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.