>>1851579
>You're addressing OP.
My apologies, anonymity is a hard thing to directly address.
>If you're suggesting Trump and his people are staging suicides the way that Hillary and Co. do, you've got a really poor image of patriotism.
You seem to be ignoring the fact Q often mention suicides in inverted commas and appear to be blaming me for pointing that out.
>What you're suggesting is that Trump is taking down a criminal cabal with their very own tactics.
So you're saying Q never said 'suicides' (inverted commas) and I just imagined it?
Go back and re-read posts.
>This would imply that the plan could never be truly revealed to the public, and would potentially threaten the public if revealed in its entirety
That would be the inference if any of the theories are true. Alternatively, disguising it as 'suicides' would make it harder for the deepstate to identify.
How they receive their punishment is of no relevance to me (I'd prefer jail, but since when does Jeffrey or Hillary ever go directly to jail?), I am merely observing.
>Do you really think that's what's going on here?
Best case scenario: Cabal are cleaning up loose ends (meaning thy could choose to come clean but they opt for a murder disguised as suicide putting pressure on their other members).
Worst case scenario: A group of US mil agents are going around putting out skulls.
To me, how it's achieved is irrelevant - my only concern is whether or no the people on the receiving end are guilty or innocent.
I'm not Q, so I cannot comment.
>Treating a username calling for the death of a vague theoretical group of world power brokers as a threat would show a severe lack of both perspective and judgment, both of which Q has demonstrated to possess a near-limitless supply.
My point is people regularly make threats their butt can't cash and rarely think of the consequences.
Contrast: you'd never yell that publicly in the street. I believe Q said this is not a game: idle threats undermine the seriousness of real threats, and idle threats run the risk of being misinterpreted as real threats.
You seem to be suggesting your (friend's) post was a veiled threat, because if it wasn't, this line of reasoning wouldn't even need to be explored.
>Exactly, so the odds of Q misinterpreting something are all the more remote.
You seem to be conflating intelligence sources with omniscience. Q can only gain intelligence on things the user has posted; if there's no clarification, then the post remains vague.
My comment about intel is there might be additional context as to why the post is interpreted either positively or negatively that we don't know about.
>Not only would they be aware of the internet postings of said person, and thereby their views, but they would also have knowledge of whether said person would have any history of violence or indications of being a dangerous person.
Some people don't have an indicator of violence before they 'snap'. Intelligence does not equal mind reader.
(They're also notorious for getting the wrong targets. Don't book any weddings in the middle east any time soon.)
>With all that at hand, you think they'd make an entirely unnecessary vague threat over someone posting a picture of Ivanka for the 20th time or so in a CBTS thread?
Perhaps. But again, proxies, unknown unknowns. You seem to be assuming the Q post is a threat: I'm laying out the possibilities and the reasons why.
If Q's knowledge is reliable (and never prone to errors, ever) then why even have this thread?
>Your characterizations of the way Q thinks really don't seem to jive with all the posts Q has made in the many months since the post in question.
I haven't made characterisations of the way Q thinks, I have offered SPECULATIVE POSSIBILITIES which has been emphasised numerous times. Instead you appear to want to argue over some vague bullshit which could be interpreted or misinterpreted in any number of ways.
I offered you some possibilities. They are just possibilities. You can either accept them as considerations for whatever reasons you want to consider, or you can ignore them. There's nothing to argue here because it is SPECULATIVE.