Most of us have been waiting for awhile now, and ever since President Trump's personal acct was permanently suspended from Twitter, we can almost taste the arrests coming.
#AWeekToRemember Thread:
I stumbled across this when I was re-reading old Drops, like we were advised to by 17, and I'll explain why I think this week starting today, is the WEEK TO REMEMBER.
Most of us have been waiting for awhile now, and ever since President Trump's personal acct was permanently suspended from Twitter, we can almost taste the arrests coming.
- WHAT must happen pre 11.11?
- 11.11 provided as strategic marker.
- Strength = Military
- Justice = Tribunals
I'll explain.
A: 01/11/21
Q: How do we usually shorten it when conversing & given the year is understood?
A: 01/11
Q: Can you see what I see?
A: Now, turn forward slash (/) upright.
Q: Now do you see?
A: 1111 = 11.11
• 11.11.18
What if you split the #'s of 11.11.18?
Like in groups of 3's.
1.) 11.1
2.) 1.18
Now this is just theorizing that 11.11.18 could be the WEEK TO REMEMBER!
Cont...
• 11 1 & 1 18
• 1/11 & 1/18
• 7 day difference
I recalled seeing a 7 somewhere & voila!
• Drop 582:
- :stay at home<
- [-7]
- Safe comms (> for Whit Hats)
But the following is eerily lining up that it possibly could.
• We've seen Lin Wood's bomb-drops on Parler about telecoms & Devin Nunes stating Parler will be terminated at midnight.
• Who is the 1st Indictment unsealed?
• Who is the 2nd?
• When?
• 11.3 - Podesta indicted
• 11.6 - Huma indicted
Do you see what I see? Right on top of one another?!
• 11.11
• as in => 1/11 as in January 11th.
• The 'STRATEGIC' marker from Drop 1357.
• Strength = MILITARY
• Justice = TRIBUNALS
PODESTA & HUMA on deck.
Apply same logic & reasoning I used above with decoding 11.11.
• 11.3 - Arrest announcement of Podesta
• 11.4 - Actionable on Podesta
• 11.6 - Huma indicted.
• 11.3 => 1/13 - Podesta indicted announcement
• 11.4 => 1/14 - Podesta actionable arrest
• 11.6 => 1/16 - Huma indicted
#AWeekToRemember #BOOMweek
#DeclasBringsDownTheHouse
☆ADD all #'s in Drop 3332: 3+3+3+2 = 11
• "This is only the start."
More from For later read
There is some valuable analysis in this report, but on the defense front this report is deeply flawed. There are other sections of value in report but, candidly, I don't think it helps us think through critical question of Taiwan defense issues in clear & well-grounded way. 1/
Normally as it might seem churlish to be so critical, but @cfr is so high-profile & the co-authors so distinguished I think it’s key to be clear. If not, people - including in Beijing - could get the wrong idea & this report could do real harm if influential on defense issues. 2/
BLUF: The defense discussion in this report does not engage at the depth needed to add to this critical debate. Accordingly conclusions in report are ill-founded - & in key parts harmful/misleading, esp that US shldnt be prepared defend Taiwan directly (alongside own efforts). 3/
The root of the problem is that report doesn't engage w the real debate on TWN defense issues or, frankly, the facts as knowable in public. Perhaps the most direct proof of this: The citations. There is nothing in the citations to @DeptofDefense China Military Power Report...4/
Nor to vast majority of leading informed sources on this like Ochmanek, the @RANDCorporation Scorecard, @CNAS, etc. This is esp salient b/c co-authors by their own admission have v little insight into contemporary military issues. & both last served in govt in Bush 43. 5/
This is an excellent report, and I'm glad to have joined the study group. The central focus on avoiding war is understandable--a US-China war would be catastrophic and should be avoided. But protecting Taiwan's security and prosperity requires doing more. 1/x https://t.co/P0Sg4LJcpV
— Bonnie Glaser / \u845b\u4f86\u5100 (@BonnieGlaser) February 12, 2021
Normally as it might seem churlish to be so critical, but @cfr is so high-profile & the co-authors so distinguished I think it’s key to be clear. If not, people - including in Beijing - could get the wrong idea & this report could do real harm if influential on defense issues. 2/
BLUF: The defense discussion in this report does not engage at the depth needed to add to this critical debate. Accordingly conclusions in report are ill-founded - & in key parts harmful/misleading, esp that US shldnt be prepared defend Taiwan directly (alongside own efforts). 3/
The root of the problem is that report doesn't engage w the real debate on TWN defense issues or, frankly, the facts as knowable in public. Perhaps the most direct proof of this: The citations. There is nothing in the citations to @DeptofDefense China Military Power Report...4/
Nor to vast majority of leading informed sources on this like Ochmanek, the @RANDCorporation Scorecard, @CNAS, etc. This is esp salient b/c co-authors by their own admission have v little insight into contemporary military issues. & both last served in govt in Bush 43. 5/
