Anonymous ID: c8b004 June 16, 2020, 4:35 a.m. No.9631340   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun   >>1363 >>1396

>>9631315

You want me to tell you how I reached the conclusion I did? Ok.

 

Look closely at red text faggot. Really look at him and what he says. He's not trying to convince anyone, he's a silly cartoon. He's ineffective as a shill and very effective at pretending he's one, as fools like you apparently still think he's a serious enough character to lash out at. The other shills spam disinfo, subtle consensus cracking and actual tactically aware posts. Red text faggot justโ€ฆ faggots. Very loudly. And just in case you think the military doesn't frequently have actors playing the bad guys in wargame scenarios: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposing_force

 

He might fool you. He doesn't fool me.

Anonymous ID: c8b004 June 16, 2020, 4:44 a.m. No.9631399   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun   >>1435

>>9631363

Could be many reasons. Training anons to not take the bait so easily, testing tactics to see what triggers people ect. We've all been conditioned by the military over the past few years through various techniques for what we're facing now, dummy shills like red text faggot might be part of that.

 

If I'm wrong I'm wrong, but I don't think I am. He'll respond to me when I talk to him regularly, but when I call him 'opfor' or imply he's intelligence, he never responds. And I've had enough interactions with him now to believe he's what I think he is. But I guess we never really know.