>>12078446 (/lb)

See here's the thing, I totally agree with that being the most likely…but I am humble enough to admit I cannot know 100%. I've been wrong about what I was so sure of before.

I mean, yes I'm 99.99% sure Snowden is a traitor, but I can't say 100% for two main reasons, well three:

1. Brennan attacked Snowden and called him a traitor. While it would be a fallacy to deduce from this is that it 'logically' proves Snowden is a whitehat, the fact Brennan is attacking him raises at least some questions;

2. Snowden is still alive. Protected by Russia? The same country the entire deep state has been targeting as enemy #1?

3. Snowden was likely not acting on his own. Is it impossible for Snowden to have been a double DOUBLE agent, used to trap his handlers, so in a way he's neither white hat nor blackhat? Again, I am not saying I am making this conclusion, I am just imagining HOW MY 99.99% BELIEF COULD BE WRONG.

I've been wrong before, and I cannot yet ABSOLUTELY REFUTE the possibility Snowden was presented as 'the' traitor by Q so as to make the deep state believe Snowden wasn't 'turned'.

To be sure I would not be surprised or shocked if Snowden isn't pardoned. It would just make me 99.9999% sure he's for real exclusively a blackhat.

I'm just keeping SOME skepticism given I do not have Q clearance.

The world isn't going to hell just because I'm not 100% sure. The world will be the same whether I believe 99.99% or 100%. It's not like your safety or anyone's safety hinges on my stating 100% certainty over 99.99% .

Just want to hedge my bets because I accept the possibility I could be wrong about something 'so obvious'.

>>12078558

>>12078601

Left win identity politics fail

>>12078612

Lame attempt to divide military.

>>12078627

No, that's only what America's enemies want people to think.

Fail.

>>12078634

Nah, you're fighting to SUPPRESS all talk of unity between people who 'look different'.

So you flood the site with division code and you're using 'free speech' as cover for your deception.

>>12078677

So now you're disrespecting OTHER anon's 'free speech'.

Hypocrite.

>>12078723

Cope.

>>12078758

What's wrong with children?

>>12078795

The Storm approaches!

Military is signaling they are loyal to the Constitution, not the Globalists.

>>12078795

Axios:

>"Pentagon official response: A senior Defense Department official sought to downplay the move, calling it "a simple delay of the last few scheduled meetings until after the new year."

>"We had fewer than two dozen remaining meetings on the schedule today and next week," the official said, adding that "the DoD staff working the meetings were overwhelmed by the number of meetings."

>"These same senior leaders needed to do their day jobs and were being consumed by transition activities. … With the holidays we are taking a knee for two weeks. We are still committed to a productive transition."

"We are taking a knee for two weeks. We are still committed to a productive transition."

>>12078976

I love it how some are trying to 'downplay' this.

Nothing to see here, they're just making us 'bend the knee' for two weeks, it will all be better in the new year, promise….

>>12078995

Wait, so it is impossible for any corrupt individual to try to downplay it by spreading a narrative that the halt is really just a 'delay'?

Sounds like what a terrified person would WANT people to think this halt is, you know, to make it seem like the globalists are still moving on with their plan…

>>12079007

>What are you doing here if there are no Q_anons

I am here as an 'Anon', not a 'QAnon'. I don't know what a 'QAnon' even is. Does that mean a person who is 'pro-Q' 'Anon' in their minds? Blackhats can post here too, but how can you tell what's in their minds?

This is why we are only 'Anons'.

'QAnon' is a label the media attacks because they can't refute Q.

What are you doing here if there are no 'Anons'? Your post is 'Anonymous'. You were not named 'QAnon' by this site, or your parents. 'QAnon' does not exist.

>Q provides the crumbs anons research the crumbs and together they make a ream called Q_anon_research

False. What you call 'and together' is a backdoor attempt by blackhats to infiltrate as 'Anons' and post disinformation and deception under the banner you desperately want to shift the narrative to, 'QAnon' so that Q can be attacked indirectly by way of attacking 'QAnon' statements, suggestions and actions that have really come from 'Anons'.

>If you dont like it there is Half chan where you came from

Your urge to censor Anons is evidence you are trying to divide Anons and attack Q.

FAIL.

>bye and good luck

Nope, I'm not going anywhere.

Cope.

>>12079139

Cope.

KYS

>>12079165

You're triggered. Here's more cope.

>>12079168

You're triggered. Here's more cope.

>>12079037

That's a good idea. It delineates Q from Anon, as Q and Anons are distinct.

>>12079214

Hahah, no it's not normal at all that the Pentagon being hacked was followed by a halt to briefings to China's manchurian candidate who lost the election.

>>12079178

No, this is not normal AT ALL.

>>12079246

>It's the NEW normal

Oh please, by that deception there is no such thing as normal

You accusing Anons of being 'newfags' is just proof you can't attack their message. It's a shill tactic.

KYS