1st, please don't ban me. I think you guys have a great community and I enjoy reading your stuff. That said, I've seen a lot of post about how Q "predicted" a strike on an Iranian facility in Syria. The actual prediction is "Iran is next."
Lets be real clear here. At no point did Q specifically predict the strike. Q instead predicted some form of hostility towards Iran.
For example, if instead of the facility, a bomb where dropped on a bunch of Iranian backed jihadis, that would also count as being within the scope of "Iran is Next." Here is a question, what if he wasn't predicting a single strike but a larger strategic movement focusing on Iran?
All forms of hostility would fit into "Iran is Next." There is simply no way of knowing from three words, what exactly Q meant. So is "Iran is Next" a good prediction?
No. Considering the widespread hostility the U.S. has had with Iran, it was only a matter of time before something along those lines happened.
Anyways, let me know if I should delete this post. Thanks for reading.
Never said lie. Just saying the prediction is open ended and far too many things fall inside of it.
You're right, he never said there would be an attack on Iran. People believe he meant that there would be an attack on Iran because there actually was an attack on Iran.
My point is that its not possible to know what he actually meant. Since it could mean almost anything as long as it concerned U.S. and Iran.
Consequently, its not possible to determine if the prediction is dead on, since we don't even really know what he predicted.
That is a valid point, but it still leaves a weakness when using this particular example.
Congratulations, you just flushed your post title down the toilet: Why Q's Iran Prediction ....and "Q instead predicted some form of hostility towards Iran." Then here you say, "My point is that its not possible to know what he actually meant. Since it could mean almost anything as long as it concerned U.S. and Iran.
Consequently, its not possible to determine if the prediction is dead on, since we don't even really know what he predicted."
So far as "Considering the widespread hostility the U.S. has had with Iran, it was only a matter of time before something along those lines happened." Sauce or it's just bloviation.
I'm confused by your assertion. The reason why its a "bad Example" of a Q prediction is because it is too open ended. There is simply no way of knowing whether it is accurate or not. After all, in the larger context Iran and the U.S. have been at odds for a long time, it could be said to be inevitable that some form of hostility erupts.
That is why its a bad example.
Also this is my opinion. So I suppose you could say its "bloviation."
You yourself call it Q's Iran Prediction and go on to say "is not a good example"... then you ignore the strike at Qasem Soleimani, which was a big deal by the way. Your opinion that "it could be said to be inevitable that some form of hostility erupts" is based on less that Q's posts.
Nothing.
I'm not ignoring the strike. The issue is that "Iran is Next" is to vague and open-ended. Anything can fit inside it.
As for my own inevitability comment, its very well known that Iran has been operating in Iraq and Afghanistan backing jihadists for years. So... yea, some kind of U.S. led response is foreseeable.
"We dont telegraph our moves"-Q Think like an autist...if you are even capable. If not leave the meanings to those who can.
Bottom line is that Iran was stolen from the people and gifted to the mullahs by the cia.
Iran has been a cia property since the shah was robbed.
now today's cia and it's status is in no position to keep this going.
ignore what the pretenders are saying, the Pentagon's plans will be calibrated to removing the regime and giving it back to it's rightful owners, peacefully and with minimal collateral damage.
Q 1254. Apr 24 2018 "bigger problems than ever before"
Trump Speech May 8 2018 "bigger problems than it has ever had before"
FUTURE PROVES PAST
This post does not question the validity of Q. Nor does it make a statement about Q's predictive value, including Q 1254.
This post questions the use of a specific Q post for its predictive value.
Also, as a general matter, I agree that outcomes are a good measuring stick for predictions. Or "future proves past."
There is a reason Q started this movement w the chans. You dont think like a autist. You can do what normies should do. Lurk ,listen and learn . Dont try to be an like an Autist unless you do those things for some time. IT AINT EASY BEING GREEN???⚖?
Quantum computing is new too many. "future proves past" is language not recognized by most. However, our military is very familiar with such technology and language.
The first paragraph is kind of my point. There really is no knowing, therefore, it is not a good example of a Q prediction. My post is a criticism of that particular example.
Also, Delta's (admittedly from my little understanding) don't really match up as the strike happened a week later.
is this one of those shill tactics to ignore proof by demanding greater impossible proof?
Yup. Calls it a Prediction... fleshes out a thread then goes on later to say we don't even really know what Q meant... so it isn't a prediction but it is being interpreted as one. His conclusion? Shit was gonna go down any ways ... it was only a matter of time blah, blah, blah.
My point is that its not a good example of a prediction. Also, I'm not the only one referring to it as a prediction, look:
https://greatawakening.win/p/11SK2bY5o1/remember-when-q-posted-iran-next/c/
Dont try being something you arent. Lurk listen and learn. Leave discernment to those who do so naturally.
Your post title, your post. What a dweeb "look i'm not the only one". Sheesh. Iran's Qasem Soleimani dusted, mega sanctions and the withdrawal of the Iran deal... not enough in your opinion?
That was my effort to show that I'm referring to a prediction made by this community.
Yes I am a dweeb. :)
Your example's are ample proof that hostility between U.S. and Iran. The question is, can those be example's be fairly used as a measuring stick of the accuracy of Q's prediction. My position is no because Q's post is too open ended.
I'm not trying to demoralize you or manipulate you. These are my honest thoughts about this prediction.
I'm also not demanding proof. I'm simply stating, that the prediction is too open ended. So its not possible to know what is meant or if it is accurate.
and this is the problem with hoards of new people who have not participated in Q research. they think they can read a drop and determine validity of the movement based on its "predictive value."
it should be easy for you to research not only Q drops about Iran, the JPCOA, but the many public articles -- particularly about the billions in cash that were quietly shipped over and above the official agreement, how this cash got to Iran, how the Obama Administration "worked around" its own laws (aka "violated), what other governments aided the movement of cash and how were they "compensated" - look at what corporations immediately got major contracts in Iran. then consider the aggressive action not in terms of proximity to Q drop but in terms of what the actual target might be.
Q is not prediction tool, it's a teaching tool to get you to think for yourself.
Critical analysis is a necessary step in thinking for oneself.
I have not made a statement as to Q's validity based on the prediction. I have instead question the premise that Q's statement "Iran is Next" is a "good" example of a prediction.
Also, Yea, the U.S. under Obama had a lot of nasty relationships with Iran. I'm glad Trump put a stop to a lot of it.