The difference between sex and rape is consent, right?
What happened?
When YOU flaunt your sexuality at work, its inappropriate. When THEY do it, its stunning and brave
Its really inappropriate. Nobody needs that much validation, and its not the schools job to provide it anyway.
Fuck her. Trump was never prosecuted, therefore hes still innocent of all the allegations that they cant seem to be able to prove.
We ought to twist this around on HER. Shes the insurrectionist. SHE needs to be barred from office
I mean, it should be discriminatory.
Oh, you arent a citizen? Sorry, cant vote.
Mens and womens bathrooms are discriminatory
Yes it is! Theyve been trying to integrate a NAU north american union (like the EU, but Canada, US, Mex)
These smaller blocs are just part of “globalist” top-down world government
Is BRICS truly independent of the cabal?
Or just another name for same ole
Ill believe it when i see it
I think they built BRICS to get away from US
Ok so ive actually been on a usury kick since i was a teenager, and would later bring it up online, whenever the occasion arose. What i figured out real quick is that most people have never heard the word, so i knew we had a lot of work to do to educate the people.
Two steps to any revolution:
-
educate yourself
-
educate others
Anyway, other people eventually started talking about it too, and i would go out of my way to search for the word “usury” on twitter, and follow everyone that was using the word…
And so with a network of like-minded people, we were able to kind of scale-up the whole educate the public thing.
And it worked! (For a while)
It just so happened that there were some things happening in the economy that were causing more people to start paying attention, and there we were to tell them about usury…
And so because of good timing of bad circumstances, the word usury went viral, and everyone was learning about it.
And this was leading up to the 2008 banking collapse,
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007–2008_financial_crisis
We (anons) had the bankers on the ropes, and we were going in for the knock-out punch.
And many “too big to fail” banks would have collapsed.
We were over the moon. We couldnt be more happy! I seemed like we were winning!
But then the bankers held the US Congress hostage, and demanded a huge ransom.
Iirc, they got something like $700B from the US Congress…
Later, when Nancy Pelosi was asked how they arrived at that particular amount, she replied that it had to be “a really big number (amount)”
And all of our jaws hit the fn floor.
These mobsters just ROBBED the US CONGRESS in broad daylight!
But the bankers got smart.
The lowered interest rates to almost 0, and left it there for a very long time.
This was effective for salvaging the ecomony, but almost as important, it got the word USURY out of the popular lexicon.
People didnt talk about usury anymore. On to the next issue.
Later, when they started to raise interest rates, they did it very slow at first… like from 0.25 to 0.50 then soon it was 1.00
And of course 1.0 interest seems reasonable to a person whose never carefully studied how usury works,
But in effect what they did, was to DOUBLE the interest rate, and then DOUBLE it again!
Later, when they kept raising the interest rates, they explained that there wasnt any particular reason, other than they wanted interest rates closer to where they had been historically and traditionally.
So, basically they just felt like it.
And look at interest rates today!
Thats whats motivating this OP!
The best time to educate a new batch of anons, is when the interest rates are high!
Yes thats abbreviation
Their way of life needs to change.
The entire world is a stage, and everyone in it is a clown honk honk
ChatGPT: The Law of War Manual is a document that outlines the legal principles and rules governing armed conflict, also known as international humanitarian law (IHL) or the law of armed conflict. It serves as a guide for military forces, policymakers, legal advisors, and others involved in the planning and conduct of military operations.
The content of a Law of War Manual typically covers a wide range of topics, including:
-
Principles of IHL: Fundamental principles such as distinction (between combatants and civilians), proportionality (balancing military necessity and humanitarian considerations), and necessity (limiting the use of force to what is militarily necessary).
-
Protection of Civilians: Rules and obligations regarding the protection of civilians, including rules on targeting, detention, and the provision of humanitarian assistance.
-
Treatment of Combatants: Rights and obligations of combatants, including rules on capture, detention, interrogation, and treatment of prisoners of war.
-
Means and Methods of Warfare: Regulations concerning the use of weapons, tactics, and strategies during armed conflict, including prohibitions on weapons of mass destruction, indiscriminate attacks, and certain methods of warfare.
-
Occupation and Peacekeeping: Legal framework governing the occupation of territory and the conduct of peacekeeping operations, including rules on administration, governance, and the protection of human rights.
-
Enforcement and Accountability: Mechanisms for enforcing compliance with IHL, including legal accountability for violations of the laws of war, prosecution of war crimes, and the role of international and national courts and tribunals.
The specific content and format of a Law of War Manual may vary depending on the country or organization that produces it. These manuals are often updated to reflect developments in international law, changes in military doctrine, and lessons learned from recent conflicts. They play a crucial role in promoting compliance with IHL and minimizing the humanitarian impact of armed conflict.
The history of the Law of War Manual traces back to the development and codification of international humanitarian law (IHL), also known as the law of armed conflict. Here's an overview of its evolution:
-
Early Codification Efforts: The roots of modern IHL can be found in various ancient and medieval codes of conduct, religious doctrines, and customary practices governing the conduct of warfare. These included principles of chivalry, religious injunctions, and customary norms aimed at mitigating the effects of armed conflict.
-
Geneva Conventions: The modern framework of IHL began to take shape with the adoption of the first Geneva Convention in 1864, which established protections for wounded soldiers on the battlefield. Subsequent Geneva Conventions, adopted in 1906, 1929, and 1949, expanded protections for wounded and sick combatants, prisoners of war, and civilians during armed conflict.
-
Hague Conventions: The Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 focused on regulating the conduct of hostilities, including rules on the means and methods of warfare, protection of civilians, and treatment of prisoners of war. These conventions laid the foundation for modern rules of IHL regarding the conduct of armed conflict.
-
Post-World War II Developments: The atrocities committed during World War II underscored the need for comprehensive and universally applicable rules governing the conduct of armed conflict. In response, the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 were adopted, along with additional protocols addressing specific issues such as protection of victims of international and non-international armed conflicts.
-
Customary International Law: In addition to treaty-based instruments, customary international law, which consists of widely accepted state practices and legal principles, plays a crucial role in shaping the rules of IHL. Customary norms are reflected in state practice, judicial decisions, and the writings of legal experts.
-
National Law of War Manuals: Many countries have developed their own Law of War Manuals to provide guidance to military forces, legal advisors, and policymakers on the interpretation and application of IHL in the context of military operations. These manuals draw on international treaties, customary law, and national legislation to articulate the rules governing the conduct of armed conflict.
Overall, the Law of War Manual reflects the ongoing evolution of international humanitarian law and serves as a practical guide for ensuring compliance with legal obligations during times of armed conflict.
You are doing Gods work, sir
well i mean in general. like when they try to draft us to go fight a war with Iran, we wouldnt be fighting arabs, we’d be fighting white people.
I was shocked to learn that too.
Iranians are white?
Ironically enough, they slipped a little disinfo in there themselves, and ill bet most of you missed it.
What did they say?
They said that because her uncle isnt an expert, thats an appeal to authority fallacy.
Thats false.
TPTB have been frantically trying for many years to re-define what “appeal to authority” means.
Appeal to authority USED to mean exactly as it sounds, which is, that you are basing your logic on what “authorities” say
Example:
My teacher said X is true
My doctor said Y is false
My lawyer said Z is true
And obviously its tempting to want to believe your teachers, doctors, and lawyers,
After all, no one person can become an expert in many things, so we heavily rely on people who are experts, which is usually a good strategy
Because we live in a trust-based society, where we drive over bridges without worrying if they will collapse.
“The experts” always build good, safe bridges…
… except when they dont…
There is not a single expert or authority who ever lived who got it right 100% of the time.
Point being, authorities are fallible, as are all people.
BUT what TPTB have been trying to do for the the last several years, is re-define “appeal to authority” as being when a persons logic is based on appealing to the authority of a person who isnt an authority.
Example: the uncle in the video.
So why do they do this?
Because they are trying to erase the entire concept that authorities can be wrong.
In clown world, whatever your teacher says, is indisputable.
In clown world, whatever your doctor says is the Word of God, at least until you get a contrary second opinion.
In clown world, whatever your lawyer says is the winningest legal argument, until you lose in court.
They are trying to roll out a scheme of “rule by experts” or “rule by authority”
And this “appeal to authority” fallacy is a major hinderance to their narratives.
They want you to stop questioning authority, because the more we question authority, the more clown world we reveal.
Wow, as i type this out, it has occured to me that what they are doing is manipulating people into committing this fallacy, instead of being wary of it.
TLDR: trust the scientists, not your own two eyes
Send me a link when you are ready i can fill a library with the rabbit holes ive been down
“I like to have sex with people who were assigned female at birth…”