Skip to main content

@WarClandestine..possibilities..1- US/NATO/Ukraine were behind the attack, in an attempt to force Putin to escalate, and drag NATO into full-scale WW3..Would they start WW3 to stop Trump?


Clandestine
@WarClandestine
Subscribe
There are three possibilities here: 1- US/NATO/Ukraine were behind the attack, in an attempt to force Putin to escalate, and drag NATO into full-scale WW3. 2- Russia were behind the attack to justify significant escalation. 3- Unknown entity carried out for unknown reasons. Option 1 seems like the most plausible, because the West are the only ones who could possibly benefit from this situation. Putin already has all the support he needs to do whatever the hell he wants, he does not need to kill his own civilians to justify a war he is already in, fresh off an election where he got 88% of the vote. Deep State actors are the ones who are desperate to start a global war. It solves all of their problems. They can cancel the US election, further extend their power, and the war machine keeps getting paid. Would they start WW3 to stop Trump? Absolutely.
Image
5.3M
Views

Comments

Renato said…
All of this is too insane to analyze rationally, for what is the point of provoking a nuclear extermination between East and West that would lead to extinction beyond the deep state itself? There is no point in digging tunnels and then living on the totally destroyed planet afterwards. Any sane person in mind realizes that all of this is madness...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMDp0hkIf2k

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWg-8lJDc38

12:12 PM
Anonymous said…
Because a horrible world war is world war the antichrist needs to swoop in as a savior.
8:21 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

If Francis is a Heretic, What should Canonically happen to him?

Did Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (the future Pope Benedict XVI) say that Francis is a heretic ?   On June 3, 2003 the then Cardinal Ratzinge r (and future Pope Benedict) , head of the Congregation for the Faith, said that the endorsement of  " homosex civil unions" was against Catholic teaching, that is heterodoxy : "Those who would move from tolerance to the legitimatization of specific rights for cohabiting homosexual persons need to be reminded that the approval or legalization of evil is something far different from the toleration of evil... The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behavior or to legal recognition of homosexual unions ." (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, "Considerations Regarding Proposals to give Legal Recognition to Unions between Homosexual Persons," June 3, 2003) Gloria.tv reported: " Francis made on October 21 his latest declaration in sup...
6 comments
Read more

A Hour which will Live in Infamy: 10:01pm November 3, 2020

10:01pm November 3, 2020, a hour which will live in infamy, the United States of America presidential electoral integrity was suddenly and deliberately attacked by the forces of the Democrat Machine and some corrupt collaborators within the Republican Party. It will be recorded that "under the pretense of COVID, executive branch officials across a number of key battleground states violated election procedures passed by the legislative branches of those states in a number of ways that opened up the process to fraud on a massive scale, never before seen in the history of this country" which makes it obvious that the attack was deliberately planned many days or even weeks before. During the time before and after the attack the Democrat Machine and its corrupt collaborators in the Media have deliberately sought to deceive the United States by false statements and expressions of hope for continued peace.  The attack on United States has caused severe damage to the Ameri...
Post a Comment
Read more

Could Francis be an Antipope even though the Majority of Cardinals claim he is Pope?

Is it possible for someone to be an antipope even though the majority of cardinals claim he is pope? The case of Antipope Anacletus II proves that it is possible for a majority of cardinals to claim a man is pope while he, in reality, is an antipope. In 1130, a majority of cardinals voted for Cardinal Peter Pierleone to be pope. He called himself Anacletus II. He was proclaimed pope and ruled Rome for eight years by vote and consent of a absolute majority of the cardinals despite the fact he was a antipope. In 1130, just prior to the election of antipope Anacletus, a small minority of cardinals elected the real pope: Pope Innocent II. How is this possible? St. Bernard said "the 'sanior pars' (the wiser portion)... declared in favor of Innocent II. By this he probably meant a majority of the cardinal-bishops." (St. Bernard of Clairvaux by Leon Christiani, Page 72) Again, how is this possible when the absolute majority of cardinals voted for A...
3 comments
Read more