which we are currently in, along with a Biological War, and does not specifically mean Kinetic War......
As for the rest of it, he too, just like the rest of us, can open the links provided, and read them the way we do, and get some better understanding.....
Interesting take.
No one does. Did you read anything of mine that says or implies that it cannot?
I'm asking why the OP directly contradicts himself; "There was no armed conflict" and "GC rules applies to both parties if involved in armed conflict"
Either this is armed conflict, or there isn't. It cannot be both. Whether you define armed conflict as "kinetic warfare", shooting with bows and arrows", "cyber attack via malicious code", "hacking and disrupting systems" makes no difference. Either there was, or there wasn't.
FYI, I've been doing all the reading, going through the documents. Reflect on the fact that you assume I have not. What does that say about your preconceptions?
So far, not ONE person has answered the question: "What exactly IN the Geneva Convention do the White Hats risk violating if they act against the Biden regime before the period of one year of application of the GC lapses? Can you point to the specific articles?"
I'm asking that question because no one is answering it. So far the OP has declined to address any of the questions I've posted on his last 3 posts on the topic.
Moreover, persons like yourself seem to resort to a) assuming I'm not reading the material or researching for myself (which is a baseless assumption) b) refusing to actual respond to concrete questions and c) attempting to shame me or down vote, as if its wrong to even question the theory.
Sadly, that's behavior that belongs in the Covid cult squad, not on a Q board whose very title is the Great Awakening.
Q4602
As an American citizen of my advanced age who has read much and understood American civics, most of these issues are a given for me to understand. I am not an autist, I rely on the autists here to present the facts as dug by them and I add it to my rolodex of useful information. I seem to recall that you are not a U.S. citizen, so that is a shame, because I do see you as a freedom loving patriot.
I focused of conflict because this is an entirely different kind of war, a cyber war where feints are met with cyber countermoves (War of the Hackers). But, primarily the war between good and evil that is almost unseen.
I wasn't contradicting myself, I was merely stating what the GC rule was. I was trying to separate out the armed conflict vs occupation. I was trying to convey the fact that GC applies to both sides and continues to apply for one year after military operations come to a close. The fact there was no armed conflict, (only occupation) the GC rules applied to both sides to start and then begin clicking down to the one year deadline for the occupied territory because there was no armed conflict.
I incorrectly stated what article 6 said? I think I copied it verbatim.
Most of the conversations on this topic is speculation. Go find me a quote from Trump that he signed the Insurrection Act, I'll wait.
You are saying we should wait to talk about this topic until we have rock solid proof? Noone knows what is happening behind the scenes. I think conversations like this is designed to spur debate, get all the pieces of the hive mind working together till we can come to a general consensus. I don't mind criticism, people correcting me and /or interjecting competing theories, that is why I do this. However, it seems you are trying to suggest we shut down the conversation until we have empirical evidence when it doesn't really exist.
Thanks.
Look, I know that there's a strong temptation to be attached to one's preferred theory, but I'm actually trying to make the discussion intelligent, and for some reason, you continue to misread my comments. I find myself wondering why.
Read my comments slowly.
"I incorrectly stated what article 6 said? I think I copied it verbatim."
OK. Let's look at what you DID write: This is quoted directly from your article above.
I could copy/pasta the the 4 paragraphs of the Article (6), but is that really necessary. Even though you copy/pasted (quoited verbatim) from Art. 6, you said "look at ...(Article 6), it says GC rules apply to both"
Maybe that's your interpretation, but I see nowhere in the 4 paragraphs where it states this. That's all I'm saying.
Let's distinguish between a) quoting something verbatim and b) making a statement about what something says. I'm referring to the latter, not the former.
Does that make sense?
And please, can we really just assume or at least approach this as if we are on the same team, instead of trying to pull each other down?
Understanding only really comes through engagement (discussion). I think you'd agree with me on that. Am I wrong? So sometimes it takes a bit of extra effort to get to the point where the discussion bears fruit. IN my view, anyway. That's actually why I'm persevering in these discussions, LOL despite being downvoted and accused of NOT researching, doing my own thinking, etc.
Absolutely not! No way! (See. How interesting is that? From my position that's a bizarre conclusion! But for some reason, you got there. I'm not going to berate you for it. But I hope you'll read my response.)
What I am saying is, let's talk about the topic, but let's apply reason, empirical evidence, and logic to work through it to improve our grasp of it. If there are holes, let's find them. If it holds up, let's find how. Does that make sense?
Noone knows what is happening behind the scenes. I think conversations like this is designed to spur debate, get all the pieces of the hive mind working together till we can come to a general consensus.
Agreed, on both points (although I don't necessarily think that a general consensus is required to improve understanding.) And, as I've stated, I appreciate your posts on this topic. I'll simply admit that I do get a bit frustrated when participants of the board accuse me or berate me for asking certain questions or precepts they seem to hold as sacred!!!! (I'm not talking about you here.)
However, it seems you are trying to suggest we shut down the conversation until we have empirical evidence when it doesn't really exist.
Not by any means. However, in my opinion (and its an opinion) it is valuable and often important to acknowledge when empirical evidence is missing, and just recognize that.
Take for example, the question of what reprisals under the GC the White hats might be vulnerable to, and what content of the GC would they violate, specifically, if they acted before the lifting of the application of the articles?
For me, that's a fundamental question to the theory, and not addressing it kind of leaves the entire core premise open. I'm distinguishing here between empirical evidence in the form of actual articles of GC, etc, not in the form of what Trump is doing.
Note: It seems we are approaching this from slightly different angles, which may have caused some level of misunderstanding/miscommunication. One of the limitations of text only, and lack of face to face communication, I think.
Here is article 6 in full:
The present Convention shall apply from the outset of any conflict or occupation mentioned in Article 2.
In the territory of Parties to the conflict, the application of the present Convention shall cease on the general close of military operations.
In the case of occupied territory, the application of the present Convention shall cease one year after the general close of military operations; however, the Occupying Power shall be bound, for the duration of the occupation, to the extent that such Power exercises the functions of government in such territory, by the provisions of the following Articles of the present Convention: 1 to 12, 27, 29 to 34, 47, 49, 51, 52, 53, 59, 61 to 77, 143. Protected persons whose release, repatriation or re-establishment may take place after such dates shall meanwhile continue to benefit by the present Convention.
Second paragraph says, "In the territory of Parties to the conflict". The "parties" is plural and refers to both the occupying force and the occupied territory. It does not specifically say both parties but because it uses the term "parties", it is inferred.
This statement also uses the term "conflict", so I thought it would not apply in our situation. We didn't have a armed conflict.
The following third paragraph seemed more appropriate. The third paragraph talks about occupied territory and doesn't use the term conflict. Still it should be inferred that both parties is being discussed.
The third paragraph says, " the application of the present Convention shall cease one year after the general close of military operations; however, the Occupying Power shall be bound, for the duration of the occupation" Again it infers that the application ends for the occupied territory while it continues for the occupied force.
Thanks for the comment.
You wrote
I think you are correct in one thing, but wrong in the other. Yes, it refers to the two parties (and therefore both) but I think you've mistakenly identified who those two parties are.
See 11.1 (p754) below:
To me, what this clarifies is that there are in fact three parties that the GC concerns: 1. Occupying party 2. Temporarily ousted sovereign and 3. the inhabitants of the occupied territory. This is important, imo. A territory itself is not a party, but a possession, asset or location.
you wrote:
Yes, but no. Why? In my view, "the parties" here refers to Numbers 1 and Number 2 (the two parties to the conflict) and they are both mentioned in order to stipulate WHAT territory (where) the GC applies (in the territories that they own, or are sovereign to). Seems pretty clear that "The Parties" refers to Occupying party but NOT to the occupied territory, but instead to the original sovereign of the occupied territory.
Let's examine using a concrete example. Govt of Germany invades the Southern Netherlands, occupies the Southern Netherlands (territory) and rules over the inhabitants of Southern Netherlands, thus removing control of the Southern Netherlands from the Govt of the Netherlands (ousted sovereign).
"The parties to the conflict" refers to govt of Germany and govt of Netherlands. (yes, two and therefore both parties) BUT not the occupied territory (the Southern Netherlands territory).
The article says:
Thus, both in all German territory (unoccupied) and all Netherlands territory (unoccupied) application of GC ceases on general close of operations.
Occupied territory in this example refers to the Southern Netherlands, which the govt of Germany now occupies. Thus, in the Southern Netherlands, application of GC will cease "one year after general close of military operations (Q: in that territory?)"
You wrote:
So I guess you are correct, kind of, although I'm a bit pedantic on the wording: To me it doesn't say this (i.e. literally) but it indicates and directly implies this.
I.e. It doesn't say "GC applies to both parties" (occupier and ousted sovereign) Rather it says GC applies in the territory of both parties, which yes, directly implies or indicates both parties.
So maybe we're both right. From my view, it doesn't say it, it implies or indicates it. From your view, the indication of the fact equals "saying" it. (In my view, these are the nuts and bolts that sometimes need to be ironed out in order to establish a common wavelength and therefore establish a clear or good communication.)
You wrote:
I guess for me there are two steps in the process here. 1 is correctly interpreting WHAT LoW is saying, 2 is figuring out if it applies to the current situation in the USA.
Whether the situation (or what happened) in the USA falls under the definition of "conflict" or "armed conflict" I don't really know, but personally, I think in the case of CCP occupying US govt jurisdiction, then yes, because cyber attack, etc, would fall under this. However, in the case where Trump is the belligerent occupier, no, as the occupation took place without a conflict.
Hmmmm. I think I disagree. "Territory" is the location or theatre where the GC applies, not the who. The territory itself is not an actor, nor a participant. The participants are 1. Occupier 2. Ousted sovereign 3. Inhabitants of the territory.
In that sense, it ends for the occupying force and the original sovereign in that location (territory), but with conditions for the occupying force, if they continue to occupy even after one year has passed.
See, here is another thing that needs to be asked: Who exactly is the belligerent occupier?
If DC is owned and controlled for decades+ by a foreign corporation (The USA, inc), then Trump moving in and taking control could equal an occupation of THEIR territory.
If DC is owned by the legitimate govt of the USA (does it exist) and thus regained by Trump, and the coup by CCP etc was the occupation, then Biden et al are the belligerent occupier.
interesting discussion here:
Patel Patriot & IET17
https://rumble.com/vsz5ev-patel-patriot-interviews-iet17-on-the-low-manual-and-more.html
Yes, the belligerent occupier is the Biden admin.
If you read 11.3 in the Law of War, it breaks it down in to much simpler terms.
There they only talk about the belligerent occupier and the occupied territory.
I think you are making this much more complicated than it needs to be.
The occupied territory would include the sovereign power (Trump) and the protected persons of the territory. (the people)
If a invading force decides to occupy a foreign country, they become the belligerent occupier and the sovereign power and the people reside in the occupied territory. So, occupied territory includes both the sovereign power and the people in the territory.
Territory is not a term that defines the ground we are standing on, it describes the area and its inhabitants.
When Biden signed all those executive orders on day one, he wasn't directing them at our soil, he was directing them at the people.
In Q post 4524 it says:
[D] + China = 11.3
https://qanon.pub/#4524
D is Democrats (Biden)
Democrats + China = 11.3
In essence he is saying the democrats teamed up with China as a belligerent occupier and created the 11.3 situation.
You said, "In that sense, it ends for the occupying force and the original sovereign", No, Article 6 distinctly says "the Occupying Power shall be bound, for the duration of the occupation".
The occupying power remains under GC application the entire time. They are the party being belligerent and they should be the party who has the tendency to get violent, they remain under GC law until the leave the occupation.
The only party that has the GC laws lifted is the occupied territory and that occurs one year after military operations come to a close.
Armed conflict exists over widespread area imo. When they tried to kill trump, when they shot down a plane near canadian border, when cia tried to assassinate witnesses. When scientists were murdered. When a gov/daughter's boyfriend...Kemp related...was blown up in car, when att building was torched using a directed energy weapon, etc etc. Sll done to push the new world order and destroy our country's sovereignty.
They are already written into the updated definitions of warfare in multiple ways. Explicitly and the effect they have on our way of life and capacity to wage war.
Not sure why we give a shit what international law says.
Self defense is always allowed, self preservation is always allowed.
If the internstional.law made what Biden did legal would we throw up our hands and just take it?
We either don't understand what is being said or we do t understand the true nature of what this is.
For important and obvious reasons. Geneva Convention is valuable.
BTW, there is no way (and no one is asserting it) that what Biden did was legal.
The war of intel and how it has progressed from WW1 to WW2, then the Cold War, where spy tradecraft was perfected face to face with opposing assets. Now to the 21st Century where intel is done remotely and mostly electronically. Drones have become the means to surveil or strike (many videos available), By taking humans out of direct contact, thus preserving human talents, warfare by electronic proxy is a valuable step toward world peace. Can we, can we, just get along???
If you break international laws, you risk NATO troops could be called in. We know NATO is the military arm of the United Nations, United Nations along with the World Health Org was behind this plandemic. So the UN would not hesitate to intervein if anything jeopardized their great reset.
They could care less if Biden breaks GC rules but if the American people revolted against the Biden admin, I think we would have got blue helmets walking our streets.
Don’t need a legal justification for the UN to get involved and for China or other countries to “help”.
We "give a shit" when we become signatory to a treaty (Geneva Convention), which thereby becomes part of "the supreme law of the land" alongside the Constitution. It is our law, not "international law."
Stick to your guns.
This Geneva Convention/Rule of War/One Year Rule is a bunch of hopium.
It's a story. It's not real or applicable in any way.
Too much hopium is bad for the system. I much prefer Hopermectin.
PS. Thanks for the comment. I've looked further at this and come to this conclusion:
The Law of War manual connection with the Q board is almost impossible to deny (how many coincidences before mathematically possible)? Also, it is the most eloquent, conclusive explanation that fits perfectly so much of what Q posted, cryptic things like "you have more than you know", etc.
However, there are slimy grifters who latch onto Q stuff for their own ego and/or grifiting purposes, and that's where this one-year rule nonsense arose. As far as I can tell, people like Juan o'Savin. The one year rule thing is absolute nonsense.
So what do I mean that the Law of War connection is real?
Check out the decides by Majic Eyes Only and it will start to make sense. It has ZERO to do with this "one year" theory, which, while referring to the LoW manual, has been made up out of thin air by those aforementioned grifters and fakers, and sadly otherwise gifted anons have been caught up in it.
Start here. I'm pretty sure if you are a Q loving anon, you'll be pleasantly surprised.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dxfq-09RbLc&t=3s
Yes, the one year thing is bunk. But like all grifty, shifty wanna-be tricksters like Parkes, Ward, and their ilk, the real stuff about LoW has been pilfered and abused.
Which seriously makes me wonder whether in fact that is deliberate, a deliberate attempt to sabotage Anons understanding of the Q board and the Law of War by injecting a ridiculous, nonsensical theory via sleepers and assets and then promulgating it via the hopium addictions.
Would be keen to hear your thoughts.
Proof???
Lololol imagine thinking Trump goes off the books.
Regarding point 1, on page 61 of the GC:
The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance. Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.
Hmmm. I read that section just one hour ago. Are you saying that Article 2 indicates that GC applies to both parties? I would agree, if so. (Quibble: my point in point 1 is that the OP misquotes Article 6, NOT that the GC does not apply to both, which I think obviously it does)
Wrong, you need to read it again. I never said it does not apply to both. I know for a fact it does apply to both.
"In the case of occupied territory, the application of the present Convention shall cease one year after the general close of military operations"
Taken verbatim from article 6. If it ceases after one year it had to apply before then.
What is so hard to understand?
It's a minor point, but Article 6 does not say (in any way) WHO the GC applies to. It only talks about the start and finish of the application. What is so hard to understand?
I know you never said it doesn't apply to both. I'm saying you referenced Art 6 as indicating the GC applies to both, when in fact, it's Art. 2.
Art. 6 Literally "Beginning and end of application"
But its really an inconsequential point, and merely feedback on your writing.
The real question is:
What exactly IN the Geneva Convention do the White Hats risk violating if they act against the Biden regime before the period of one year of application of the GC lapses? Can you point to the specific articles?
I'm asking this because I want to understand how you understand the issue. If you cannot answer the question, just say so. That makes a lot more sense than actually avoiding the question or - misreading what I'm saying (I never said you said it doesn't apply to both. Re-read my comment)
Thanks.
LoW seems to indicate that GC applies to both parties.
that's the question niggling me too. seems that the verbiage qualifies with "military" . What's considered military? we don't actually see all out bullets and mortar flying, so does that mean the one year thing doesn't start until there is confirmed "military" action? What if it's covert?
Is there some part of Biological Warfare that you might not understand?
If so, I can try to explain it....
"Question: Because there was no armed conflict (or was there? - cyber attack? what defines "armed conflict"?), then occupation began Jan 6 when Biden/CCP took control over the US govt apparatus."
One could argue Cyber Attack is armed conflict. They also attacked us with a bio-weapon to control the outcome of an election. They used digital weapons to control the outcome of that same election. I don't think a "weapon" has to be just guns or missiles or ballistic in nature. But I also don't have any definitions or documents to back up what I am saying.
No, that's quite right.
If one listens to Patel Patriot on devolution and Magic Eyes Only re: the Law of War Manual, it seems very clear that there has been war, the US (at least, DC) has been occupied.
However, the idea that there must be some one year period is actually nonsense and has been misconstrued by certain parties either to deliberately or inadvertently confuse the Q community.
"it seems very clear that there has been war, the US (at least, DC) has been occupied."
This is where things get really fuzzy for me. D.C is a City/State like the Vatican or the City of London. It is not America or the united States. Well except that the corporation named The United States of America, owned by the Vatican, and the corporation USA Inc. owned by the British are operated out of there. The point is I am very unclear on what exactly is occupied.
This is an excellent write-up!
I'd LOOOOOOOVE to buy into this whole concept, but I'm struggling with a couple of vital points - even after reading Sections 11.3 and 11.4 several times.
(1) This whole scenario depicted in these sections sounds like American forces occupying ANOTHER country (such as we did in Afghanistan or Iraq) - NOT that some other country (i.e., China's CCP) is occupying the USA.
(2) I don't understand the purpose of the 1-year "waiting period" - waiting for what? Who is waiting and what is it dependent on? This part doesn't make sense to me. If the USA were under control of a nefarious foreign power, why in the world would OUR military be restricted from taking any action to defend our homeland for an entire year, since the military is the only "defense" able to use force that we have? This makes no sense whatsoever.
You are correct.
This is in the US Manual of War to train US forces in their obligations under the Geneva Convention which is embodied in our own codes.
It's pure silliness. This is an imagined scenario.
It doesn’t state that waiting is necessary…it says that before a certain point the following GC rules must be adhered to. I could be wrong but….
You are correct. There are certain rules that we would've had to abide by prior to the one year if, we decided to go after the occupiers. Now...it's ON!
yeah the 1 year rule is total nonsense. You dont give squatters 12 months to trash your house before you turf them out
I agree completely. The hardest part to believe is the "foreign occupation". Just because we don't like the dems doesn't make them foreigners. Like it or not, they're still Americans. And none of this explanation addresses the US military taking up arms against American citizens on American soil.
ALL
ENEMIES
FOREIGN
AND
DOMESTIC
and if that's not enough, the "foreign" part here would be China for working hand-in-hand with Biden's puppeteers to wreck a U.S. election and install who THEY wanted.
Exactly. Think China stealing through hacking. To me that is an act of war. Think about Biden being owned by China.
Maybe, but the USMC doesn't play games like that. A "CCP asset" would not be given unfettered access to the WH, AF1 or any other Presidential resource. Keep hopium alive though!
Wanna bet??
The Corps, is merely a Branch of the Navy.....
They'll stand down until told to do otherwise.....
"one year after the close of military operations" - Could that be after they sent the national guard home and took the fence down? So we have longer to wait?
Excellent point.
I never considered that, you could be correct. The fence was taken down in March. I have thought that the military would not intervein until after Trump Social has been up and running for a while. We need to get the truth out to the people and I think Truth Social is the tool to do that. So yes, we could be waiting for a few more months.
Thank you for this!
I would not be surprised to have the military do things in a way that appears to the general public not to be a military operation.
Things are happening right now that make no sense. Why the heck are the Dems pushing things that everyone knows the people do not want? Is this the way the military is working? I do not believe President Trump will be reinstated. I do believe he will win in a historic landslide in 2024.
It will appear that the military had nothing to do with it.
I agree with your idea that it will not appear to be military. The bad guys AND the good guys share the idea that, to us, all must appear organic. I think that's deception though. Both sides hide, which I don't agree with. Hopefully the truth will all come out. But I doubt it. Both sides have things to hide from us.
Jesus "hid" the truth from those that sought to kill him too, in parables. Some enemies will only ever take complete advantage of you.
It’s basic Art of War.
And the trap allows us to use their own narratives for cover stories.
if 2020 is not exposed there's really no point to any of it.
I’m thinking Activated and Deployed can be considered equal on home turf. We might not SEE them, but they’re READY(?).
I think there's too much navel contemplation. The taking of power by election interference through communication systems is military conflict, plain and simple. The bullets are electrons. A perfectly physical instrumentality with human accomplices. The occupation becomes a fait accompli with Biden's inauguration. The clock starts.
Why a one-year delay? You always give the abuser an opportunity to make an acceptable peace. If the clock times out, the grace period elapses...and you are potentially back on a war footing.
Why does that mean anything to our armed forces? I may not be able to articulate this very well, but try to follow my lead. Any treaty entered into by the Constitutionally-defined process becomes one with the Constitution---the supreme law of the land. When Trump invoked the Insurrection Act and issued secret executive orders under his authority as Commander-in-Chief, he was initiating a continuity of government under the protection of the Geneva Convention. This may be the basis that compels the armed forces to follow through. The legality and legitimacy of what they do is contingent on following the Law of War manual precisely to the letter, which entails exact observance of the Geneva Convention.
This means that---whatever happens next---there will be no basis for any objection from any quarter over how the occupation is ended, including military tribunals. This becomes important if the hostile powers include (e.g.) China, the United Kingdom, or Italy. Especially if it can be established that they DID NOT adhere to the Geneva Convention (e.g., violation of Nuremberg Code).
I will leave it to others to clean up this argument, but I think it provides a coherence that we have been struggling toward.
Sounds legit to me. When I look at things I'm doing so at the 40,000 foot view, breaking down all the intricacies from behind the scenes is difficult to do. Nobody know how or when this is going to play out, all we can do is make a educated guess.
If you break international laws, NATO troops could be called in. We know NATO is the military arm of the United Nations, United Nations along with the World Health Org was behind this plandemic. So the UN would not hesitate to intervein if anything jeopardized their great reset.
They could care less if Biden breaks GC rules but if the American people revolted against the Biden admin, I think we would have got blue helmets walking our streets.
Did the u.s. government sign on or did the Corporation of the U.s. sign on?
There is a huge difference as to what we are obliged to follow of THEY signed amd not a legitimate government. We really havent had legit government t for a century.
I see no need to follow anything that works against us. Amd at this point theunare lucky we give a shit about a semi peaceful transition back to freedom. Honestly ain't convinced we solve this without wiping them all out.
Thank you for taking the time to write such a well written and informative post! I have been wondering about the "Why?" of the one year rule, and you post cleared that up for me - thank you! :)
Having to wait one year to throw out invaders makes zero sense.
See my above reply.
All of this, in my opinion, is nonsense. If criminals steal an election you don't have to abide by any GC rules to bring them to justice. I don't believe 11.3 and 11.4 and 11.x refer to the law of war manual.
Whether you believe it or not doesn’t make the law of war manual’s impact less true.
What impact?
On actions chosen lol
Oh please. What actions chosen? This whole law of war manual wasn't even a thing here not too long ago so it's hard to believe you can enumerate all the impact so far from it.
Glow nagger or bot lol.
It doesn’t matter how long it was a thing here for. What matters is how long it has been a thing before here lol. Yeah the government or the military bases their decisions on what happens here lol.
Fuck off shill.
Wow. This is a really good write up. Thanks for this! I didn’t think of the inauguration of Biden as the close of a belligerent’s military operations. That’s a really good point.
that's a good clarification
The Biden we see and hear today is an actor.
He was shot Trump said that in rslly
"He's shot, he's got half his head."
Beautiful words.
And there was that news story w biden the screen glitched and showed him w half his head gone
Also a "live" interview where his hand went over the mic.
Excellent post, fren! 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
Great post.
I was hoping to see the military bomb our enemies. I knew they wouldn't but a man can dream. Wouldn't that have made a statement. The cabal runs deep.
Thank you for these posts, J39! Very much appreciated!
Joe burden for Gitmo Prisoner of the Month!
Thank you for your time and hard work. Your posts are easy for me to understand. I know a little about the 11.3 plan and would like to know more. You and your work are appreciated
Awesome post OP
Biden has about as much use for the Geneva Convention as Sherman did...cough March to the Sea cough cough
Last February (or so) in an interview, Juan O Sauvin said the military is waiting on his poll numbers to fall below 35%. I thought that was kinda crazy at the time, but it’s looking increasingly relevant.
I agree, shits about to hit the fan.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/uh-oh-whopping-percentage-of-dem-voters-want-hillary-investigated-for-russiagate-scandal
True, but lets not deflect that he's the retarded muppet DOING the projecting, like a movie projector to a scteen, of the true behind the scenes operatives. This is not saying he should not pay the price for his role, just that Biden couldn't think his way out of a room with one door.
Great post.
However when you say Biden is guilty you really mean just about the entire Democrat party and some select few of the GOP...
Right?
So the BidAn administration should be rolled up by the military at any second since the one year mark as passed. Is this the storm? Is the Military removing the belligerent administration the end or beginning? Will the EBS be what is used to announce what is happening?
I think that was hoping bait. Otherwise why wait Nother second?
EBS is possibly mostly for military and first responders to coordinate fast and broad when needed.
And only for when civilians in an area need to know shit.
I doubt it is to inform everyone at once unless needed.
Very concise, thank you. Explains alot.
I'm curious as to your thoughts on Patel Patriot's Devolution series?
Hang on. In Canada, did Trudeau call the last election to give himself more time? Since it was an election, is he going to try and skirt the 1 year rule using the formation of a technically new government? It's dumb, but it'll do for now until a better theory comes along.
Excellent !! Thank you
"B...b.....b...ut, I didn't know what I was doing! I had dementia!"
Enjoyed the vibrant discussion between OP and FractilizingIron. Moar!
Great info. Thanks for sharing.
Who’s to say that team Biden is doing the occupying? If he is not at the real White House because we didn’t let him in, then aren’t patriots the occupying power (in D.C. which is a sovereign city-state and not part of the U.S.)?
Its not just Biden. Its most of the entire government. Most of the congress. A lot of judges.
DC is the occupying power. The military is NOT the Federal Government per se. The CIC is President of the States. Not DC.
This point twists my brain too