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 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.