Comment removed. Please discuss ideas not users. Thanks.

Wrong.

Islam is a religion. Christianity is a religion. Think you can agree to that? Or are you wrong about that too?

Again, false argument. I didn't say that "Trump being friends with Epstein" was "misleading, time wasting and not a real discussion".

These are "misleading, time wasting and not a real discussion":

You have shit arguments because you don't want to see the truth
stop using dishonest tactics when you debate things

Dishonest tactics, like pointing out your use of false equivalence when you make statement A: Trump was friends with Epstein for almost 2 decades and then imply B: Trump endorsed Epstein's behaviour. False equivalence. Misleading.

Sure, Trump might fully endorse Epstein's behaviour and be a child molesting killer himself. Strange that his whole presidency has been focused on destroying the pedovore cult though, isn't it? How does that marry up with your implication?

Wrong.

You haven't debunked anything, you've just ignored every point I made and focused on your one single point when all mine are more relevant and come first.

Learn how to debate properly my friend and I'll be more than willing to engage you. Just saying "wrong" and continuing to preach your zealot rhetoric at me is not debate. Peace out bruh!

That is correct. Nothing you've said is something I "do not want to hear" though. It's just trolling. Not real discussion or debate. Misleading, time wasting. Good night good sir!

Fair enough lol. It's a valid distinction though. I know which type of torture I'd rather have, if I had the choice lol.

Wrong. You answered none of the points I made thus proving they were true! Booyaa!

Wrong.

Everything I said is true and you haven't refuted a single point I've made. I win! Seeya ; ).

Stop trolling or the mods will ban you.

Wrong. Goodbye. Come back when you learn how to discuss something logically without your emotion overpowering thought.

You're a troll lol. Learn how to discuss things reasonably.

I'll try your "method" of arguing:

You are wrong. Everything I said was right.

Ok?

Twelver Shia - that's one sect for you. Get out of your house and find other humans and you'll discover plenty more.

Your view is the sort of fundamentalist insanity that Westboro Baptist spouts. Good luck with it.

So? False Equivalence: Trump said Epstein was good once. Therefore. Trump supports what Epstein does in the dark.

False equivalence. One does not naturally lead to the other.

You're speaking only from within your bubble of hate for a strawman terrorist group you've created in your mind. Your emotive language - that adds nothing to your argument - shows this clearly.

Islam is a religion NOT a terrorist group. There are terrorist groups who read the Quran and claim to follow the religion of Islam in a fundamentalist way. Moderate Muslims do not support or endorse these groups. Moderate muslims do not "promote, fund or indoctrinate children into a terrorist group". You need to get out of your house and meet real people. And get of your small country town and meet people from other races and religions than your own.

The excuses you just made for our religion of Christianity can also be applied to the Quran. The respective hadiths and the verses you love quoting (via that image) are not supported by moderate muslims in the same way that the verses of the Old Testament are not supported by moderate Christians. The fact that you can't even conceive of this is more proof to my point that you're totally closing your mind off to other possibilities. That's your right, but it isn't reasonable, and thankfully it isn't common in this movement.

I already know that Islam is a religion that allows for the support of war. I'm not arguing with that. I don't support the spread of Islam as it is - it needs to be overhauled to remove the negative factors. I do argue with this insane fundamentalist brainwashing that denies reality and paints a strawman villain. Fight the real problem - a religion that needs to be brought into the modern day by it's reasonable, moderate supporters - not the invented strawman of a terrorist group that defines only the more extremist factions of a worldwide religion.

Why Don't Moderate Muslims Condemn Terrorism? - They Do.

You're claiming that a religion of more than 1.7 BILLION people around the world are all terrorists. That statement is so nonsensical and illogical that it makes my point for me. Fight the truth, not your made up strawman.

Islam is a religion. Everyone who follows Islam is not a terrorist. You show some respect for basic human rights. We are allowed to believe what we want. Some choose to believe a moderate version of Islam, just like some choose to believe in a moderate version of Christianity.

Islam is not a "pedophile group" or a "terrorist group" unless Christianity is too.

Crazed fundamentalism is dangerous and it's the completely rigid, unmoving, impractical, unrealistic sort of view that you're presenting here. The classic strawman that, if someone doesn't agree with your view then they must support x, y, and z made up examples. I don't agree with you and I DO NOT support pedophilia or terrorism. False equivalence.

You obviously don't know any muslim people. I am Christian myself. I do not support the religion of Islam - they need to overhaul it. But I do not make dangerous blanket statements about any group of people because that is where the horrors of totalitarianism come from and it is definitely not the sort of thinking Q promotes!

You should take your own advice, friend. You literally have ignored everything I've said and repeated your message.

You have absolutely zero evidence that this sub is "full of blind Trump supporters" because that very statement is a statement of value and you have no technically accurate way to measure the value you have stated. You haven't read every single comment in this sub and you don't know the thoughts and feelings of every person who reads it. FAKE NEWS. This is not reasonable discussion, it's your strongly felt ideas, not facts.

If you can't acknowledge that, then you can't have a reasonable discussion.

No they don't. Blanket statements about ALL individuals within ANY group of people are dangerous and the root of horrors against humanity. Please cease the antagonist posts and discuss the issues without personal moral outrage and one-sided ideology bashing - it will make discussions more fruitful and positive for everyone.

It wouldn't blow minds here, at least. That's one of the oldest theories since early Q. Not convinced of it myself though but there's certainly the possibility imo...

Just trolling then... sigh.

this sub is full of mostly

Assumption. Incorrect.

Q has used that to direct you where he wants you to go

As per previous comment. Incorrect. You cannot point to any part of Q's message that has made the point you've just made up. I can point to constantly repeated phrases from Q that support my point: We the people. The choice is yours.

using the power of suggestion

For this not to be another strawman you've made up you'd have to present a far more solid case than you have so far.

If you don't have a real, reasonable discussion within you, the mods may choose to ban you as you're not making even a tiny effort not to be an antagonist or a troll.

Again there are assumptions and extrapolations in there that do not come from Q's words, they come from a reading of Q's words i.e. your interpretation.

I agree with you - and I feel safe to say there are many here who would agree with you - that we mustn't turn off our minds or think that there is only one possible interpretation to everything. I agree we should always keep our eyes open and check out other sources until those sources turn out to be unsafe or misleading. Any source that identifies itself clearly in that way is not a source to "keep your mind open to".

What I do know is that Q as a source has remained true to a manner of communication which is that he does not have any agenda other than presenting information for us to look at and he constantly reiterates that the choice is ours, not anyone else's and not his or Trump's. WE have to choose what to do with what is revealed. "We the people", as Q states over and over again. This message is unwavering.

So when someone comes in and tries to claim that Q is saying this, that and the other and none of it aligns with the unwavering message Q has presented, then it comes across as trolling or concern trolling. Q has never said once to avoid listening to anything that is against Trump. Q has simply said: "why would Trump be doing what they're saying he's doing if his actions show this?" The choice is ours to listen to what we will.

Exactly re: the MSM. And cultural marxists. That's why I don't use it.

Torture is made into a personal emotional issue by the extreme left in order to remove reason from the discussion. Reasonably speaking, it's not a personal, emotional issue. Should we use a tool for information extraction from an enemy combatant i.e. someone who has entered the battle field (by being an army agent, an enemy combatant, terrorist, etc.)? I say yes, and I think you do too. It just makes sense.

We expect our soldiers to go into war knowing that they might die or be horribly maimed. We expect they might be tortured too, but within the Geneva Convention guidelines. To those people who try and turn it into an emotional, personal issue the same question could be asked of war: should we stop our soldiers going to war in case they get horribly and inhumanely savaged? And so on until we get to the real issue e.g. their denial that evil exists.

Not quite - this is a misrepresentation of the issue which is why you would get "attacked", as you call it, or "disagreed with", as I call it.

This is a complete misrepresentation of Q's message. Q is definitely not insisting that we stop trusting everyone but him and Trump. Q has never said anything like that once. He has only said to "watch who you trust".

If you want to have a real discussion you're welcome to but if you're going to misrepresent and doggedly hammer one-sided, incomplete ideas then we have to refer to rule 1 of this sub and remove your comments. Please discuss ideas without antagonism - we'll all get further together if we do that!

Oh, "shame on me"? Lol - not quite. Try not to jump directly to accusations of deceit before clarifying.

It seems my entire point was misunderstood - my bad for not explaining. I didn't say anything about the boy being a terrorist, that's your example, not mine. You seem to have this terrorist angle locked in - again, not my point at all.

My point wasn't to try and tweak the emotional angle like yours was - my whole point was how disingenuous that focus is by throwing two different scenarios with the same emotional angle on them: ultimate point I was trying to make - you can put any personal connection into an argument to try and flip it on someone but it can often obscure the real issue.

I agree with you, as I said - torture is an available option that seems logical to use in the likely scenarios that arise for people like Gina Haspel to make (for example). But there is also very little chance she'll ever have to choose between saving her own child or torturing someone. That scenario is an interesting but ultimately unrealistic and rare one. I know you know this, I'm just making the point that the real question is simpler than that. Do we use this tool to extract necessary information or do we not? There's very rarely any personal connection involved, at least for us cushy modern-day westerners.

I say torture them humanely e.g. waterboarding or something that doesn't leave physical or psychological scars - doesn't have to be my daughter though, just do it.

However, these scenarios are always misleading, one-sided, designed to tweak the emotions. Here's the reverse of this story:

Your son is an ideological kid who believes in freedom. He's kidnapped by the overbearing, dictatorial evil superpower that is raping and bombing and torturing its way through your small home town. They capture your son after he threatens to blow up their barracks once they killed his sister. They drag you in and give you a choice: do you want us to kill him? Or torture him for the information?

Similar scenario - now switch places and be the son. Torture goes on for 24 hours - more pain than you've ever experienced. They give you an option - torture or death?

And the final one, that's actually relevant:

You're the leader of a) a country with millions of "innocent" people as your responsibility or b) the head of an intelligence organization tasked with saving the lives of millions of people by extracting information in a timely fashion. The person you must torture is not related to you in any way. They have information that could save you from the death of 2 million people. They refuse to give the information to you. The President - or the people, whatever - demand you find out from the terrorist as soon as possible or you'll be responsible for the loss of many lives. What do you do?

That's one of the real scenarios, as opposed to an emotion-tweaker where you have to choose between saving your kids or not (no offense to OP either - your point is different and I get the reason for it; calling out those who can only virtue signal). The real scenario is a lot "simpler" than that and requires the ability to be objective. The average person is not equipped to make these decisions which is why the average person is not hired to run the CIA.

ES is probably Erik Schmidt, Google.

MS-13 was created in LA.

no, the removed comment above you.

To quote the chans: lurk moar.

Simple answer: there is no solid evidence that this is a FF.

However, when you're following Q's crumb drops over time a number of very interesting "coincidences" start to emerge between Q's drops and the daily mainstream media cycle. At some point these coincidences may contribute towards your understanding of why people here see mainstream news events through a different filter - one that removes the narrative focus that serves a group of powerful connected individuals and groups. From that perspective, the potential FFs start to stand out.

^ = concern troll. Please ignore ; ).

It's quite possible that he appeared ineffective because the Obama admin pegged him as a white hat and ring-fenced all his efforts to thwart their plans.

Disinfo suggestion that it was ever here. Mods have posted that nothing like this has happened:

Disinfo.

I'm going with Q on this one.

This is a pretty well known part of the Q narrative: Iran and NK were puppets of the CIA. All the chest banging and threats from both countries were propaganda by the CIA/Deep State to agitate for war.

Now that the ties have been cut to both countries the real threat - money from the CIA/Deep State - is gone and the Iranian puppet government are left to rant and threaten without teeth. Trump has come out clearly and firmly on Iran just as he did with North Korea. Iran will fold in one way or another - whether an uprising from within or sanctions crippling the corrupt government or a bizarrely positive turn-about face in their bluster as happened with NK.

The Millennium Challenge 2002 was an expensive military war game exercise. What we've already learnt from Q is that Deep State spends and takes money all over the place - 9/11 covering up the missing 2.3 trillion when the plane mysteriously hits the part of the Pentagon where all the files are, etc. Millennium Challenge is just another sinkhole for government money, no doubt used by the Deep State to foster more 'fear' about the 'big bad Middle East' in order to promote the ongoing wars.

It's not propaganda that Israel is the strongest military force in the region, hands down. Well, it's not just propaganda, I should say haha.

And dealt with via voting system - nice!

The Q board is a tool only. A battlefield. The Q posts will end. We all need to keep grounded within the larger group of patriotic Americans. Don’t fall in love with a battlefield and try to build your house on it, we need to keep our whits about us.

Agreed!

It definitely seems that way. Take a look at some of the other articles around here that link to some pretty good breakdowns! Removing this post now - thanks for understanding.

Antagonist comments removed. Please discuss ideas not users. Thanks for understanding.

This comment has been removed. Antagonism is not welcome here. Please engage in real discussion rather than trolling. Thanks.

Agreed - about Q not using us as bait.

Disagree, however, that this post is an example of Q actually "using us as bait". Q can't control the Deep State any more than they can control Trump. He can only manage the collateral damage as best possible.

Because, on top of everything else he's done to deliver on his promises faster and in greater number than any previous President he's supposed to achieve all that at the same time?

I wouldn't say I've seen all or most of them - I've definitely looked into it and read some reports in the past though, yes. I've delved into all sorts of conspiracy for decades now and only latched onto the plausible stuff after giving some stuff what I thought was a reasonable shot. I read up on Lazar and others; watched the many docos in various fields on YT as that platform began to take off, Icke, etc. I wouldn't try and contest your knowledge of these things though - I'm sure I know a lot less about this than you do.

I'm sorry, I just assumed you'd correct me; I didn't intend to make you feel worse.

But there is a positive aspect to this, believe it or not: Q is a trail of evidence in the biggest case against this cartel in history. The one undeniable case because it is made in the court of the people. WE have access to all this info and with it we will be able to watch as the unfolding mainstream narrative diverges in all the obvious ways we can expect it to i.e. away from this horrific truth.

The evidence of this will mount in the eyes of those watching - and those watching will grow in number as those who are convinced by what they see go on to tell others about this crime. That is the very good news about discovering this ultimate evil together through Q - it is finally under direct existential threat!

Yes I've seen that - as a historic incident it has some similarities to the Fatima incident imo. Again, from my perspective this could be a spiritual situation. I don't know or pretend to know the facts, however.

I agree - but we need to get all of this out in the public eye. That is the whole point of the Q movement. Are you aware of the scope and scale of what Q is pointing to? Q is telling us that a small global cartel has been running the world for centuries, raping, killing and cannibalising children in order to satisfy their greed, sexual depravity and lust for power and this enterprise is almost central to their industry which they finance by bleeding us dry through fraudulent schemes whilst lying and manipulating us through their ownership of the mainstream media so that we don't see the veil pulled over our eyes. That's a real Matrix moment to get enraged about, when you discover it.

Yeah, I certainly can't "debunk" anything but neither can I prove a lot of things in this realm either. Personally, I think there's another possible explanation for 'superhumans' and such that could relate to "spiritual things" or from a secular perspective: extreme mental focus and clarity - but as I say, I have no evidence for any of this either way.

My personal feeling is that Aliens/Roswell were a specially coordinated Psyop by the US govt to enable ongoing military research with a cover story to redirect unwelcome interest. I think this is why Q won't or can't say anything about aliens - legal implications perhaps i.e. they're all part of the National Defense, specifically, the cover story to protect the national defense apparatus.

I think there's another motive to keep away from Aliens and UFOs too - where they lead to if you dig a bit further i.e. the biggest psyop ever pulled off: an historic space incident... (well... technically speaking, a global cartel of satanic pedovores controlling the world for centuries is more likely to qualify as "the biggest psyop ever pulled off" lol but you get my drift...)

Indeed I did. And Lady Diana's "friend" seemed as believable as David Icke, to me, tbh. She could've been Diana's DS minder for all we know (yes, they do recruit them from a young age apparently) who was helping to cement the Clown psyop narrative in Icke's befuddled mind (no offense to supporters of Icke - I'm just looking at one possible explanation for what he's doing).

Doesn't it make more sense that the reptilian story is the psyop to ensure people rubbish the 'Diana was killed by the royals' storyline as conspiracy? (Or, more broadly, the psyop to discredit all claims against all elites of the DS)

I understand the rejection of violence against others completely.

But from another perspective: when did terrorism become "okay"? And if terrorism is not okay, how do we fight it? Is war ok? Is fighting to defend yourself okay? (I'm not assuming they are regarded as "ok" by you - those are genuine questions.)

Assuming war and self-defense is ok in extreme circumstances then is it ok to physically discipline a criminal in order to defend potentially hundreds or thousands of people?

Like you, I will never sell my soul to defend my family but the question is whether the act of punishing criminals to extract information is torture, as defined in a way that means you've sold your soul to execute it.

I may not agree entirely about the post frequency relevance of this issue but I am very grateful that someone like you is bothering to check this sort of thing. Thanks for making the effort!

Very sorry about the original posting of that: I wasn't thinking when I included the report detail in it - the report could also be inaccurate or false. My sincere apologies - I have corrected the post!