Thanks. Not sure that I agree.

I got a lot from the o'Savin podcast on the bigger picture, but there are still holes.

Personally, I fully agree with you that "Cyber invasions from foreign entities would be considered 'conflicts' because in this case"

my minor question to the OP is, why does he contradict himself? "there never was any armed conflict" vs. "GC rules apply to both parties if involved in armed conflict until..."

Such contradictions matter.

Also, he incorrectly stated what Article 6 says (check it yourself).

I appreciate your suggestion: "To understand this, you MUST remove your agenda-you are too focused on one detail to be able to see the bigger picture"

I do appreciate that - your sincerity is apparent. However, I'd like to make a suggestion to you, too.

To make certain the theory is viable, you have to be able to provide empirical evidence and address discrepancies and holes, instead of relying on your firm belief to just dismiss and ignore any questions or holes when pointed out.

Case in point: You focused exclusively on the issue of "conflict", something I have NO issues with. Why? Why no straight answers? Quotes? Article numbers? Direct references? only "you have to see the big picture".

Thanks. Not sure that I agree.

I got a lot from the o'Savin podcast on the bigger picture, but there are still holes.

Personally, I fully agree with you that "Cyber invasions from foreign entities would be considered 'conflicts' because in this case"

my minor question to the OP is, why does he contradict himself? "there never was any armed conflict" vs. "GC rules apply to both parties if involved in armed conflict until..."

Such contradictions matter.

Also, he incorrectly stated what Article 6 says (check it yourself).

I appreciate your suggestion: "To understand this, you MUST remove your agenda-you are too focused on one detail to be able to see the bigger picture"

I do appreciate that - your sincerity is apparent. However, I'd like to make a suggestion to you, too.

To make certain the theory is viable, you have to be able to provide empirical evidence and address discrepancies and holes, instead of relying on your firm believe to dismiss and ignore any questions or holes when pointed out.

Case in point: You focused exclusively on the issue of "conflict", something I have NO issues with. Why? Why no straight answers? Quotes? Article numbers? Direct references? only "you have to see the big picture".