What happened to all the iterations prior to 11.3, @elonmusk?
(media.greatawakening.win)
Q-analysis!
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (52)
sorted by:
Herm. I'll be waiting for 2 weeks, just in case.
I mean, Nov 3 was already a pretty big marker, if you ask me. Not that there might not be concurrent meanings and all, and who knows, maybe Elon is our boy and actually a genius Q-type fella. The evidence mounts, but I'm gonna wait 2 weeks to see if this is really a Q proof. (Sets alarm for 10 hours, 2 weeks)
Anon, 11.3 refers not to a date but the DoD Law of War manual. We have been belligerently occupied since 1/20/21. In two weeks, our military may engage the occupier. Read section 11 here it starts on page 757: DoD Law of War Manual
Let's be clear, shall we? That is a theory. To treat it like a fact is not Q-like at all -it's not what Q taught us to do.
I've listened to MajicEyes vids and decodes on LOW manual, and I think they are very good. I stated "concurrent" for that specific reason. There are, I believe (and I acknowledge when I have beliefs and don't pretend that they are facts, btw), numerous concurrent meanings.
However, I have also done a LOT of digging into LOW manual, and specifically the theories about "waiting times" required before engagement can occur, etc, and in my view, they are extremely bogus. They are premised on mis-readings of the LOW manual content + severe prejudicial interpretation + a form of hopium.
One such (nonsense, imo, although I caveat that I AM speaking rather passionately, I admit) theory that was being promoted by 107 and others who latched on to it, ONE YEAR AGO, was that for some reason (aka misreading of the LOW manual) the rightful sovereigns could NOT engage the belligerent forces for 12 months due to Geneva conventions, so when Jan 20, 2022 came around, all gloves would be off and we would see them activating and swooping in.
See: 11.3 End of Occupation and Duration of GC Obligations
Majic Eyes stuff is very high quality, but he does NOT (if I recall correctly) go so far as to throw out time period date fagging theories like some who follow on from his work and then mis-apply (imo) reasoning to the LOW manual. They do not, imo, apply the same rigorous logic and due diligence that MajicEyes does in his work.
"military may engage the occupier"
If you can specifically point me to any content that actually says this (after having been vetted for ambiguity, analysed in terms of semantics and actual langauge) then, I'm all ears.
Although it's by no means a validation of my opinions, I will mention that I professionally read texts to interpret their precise and accurate meaning for my work, and have done so for almost 30 years now: I've done legal texts, contract, legislation, medical research, civil engineering, manufacturing, journalistic texts, religious texts, etc. If I misread the meaning in texts, I don't get paid and I lose work. So that's the approach I bring when I look into and analyse something like LOW manual.
Thanks.
It makes NO sense to have a rule that says you have to WAIT to engage the enemy...NONE!
Yeah, it doesn't make sense even on the surface of it.
LOW talks about obligations of an occupying power, and how long those obligations last. However, the obligations finish (12 months after, I think) once the occupation is no longer considered an 'occupation'. The occupying power is obliged to observe GC for 12 months after the occupation has completed. GC are only relevant in terms of war, aka military engagement, and when they are not relevant, then civil law kicks in.
He was actually pretty heavy into datefagging for a time...
Ah, perhaps I glossed over that part, on account of not being a big fan of the ol' datefagging generally.