Meh. You kinda assume too much, don't you? I've been going over this for days now, by which I mean, reading the LoW manual, analysing it, checking to see if there is any basis for the assertions.

I'd prefer to ask the question of the OP, to see if the OP can back up his/her post, instead of just saying "you're wrong".

Funny that you're accusing me of copy/pasta and not actually doing the work. I guess different people have different approaches to actually digging, posting, and discussing.

But I could have been more clear. The first quote in my comment above is from the OP's previous post where he lays the assertions on which this current post is based. (OP would have recognized it, but perhaps no one else, unless they're paying the same level of attention to this that I am).

The second quote in my comment above is from the actual LoW manual itself.

I'm attached to the 1 year issue because so many people appear to be accepting it as gospel when no one, as far as I can see, has provided any evidence in the LoW that this is relevant.

In the current post, I don't really have any disagreement with the OP's supposition re: proclamation, in and of itself, except that the flimsy and unsubstantiated nature of the assertions people are letting fly (i.e. using reason, instead of actual evidence in LoW) makes me doubt most of the whole premise.

For example, one dude mengderen is asserting that the belligerent occupier is Biden camp, another one is asserting, no, Trump is the occupying force.

LoW discusses obligations of the occupier to uphold GC, and does not refer at all to what a sovereign cannot do.

No one said putting the pieces together would be easy. Patel Patriot does a masterful and sterling job of laying out the Devolution theory, precisely because he ONLY focuses on facts and evidence that is there, and clearly distinguishes between interpretation, speculation and the actual evidence.

I'm yet to see any of that sort of diligence around the "mah one year" assertions or theory.

Meh. You kinda assume too much, don't you? I've been going over this for days now, by which I mean, reading the LoW manual, analysing it, checking to see if there is any basis for the assertions.

I'd prefer to ask the question of the OP, to see if the OP can back up his/her post, instead of just saying "you're wrong".

Funny that you're accusing me of copy/pasta and not actually doing the work. I guess different people have different approaches to actually digging, posting, and discussing.

But I could have been more clear. The first quote in my comment above is from the OP's previous post where he lays the assertions on which this current post is based. (OP would have recognized it, but perhaps no one else, unless they're paying the same level of attention to this that I am).

The second quote in my comment above is from the actual LoW manual itself.

I'm attached to the 1 year issue because so many people appear to be accepting it as gospel when no one, as far as I can see, has provided any evidence in the LoW that this is relevant.

In the current post, I don't really have any disagreement with the OP's supposition re: proclamation, in and of itself.

Meh. You kinda assume too much, don't you? I've been going over this for days now, by which I mean, reading the LoW manual, analysing it, checking to see if there is any basis for the assertions.

I'd prefer to ask the question of the OP, to see if the OP can back up his/her post, instead of just say "you're wrong".

I'm a bit peeved that somehow you're accusing me of copy/pasta and not actually doing the work.

But I could have been more clear. the first quote in my comment above is from the OP's previous post where he lays the assertions on which this current post is based. (OP would have recognized it, but perhaps no one else, unless they're paying the same level of attention to this that I am).

The second quote in my comment above is from the actual LoW manual itself.

I'm attached to the 1 year issue because so many people appear to be accepting it as gospel when no one, as far as I can see, has provided any evidence in the LoW that this is relevant.

In the current post, I don't really have any disagree with the OP's supposition re: proclamation, except that the way the 1-year issue is being (in my view) falsely and mistakenly presented gives me a lot of doubt about the veracity or relevance of other tenets re: occupying forces, state of war.

Hey, if you don't like reading my comments, questions and discussion, why not just ignore them instead of making ad hominem assertions?