The population-centric approach shifts the focus of COIN from defeating
the insurgent organization to maintaining or recovering the support of the
population. While direct military action against the insurgent organization will
definitely be required, it is not the main effort; this approach assumes that the
center of gravity is the government’s relationship with and support among the
population. It can be summarized as “first protect and support the population,
and all else will follow.”
Q, as an operation, has already been successful.
If it still fails, then the battle was unwinnable from the start. There's nothing anyone could have done or will be able to do going forward. This is why trusting the plan is important. It's less about a guarantee, than it is about a self-fulfilling prophecy.
If we collectively believe it will work, then people will be so invested that they cannot ignore the movement. We all keep coming back here despite all that happens. What does that tell you?
It means we still have hope. If we didn't have hope, we'd already be in Civil War 2.0.
That's not something White Hats should want.
Where terrorist groups are present, policy makers may be highly
motivated to engage, in order to prevent the emergence of transnational threats
from under-governed or insurgent-controlled areas. However, large-scale or
clumsy intervention in such areas may actually lead to a backlash from local
people who are alienated by increased government presence.
Encouraging militia groups to take out the "terror cells" like ANTIFA and BLM could create a backlash as they rally to confront us. In the ensuing chaos, a coup could form and make it impossible to re-draw the lines of civil order.
We can't be hasty, specifically because they own the Propaganda outlets -- the Media.
Propaganda is a key element of persuasion and is used at the local, national
and often international levels to influence perceptions of potential supporters,
opinion leaders, and opponents in the favor of the insurgents; promoting the
insurgent cause and diminishing the government’s resolve. More specifically,
propaganda may be designed to control community action, discredit government action, provoke overreaction by security forces, or exacerbate sectarian
tension.
We would GUARANTEE lose a Civil War if it came to popularity. Why? Because the only way around that would be not to take up arms against the Government but instead target the Main Stream Media Propaganda apparatus. That includes Social Media.
Unless we take those down, we'd lose public sentiment...
If you haven't noticed, NO ONE here is talking about taking the fight to the Main Stream Media when they talk about a Civil War, despite how many times Trump and Q tell us they are the "Enemy of the People."
Civil War 2.0, as openly kinetic warfare, would be a disaster for Patriots...
One side would welcome in the UN "Peacekeepers" and that would be that.
If you want that plan to work, then get busy convincing people to start dragging news anchors out by their neck ties and stringing them up. As it stands, while I'm sure everyone would like to, I've seen a complete ignorance on this particular topic.
Most of the people here, and on PDW have no idea that taking up arms against the Government and their ANTIFA, BLM stooges is a game-winning move for the enemy. They have successfully convinced us to target these hostile groups rather than the word-spinners in the Main Stream Media. If you really want a Civil War 2.0 to work, we'd have to clear out the MSM in a week. Every local and national news site, network, and personality needs to be taken out simultaneously.
Every celebrity, athlete, musician, streamer, content creator, etc. will have to be exterminated...
Never said I want civil war, e.g. rebellion. Quite on the contrary, actually. See my activity history. To restate a summary of it, the enemy wants civil war because that gives them justification for authoritarian crackdown.
What I want, and believe the vast majority of people here, and throughout the country want, is for our Oath taking government, courts and military to do their job.
DJT was the lawful POTUS in 2020. Under his watch, a foreign aided rebellion was allowed to occur, resulting in countless civil and human rights violations against law abiding citizens of the USA, and culminating in stolen elections and an unlawful occupation of our state and federal governments.
Again, DJT was POTUS. It was his solemn responsibility to defend the nation and protect the Constitution. The alleged plan is that what happened was allowed to happen, because it was a sting operation, under his command. If that is true, then the actions were justified. However, if that is not true, then DJT is the equivalent of James Buchanan, not Abraham Lincoln. One let the Republic devolve into chaos. The other saved the Republic.
So which is it? Successful sting or grift? Is DJT Lincoln or Buchanan?
Until there are arrests and tribunals, the jury is still out. That's not dooming, but wisely cautious optimism.
It's a COIN operation, that's for sure...
For anyone curious what that means, Q linked to this several times:
https://2009-2017.state.gov/documents/organization/119629.pdf
Q, as an operation, has already been successful.
If it still fails, then the battle was unwinnable from the start. There's nothing anyone could have done or will be able to do going forward. This is why trusting the plan is important. It's less about a guarantee, than it is about a self-fulfilling prophecy.
If we collectively believe it will work, then people will be so invested that they cannot ignore the movement. We all keep coming back here despite all that happens. What does that tell you?
It means we still have hope. If we didn't have hope, we'd already be in Civil War 2.0.
That's not something White Hats should want.
Encouraging militia groups to take out the "terror cells" like ANTIFA and BLM could create a backlash as they rally to confront us. In the ensuing chaos, a coup could form and make it impossible to re-draw the lines of civil order.
We can't be hasty, specifically because they own the Propaganda outlets -- the Media.
We would GUARANTEE lose a Civil War if it came to popularity. Why? Because the only way around that would be not to take up arms against the Government but instead target the Main Stream Media Propaganda apparatus. That includes Social Media.
Unless we take those down, we'd lose public sentiment...
If you haven't noticed, NO ONE here is talking about taking the fight to the Main Stream Media when they talk about a Civil War, despite how many times Trump and Q tell us they are the "Enemy of the People."
Civil War 2.0, as openly kinetic warfare, would be a disaster for Patriots...
One side would welcome in the UN "Peacekeepers" and that would be that.
If you want that plan to work, then get busy convincing people to start dragging news anchors out by their neck ties and stringing them up. As it stands, while I'm sure everyone would like to, I've seen a complete ignorance on this particular topic.
Most of the people here, and on PDW have no idea that taking up arms against the Government and their ANTIFA, BLM stooges is a game-winning move for the enemy. They have successfully convinced us to target these hostile groups rather than the word-spinners in the Main Stream Media. If you really want a Civil War 2.0 to work, we'd have to clear out the MSM in a week. Every local and national news site, network, and personality needs to be taken out simultaneously.
Every celebrity, athlete, musician, streamer, content creator, etc. will have to be exterminated...
I don't see that happening...
Fair assessment of Q being COIN. Agreed.
Never said I want civil war, e.g. rebellion. Quite on the contrary, actually. See my activity history. To restate a summary of it, the enemy wants civil war because that gives them justification for authoritarian crackdown.
What I want, and believe the vast majority of people here, and throughout the country want, is for our Oath taking government, courts and military to do their job.
DJT was the lawful POTUS in 2020. Under his watch, a foreign aided rebellion was allowed to occur, resulting in countless civil and human rights violations against law abiding citizens of the USA, and culminating in stolen elections and an unlawful occupation of our state and federal governments.
Again, DJT was POTUS. It was his solemn responsibility to defend the nation and protect the Constitution. The alleged plan is that what happened was allowed to happen, because it was a sting operation, under his command. If that is true, then the actions were justified. However, if that is not true, then DJT is the equivalent of James Buchanan, not Abraham Lincoln. One let the Republic devolve into chaos. The other saved the Republic.
So which is it? Successful sting or grift? Is DJT Lincoln or Buchanan?
Until there are arrests and tribunals, the jury is still out. That's not dooming, but wisely cautious optimism.