Anonymous ID: f495e5 April 30, 2018, 6:06 a.m. No.1246841   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun   >>6857 >>6858 >>6900 >>6920

Anons, regarding Q's drops about the Bin Laden raid.

 

Did you interpret it as we did not really kill Bin Laden on that raid, but merely just claimed we did to "kill him off" and also claim Pakistan gave us the intel in order for us to keep giving aid to Pakistan?

 

Or did you more interpret it as we really did kill Bin Laden on that raid, but for the same reason, to front that Pakistan gave us the intel so we could keep aiding them?

Anonymous ID: f495e5 April 30, 2018, 6:09 a.m. No.1246857   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun   >>6940

>>1246841

>Anons, regarding Q's drops about the Bin Laden raid.

 

>Did you interpret it as we did not really kill Bin Laden on that raid, but merely just claimed we did to "kill him off" and also claim Pakistan gave us the intel in order for us to keep giving aid to Pakistan?

 

>Or did you more interpret it as we really did kill Bin Laden on that raid, but for the same reason, to front that Pakistan gave us the intel so we could keep aiding them?

 

Want to hear some theories

Anonymous ID: f495e5 April 30, 2018, 6:15 a.m. No.1246888   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun

>>1246858

I hope we didnt kill OBL on that raid, and that he died way back in 2001/2002 of kidney failure, just so it makes Obama look worse. But regardless, I see a best case scenario being that we DID kill him on that raid, but simply to use him as a pawn to keep sending (illegal) aid to Pakistan, which is still treasonous and terrible