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.
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.