The thing is, a good "engineer" can use A.I. tools to do the work of 10 diversity hire average coders. Maybe they fired all the low hanging fruit and just keep the good ones who can still do the work without all the tier 1 people reviewing the code as you can run it though A.I. in a few passes to accomplish the same at a rate 100x faster.
Early in the movement first drops people did go by qannon etc, however once media co-opted it, then Q told us in drop 4881 to basically disavow that term and separate the two.
Reason being they can attack the anon, and the nature of anon being anonymous you cannot control everyone ands there are purposeful bad actors injected to 'poison the well', we need to separate the info "Q" from the anon so the media cannot attack the Q info directly as they lump it in with the anon.
If a 3 year old is waiting for pizza rolls in the microwave and when when a parent tells them only 60 seconds they reply, "But that will take FOREVER"
And lets just toss out the adult is 30, the reality is that as a % complete of life, that 60 seconds seems like 10 minutes to the child.
This was one of my favorite reaction videos, all the way in Africa, this man speaks worldwide.
Pay 100k for a rain free wedding, in 2015....
https://www.businessinsider.com/company-promises-a-rain-free-wedding-day-for-100000-2015-1
From his speech tonight - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hj6Z8QsvexU&t=7509s
Opps I misquoted him in the title, if anyone can fix that go for it, he actually says, "We will Quickly destroy the Deep State, We know where the bodies are buried."
Been a long day sorry I failed on the title. Grab your popcorn.
Timestamp 2:05:09 in this video in case it doesn't go directly to the part he says this.
https://qalerts.app/?q=bodies+are+buried
Curious anyone's thoughts or if you heard this as well. Does he say this often? It's been a minute since I heard a speech.
The original was @Atko, then @Putt took over until it shut down.
Also saved some links people claimed they were moving to on the last day, not sure if it's active. Never used or vetted them to even see if anyone is there or what. It's on the Decentralized web.
aether://board/f2c944108971c509c3718a43e8bc77d95d3591746241b6a490e537f00122d98d
Old - Didn't have a 5.4.3 - the highest it had was 5.4.2 which states:
5.4.2 Decisions Must Be Made in Good Faith and Based on Information Available at the Time. Decisions by military commanders or other persons responsible for planning, authorizing, or executing military action must be made in good faith and based on their assessment of the information available to them at the time.A large number of States have recognized this principle.This principle has also been reflected in the decisions of courts assessing individual responsibility under the law of war, which have declined to second-guess military decisions with the benefit of hindsight. The requirement that military commanders and other decision-makers make decisions in good faith based on the information available to them recognizes that decisions may be made when information is imperfect or lacking, which will often be the case during armed conflict.
Page 192-193
New - 5.4.3-5.5 Lots of new stuff added some of it which states:
5.4.3 Assessing Information in Conducting Attacks. Persons who plan, authorize, or make other decisions in conducting attacks must make the judgments required by the law of war in good faith and on the basis of information available to them at the time.85 For example, a commander must, on the basis of available information, determine in good faith that a target is a military objective before authorizing an attack against that target. Similarly, the expected incidental damage to civilians or civilian objects must be assessed in good faith, given the information available to the commander at the time.
5.4.3.1 Considering Information Obtained from Other Persons or Means. In making the judgments that are required by the law of war rules governing attacks, individuals may rely on the information that is available to them, whether they have personally observed it or obtained it from other persons or means.87 For example, a commander may rely on information obtained from aerial reconnaissance and intelligence units in determining whether to conduct an attack. Commanders may also rely on information gathered by other forms of intelligence, including relevant human intelligence and geospatial intelligence.
5.4.3.2 Classifying Persons or Objects as Military Objectives When Planning and Conducting Attacks. The law of war requires that only military objectives be made the object of attack and imposes other requirements for the protection of civilians and other protected persons and objects In planning and conducting attacks, decisions or determinations that a person or object is a military objective must be made in good faith based on the information available at the time.In addition, these decisions must be consistent with the obligation to take feasible precautions to verify that the objects of attack are military objectives and with other obligations to seek to reduce the risk of incidental harm to civilians and other persons and objects protected from being made the object of attack.
Under the principle of distinction, commanders and other decision-makers must presume that persons or objects are protected from being made the object of attack unless the information available at the time indicates that the persons or objects are military objectives. This presumption is the starting point for the commander or other decision-maker’s good faith exercise of military judgment based on information available at the time. For example, if there is no information indicating that a person is a combatant93 or a non-combatant member of the armed forces, then commanders or other decision-makers must presume that person is a civilian. Under such a presumption, the person may not be made the object of attack unless the
available information evaluated in good faith indicates that the person takes a direct part in hostilities. Similarly, an object dedicated to civilian purposes (such as a place of worship, a house or other dwelling, or a civilian school) is a civilian object and may not be made the object of attack, unless the available information evaluated in good faith indicates it is a military objective in the circumstances.Good Faith. Commanders and other decision-makers must assess whether persons or objects are military objectives in good faith. They must have an honest and genuine belief that a person or object to be attacked is a military objective. The law of war does not require that commanders and other decision-makers apply a fixed standard of evidence or proof.98 Rather, as elaborated below, the law of war requires commanders and other decision-makers to exercise professional judgment in making any assessment that a person or object is a military objective, and what is reasonable in making that assessment depends on the circumstances. Relevant circumstances may include the time and resources reasonably available, the risks to civilians from an erroneous decision, risks to friendly forces, and the military advantage expected from the attack. Attacks, however, may not be directed against persons or objects based on mere speculation regarding their possible current status as a military objective. For example, although an individual’s age and gender may be relevant in determining whether a person is a military objective, the mere fact that a person is a military-aged male with no additional information would be speculative and insufficient to determine that person to be a military objective.
Based on the Available Information. Commanders and other decision-makers must determine whether a potential target is a military objective based on the available information that is relevant to whether the potential target meets the applicable legal standard for a military objective.102 Such relevant information includes the characteristics of the potential target (e.g., the conduct or status of the person or the nature, location, purpose, or use of the object), as well as other information that indicates whether the potential target is a military objective (e.g., the military advantages or disadvantages offered by where the target is situated, intelligence estimates of enemy forces’ presence or anticipated action, enemy tactics, or assessments of civilian presence and behavior).103 In addition, it may be feasible to gather more information about the potential target, as discussed in the following paragraph
It goes on and on with more info just look at the PDF.
First Revision https://dod.defense.gov/Portals/1/Documents/law_war_manual15.pdf
Section it references 5.4.3 and 5.5.3
With regards to 5.5.3
Old - 5.5.3 Assessing Information in Conducting Attacks. Persons who plan, authorize, or make other decisions in conducting attacks must make the judgments required by the law of war in good faith and on the basis of information available to them at the time. For example, a commander must, on the basis of available information, determine in good faith that a target is a military objective before authorizing an attack. Similarly, the expected incidental damage to civilians or civilian objects must be assessed in good faith, given the information available to the commander at the time. In making the judgments that are required by the law of war rules governing attacks, persons may rely on information obtained from other sources, including human intelligence or other sources of information. For example, in a long-distance attack, a commander may rely on information obtained from aerial reconnaissance and intelligence units in determining whether to conduct an attack.
New -
5.5.3 Feasible Precautions to Verify Whether the Objects of Attack Are Military Objectives. In planning and conducting an attack, those who plan or decide upon an attack must take feasible precautions to verify that the targets to be attacked are military objectives174 and not protected by the law of war from being made the object of attack. These measures help implement the principle of distinction in classifying persons or objects as military objectives. Like other precautions in planning and conducting attacks, these measures are also part of the implementation of the principle of proportionality. These measures help reduce uncertainty in armed conflict,179 and they reinforce military effectiveness because they help avoid attacks that would serve no military purpose.
As discussed in § 5.2.3.2 (What Precautions Are Feasible), what precautions are feasible depends greatly on the context, including what time and other circumstances permit. The specific verification measures may depend on how the attack is being conducted and what type of target is being attacked. For example, when troops are in contact with enemy forces during combat operations, they may need to react immediately based on their professional judgment developed through training and experience and in accordance with military doctrine. On the other hand, with more time and resources available in planning an attack during the deliberate targeting process, planners and analysts may need to gather more information and conduct a more extensive review of whether a potential target is a military objective.In any event, the law of war, including the requirements discussed in this section, does not forestall commanders and other decision-makers from making decisions and taking actions at the speed of relevance, including in high-intensity conflict, based on their good faith assessment of the information that is available to them at the time, as explained in § 5.4.3.2 (Classifying Persons or Objects as Military Objectives When Planning and Conducting Attacks).Feasible precautions to verify that objectives to be attacked are military objectives may include, but are not limited to, the following:
• Reviewing the accuracy and reliability of the information supporting the assessment that a potential target is a military objective;
• Checking potential target locations against no-strike and sensitive site lists;
• Reviewing previously approved targets at reasonable intervals as well as when warranted in light of fresh information and changing circumstances, e.g., to ascertain whether enemy forces continue to use the object for military purposes or whether the object’s destruction or neutralization continues to offer a definite military advantage;
• Gathering more information, such as visual identification of the target through intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance platforms; • Taking steps when carrying out a planned attack to confirm that the person or object to be attacked, is, in fact, the intended target of the attack; and • Issuing communications to elicit reactions that inform whether a person or object is a military objective, such as summons of vessels to stop; directions given from intercepting aircraft; warnings required before the cessation of protection of medical units, vessels, or facilities; or some types of warnings before attacks that may affect the civilian population.
https://www.jesusfestivals.org/about
Revival in my area 10 different churches coming together. It is happening.
Couple of my favorites.
https://odysee.com/@WrongthinkInc:e/All-for-a-Larprehosted:6
Here ya go fren. https://yewtu.be/watch?v=GidVHyh2-Ek
Interview was 2019.
Q post about there is Q, anon, no Qanon was 2020. (Post 4881)
That was when media started to use that term negatively like CIA with conspiracy theorist during JFK times so Q then instructed us to abandon the term.
Agree or not this has been addressed already. We gotta stay on topic.
When you are president you get certain protections - one is called "Executive Privilege"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_privilege
Trump is basically waiving this security, allowing them to investigate him, he is clean so it will eventually be a nothing burger, but then the precedent is set meaning.
We can go back in time, and remove the executive privilege of past presidents, and dig into what evil they have done and bring it to light.
For sure, I'm probably wrong and it'll be proven with some other stuff, I saw another where they are claiming the camo patterns don't match and I haven't dug into that one too much, that would be more damning to me. Either way take care and god bless.
You are 4 of the 5 stages there:
You look like you already made it through, denial.
Probably went through your Anger phase.
Tried some Bargaining.
Now the longest/hardest part is the Depression. (why TF doesn't anyone do anything?!)
Hang in there pede, soon there will be Acceptance. https://files.catbox.moe/7j9jrk.png
If you wanna dig at some old threads. https://archive.searchvoat.co/search.php?