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!!!
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.....
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.
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.