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. 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.....
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
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.