>>103930
>Removed posts for contents could been considered as incitement.
Considered by whom? No attack was ordered, so there was no "incitement" at all.

>Sharing manifestos of well known mass shooters and calling them saints.
Nothing wrong with this. It does not violate any board rules or global rules.

>Creating a narration that allows naive Anons to get groomed to commit unlawful acts
No such thing. People cannot be made to do things that are at odds with their natures. There's no evidence that people can be "groomed" to do something so extreme, they always make the decision themselves.

>helping entrapment
The posts actually explain how to avoid entrapment completely. Entrapment is only possible when people try to work with others. The posts said that it's smarter for people to work alone if they want to commit individual acts of violence, for the purpose of avoiding entrapment and glownigger infiltration. So by deleting the posts and depriving people of the information included, you are actually the one empowering glowniggers and helping them with their entrapment schemes.

>Sharing information is one thing, framing the information is another.
Nothing in the posts violated any rules. So what is the problem? Whatever. Let me offer this:

I will "share" this song by Mr. Bond, no framing here, I am only sharing it if that's okay with you.