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.
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.