The entire 11th chapter of the Law of War is worth reading in its entirety. It covers a lot of important ground that we will be seeing disclosures about very soon.
The laws of war does not need both sides to agree. That is just a set of rules one side will use.
The law lays out what will happen if the other side breaks the rules.
Of course there has to be Laws of War.
Civilian law is the same.
Used to they didn’t. Korea, Vietnam and all since then have not been to win but to prolong. I know my history. The US has done nothing but hogtie our soldiers sent into harms way. When you fight a war, you are right, there are no rules except to win in my book. Just like a street fighter.
Yeah this isn't a dooming post but a lot of the laws of war is absolutely absurd like "let the foreign power occupy for one year" shit. ...imagine if a homeless guy takes over your house while you are out and now you have to let him live free and pay for everything for him whole he also sleeps with your wife. It's quite frankly retarded and no country in history with means to fight back has ever let it happen.
Exactly, I came here to report that too. On p. 787 of the DOD Law Of War Manual is the beginning of Chapter 11.11.
11.11 CRIMINAL LAW IN OCCUPIED TERRITORY
This section addresses criminal law in occupied territory. Additional rules apply to
judicial proceedings against protected persons in occupied territory, which are also applied by analogy to judicial proceedings against internees in a belligerent’s home territory.188
It goes on to differentiate between civil laws and military laws, and much, much more.
I don't think Q referred DIRECTLY to the DOD Manual, but an autiste who goes by the name of Magestic12 (or something like that as I recall) put it together after a deep dive into the document. If you search GAW for Magic12 or variations on that, you'll come across his videos. If I find it, I'll come back and post it for you.
Personally, I viewed the videos back some time ago and it's a compelling theory. Your mileage may vary, but it's worth listening to, since the numbers that Q was dropping did not seem to relate to any other thing like dates or times. But the link to the DOD Law of War Manual seems to be very interesting.
11.11 is also the sub-chapter in The Department of Defense Law of War Manual titled "Criminal Law in Occupied Territory"
The entire 11th chapter of the Law of War is worth reading in its entirety. It covers a lot of important ground that we will be seeing disclosures about very soon.
The laws of war does not need both sides to agree. That is just a set of rules one side will use. The law lays out what will happen if the other side breaks the rules. Of course there has to be Laws of War. Civilian law is the same.
RULES for war? No wonder we can't win anymore!
Used to they didn’t. Korea, Vietnam and all since then have not been to win but to prolong. I know my history. The US has done nothing but hogtie our soldiers sent into harms way. When you fight a war, you are right, there are no rules except to win in my book. Just like a street fighter.
Yeah this isn't a dooming post but a lot of the laws of war is absolutely absurd like "let the foreign power occupy for one year" shit. ...imagine if a homeless guy takes over your house while you are out and now you have to let him live free and pay for everything for him whole he also sleeps with your wife. It's quite frankly retarded and no country in history with means to fight back has ever let it happen.
Yesterday's Q-Clock was pointing to this exact post.
Exactly, I came here to report that too. On p. 787 of the DOD Law Of War Manual is the beginning of Chapter 11.11.
11.11 CRIMINAL LAW IN OCCUPIED TERRITORY This section addresses criminal law in occupied territory. Additional rules apply to judicial proceedings against protected persons in occupied territory, which are also applied by analogy to judicial proceedings against internees in a belligerent’s home territory.188
It goes on to differentiate between civil laws and military laws, and much, much more.
Nice reminder. Thanks OP.
o7
Just stating the obvious. 11+11=22.
So,, 11.11.22 ?
Nah, just coincidence........
Look at the Q Clock. 11/11 is at Noon.
https://www.q-clock.com/images/qclock_vanilla.jpg
30 clock rotations. "Done in 30"
Just coincidence
That's not a date..its a chapter in Law of War manual.
I can't find "Law of War manual" in any Q posts.
I don't think Q referred DIRECTLY to the DOD Manual, but an autiste who goes by the name of Magestic12 (or something like that as I recall) put it together after a deep dive into the document. If you search GAW for Magic12 or variations on that, you'll come across his videos. If I find it, I'll come back and post it for you.
You're thinking of Majic Eyes Qnly, fren below me in this thread linked it.
Found one post (#6 in the series), you can find the others with some diligent search. https://greatawakening.win/p/13zzoVcaxP/majic-eyes-qnly--law-of-war-the-/c/
Personally, I viewed the videos back some time ago and it's a compelling theory. Your mileage may vary, but it's worth listening to, since the numbers that Q was dropping did not seem to relate to any other thing like dates or times. But the link to the DOD Law of War Manual seems to be very interesting.
Most likely theory imo
"Double meanings exist." - Q, drops 1385, 1952, 2348, and 2350.
That gives this piece of news much more weight:
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/10/ohio-supreme-court-suspends-democrat-judge-due-unprecedented-behavior-removes-cleveland-municipal-court-bench-temporarily-strips-law-license/
RED wave coming? RED in capital letters and also the Question mark.
I wonder if RED means something other than Republican. Also is the question mark pointing to something?
Do we really think they are just going to allow an election that they cannot win without a fight?
Veteran’s Day!
o7
Also, my wedding is on 11/11/22.
I'll let you all know if anything crazy happens.
If time was a letter
You dont seem to see that small fish are putting facts on record..it's a slow roll for the normies..
The question is, 'facts on record' for who? :)