DISNEY COMMS — NYT: "Disney+ lost roughly 11.7 million subscribers . . ." — Law of War Manual 11.7.2: "Censorship and Other Regulations of the Media" . . . "an Occupying Power may establish censorship or regulations of any or all forms of media and entertainment (e.g., theatre, movies) . . .
(media.greatawakening.win)
DISNEY COMMS
Just going to throw this out there…whoever wrote the law of war is insane and it’s about the dumbest document I’ve ever read through in my life. I really hope it’s not key to the plan
I read a manual for a washing machine and I felt it was about as boring.
But its a manual. It's not supposed to be riveting lol.
I'm sure a technical manual of Laws pertaining to War isn't going to be super exciting, im not sure what you would expect from such a book to make it otherwise.
It is rules: "without rules, we are no better than animals" Winston in John Wick..
I don't really get the concept either. If there's a war on, why would the belligerent occupier get all these rules and rights to do this or that. Is this some kind of treaty? Does anyone really think that if China came in and took over, they'd be like "let's check the manual and see if we can censor the press."
Have you folks ever heard of the Geneva Conventions? That's where the laws of war come from. They are an attempt to make war less terrible. And they benefit our soldiers if they are ever taken capture
https://www.britannica.com/event/Geneva-Conventions
The US Army has a law of war manual, because we have agreed to the Geneva Conventions.
US officers have to learn the rules of a belligerent occupier because we have been in this role several times. We occupied the Phillipines for like 50 years.
Just don't get how it works I guess. I thought the convention rules were for everyone in the Geneva Convention. Not that each country gets to have its own manual which describes how the occupier has to behave? Unless the DOD Law of War Manual updated in 2015 tracks Geneva Convention manual?
The original guide that incorporated the Geneva Conventions was The Department of the Army Field Manual (FM) 27-10, The Law of Land Warfare, was issued in 1956.
"After Vietnam, proxy armed conflicts, and the 1977 Additional Geneva Protocols, FM 27-10 was recognized as outdated and no longer reflective of current law of armed conflict mandates. Something new was needed"
So the DOD updated it and so it now goes beyond just the Geneva Conventions to an expanded American understanding of what is legal in war. The section on weapons went from one page to like 90. There's a section on cyberspace.
They were working on this for decades, it has nothing to do with recent politics. The lead author called for a new manual in 1990. He turned his draft in 2010 and retired.
To further your point, who wrote the manual in the first place and why would they write it on behalf of the occupier in lieu of those being occupied? It’s almost like “squatters rights”. Or maybe I’m understanding it wrong.
Yea, I just don't get it either.
You should look over the whole manual. There's a lot of things that affect the victims of war like prisoners of war.
This section is written this way because it's an attempt to place limits on the people in charge, just as there are limits on what the police or government can do.
what's insane about it?
The whole idea that you basically tuck your tail and get ruled. Even Afghanistan doesn’t buy that. Also it would concern me because none of our population was called to fight back against occupation.
It also relies a little too heavily on the idea that your occupiers care about what a manual says….this has not proven true for the vast majority of human history.
I’m not saying I don’t believe in devolution, I’m just saying it seems stupid to have an arbitrary manual that actually helps your occupiers more than hurts them.
I think you should look at actual military occupations that have occurred such as the US occupation of the Philippines or of Japan. I think people miss the point that the manual is intended as the laws we, the United States believe in and we are likely to be occupiers. It's laws that constrain us, just as the Constitution constrains politicians and police.
I don't think you could say they tucked their tail or didn't fight back.
Neither did human rights or freedom of speech. This is why the Laws of War were written in the first place. It's the same kind of achievement, same advancement even if they are not perfectly followed.
The law of war manual has nothing to do with devolution. It was something that was started being talked about in the 1990s and then worked on for like a decade. The first draft was turned in in 2010. It's not about the politics of this moment.