Genuine question: if Ashli Babbitt was a false flag, what was it meant to accomplish?

posted 196 days ago by Dumbpassword 196 days ago by Dumbpassword +32 / -0

Thanks for any insight. I have an opinion of my own, but may be wrong.

17 comments

17 comments share save hide report block hide replies

You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.

Comments (17)

sorted by:

▲ 3 ▼

– merf 3 points 196 days ago +3 / -0

I can think of a few reasons.

Tension release designed to mark the end of the operation and help disperse the crowd. I recall at the time that news of the shooting spread through the crowd and having a sort of numbing effect, taking the energy level down, etc.
Event designed to incite the crowd. The opposite of option one, of course. The event just didn't seem to manifest escalating characteristics though.
As u/aumoune suggests, the event was needed to fulfill some sort of legal requirements w/respect to a legal definition, e.g. insurrection or posse comitatus act:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurrection_Act_of_1807

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act

The President may employ the armed forces ... to ... restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition ... the President determines that ... domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of maintaining public order ... or [to] suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy if such ... a condition ... so hinders the execution of the laws ... that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law ... or opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.[17]

Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion.

So maybe the refusal of Pelosi and Bowser to protect the Cpaitol were cover for POTUS to invoke something.

permalink save report block reply

To The Great Awakening

We are researchers who deal in open-source information, reasoned argument, and dank memes. We do battle in the sphere of ideas and ideas only. We neither need nor condone the use of force in our work here. WE ARE THE PUBLIC FACE OF Q. OUR MISSION IS TO RED-PILL NORMIES.

This is a pro-Q community. Please read and respect our rules below before contributing.

WHY Q?

"Those who cannot understand that we cannot simply start arresting w/o first: ensuring the safety & well-being of the population shifting the narrative removing those in DC through resignation to ensure success defeating ISIS/MS13 to prevent fail-safes freezing assets to remove network-to-network abilities kill off COC to prevent top-down comms/org, etc. etc. should not be participating in discussions." Q