Fair points; the main one that I would like to address is the Syria attack.
This one PROVES Q as a legitimate intel source.
So, Trump announces the plan to withdraw; the next day the chemical attack, and the Q post about Trump never telegraphing moves.
After the attack, Britain and France threatened to attack with or without Trump. The attempt being to force NATO into conflict with Russia, this would legally force Trump into military action.
Meaning, Trump was forced into action or he would be forced into potential WW3 level military action.
So, he tweets about smart missiles, russia withdraws from the impact area, and most missiles got shot down.
The next day is where it became clear that it was a double cross;
- The syrian people were cheering in the streets for Assad
- 0 casualties from the air strike
- Several hundred ISIS fighters were captured / killed within the city
- The Iranian nuclear program in Syria was uncovered
- The war hawks were appeased (can't call for a second strike with no justification)
- War with russia averted
It was such a massive move that even the media didn't even call for Trumps impeachment for 2 days after. They were so taken aback by how they got played that they didn't even know how to spin things....
No it doesn't. Also this occurred before Q was allegedly hijacked. A lot of people think Q was legit for awhile and then it was taken over by a different group. The problem with a secret group is it is totally possible this happened. It also might not have happened and we wouldn't know.
Q hasn't been so accurate with what has been going on in the last few weeks. Also my Tarot, and Astrology points stand. Throw enough darts that are vague and people will do the knitting of them into something that might make sense. It is a time tested technique.
I do think there seemed to be something to that initial group back during the time of the earlier Syria attacks. Though they haven't been nearly as accurate and a lot more vague. Often they have been completely wrong. They were not wrong that I saw before the alleged switching of controllers happened.
You know when Q was "hijacked"?? Coincidentally it happened RIGHT AFTER Q posted about being careful who to follow, that people were seeking profit from the movement.
The response to that post by Corsi, Jones, and a few others was to start claiming that Q was hijacked, Jones went so far as to claim he had "met Q" (No outside comms) and then that he had his "own Real Q" (Zach).
The Q group had obviously anticipated the attacks because they posted another photo from AF1 in the air that was taken seconds after one that was posted months earlier.
The point was never about being "accurate"...It is a group hinting at the elements of a general plan, NOT a specific iteration of what moves will be played and in what order. If they did that, then it would just be a matter of solving the clues and they could completely destroy the plan.
There was no "second group"... that was something started by people who outed themselves as profiteers.
Keep in mind not everyone around the president is a good actor. Showing such a photo is not evidence for or against the alleged hijacking of the Q movement. As I said before that is one of the problems with being completely anonymous. We literally cannot know.
I'm not much of a "faith" type person.
EDIT: Also I wasn't ignoring you. I flew out of country for a few days and only got back last night.
Agreed... Trump, especially from the start, has had a large segment of bad actors around him.
I think your point of anonymity is valid, makes it so there's no way to confirm or deny with 100%.
The main point I was making was that the people who claimed Q group was taken over or whatever, are those people who have been pointed at by Q as being paytriots, people who were trying to profit off the movement.
The problem here is that is a generalization. Those are not the only people saying that. Making categorical assumptions about a group of people based upon the traits of a few or even a lot of the members is generally false. Aka a Generalization, a stereotype is a form of that.
I push back, because I know the vast majority of generalizations are false.
I stated it generally, yes.
It is not a generalization though; those who were called out, they weren't called out by name, they were called out generally and exposed themselves by speaking out against it.
The prime examples are Alex Jones and Jerome Corsi.
Alex Jones hasn't stated definitively anything. Jerome Corsi did. Infowars has been rather non-commital when it comes to Q and they are not anonymous. As humans I don't agree with a lot of approaches of Alex Jones. Yet I trust him a hell of a lot more than I trust Q.
I don't think they exposed shit. ;) Think about this. Q is allowed without any censorship to speak on platforms all over the place. Some of the places that censor Alex Jones and others at Infowars like David Knight (whom I respect a lot) not only don't censor Q. At times they almost advertise for Q. shrug Read into it what you will.
If they were not anonymous they certainly would be in more danger, but I also would be able to consider motivations and other factors which we cannot know. So I disagree strongly with you on some of this.
I will admit that Q can definitely provoke my curiosity, yet a lot of what they say is stated in a way that seems leading like a tarot card reader and using a lot of already known things. So I'm not really impressed. I am more impressed with how hard the community will work to try to ascribe specific meaning to the little crumbs and snippets that Q releases.
Also, as of late they haven't been very accurate.