The American Civil War of 2005 as predicted by John Titor

Originally posted by TheCrystalSword
You want truth? You want publically published stories on the stripping away of american rights? How about the Supreme Court favoring a ruling which gave Corporations the right to confiscate PRIVATE land if it is to be used for COMMERCIAL purposes?

I'm not in agreement with that decision either, but have you actually read it?
I have. The ruling just upheld decades old laws. This isn't on the Supreme Court, it's on the state courts and lawmakers.

How about the troops sent in to give aid in New Orleans being given permission to shoot looters? In America, EVERY citizen has the right to due PROCESS! If you are a thief, you are TRIED by the law, not SHOT BY THE ARMY!

I told IC to go and look at what really was ordered and took place and now I'm telling you.

How many looters were shot btw?
None

How about the two different JUSTICE systems we have? ONE for the rich, and ONE for the poor?

This has been in place since the founding of this country. Are you just now noticing it??
That's the thing. People now have internet access and see all this stuff so they think all this stuff is new.
It's called books people. Why haven't you all bothered reading this stuff before?

How about Revisions to BANKRUPTCY laws which effect the impoverished and the lower class, preventing them from recovering from crushing debt that will starve them to death?!

Have you read the revisions?
They affect mainly those who are on the borderline of being approved for Chapter 7 and being approved for Chapter 13. Before people were just given Chapter 7, now more borderline folks will be given Chapter 13. Those who were really in need of Chapter 7 and could not afford Chapter 13 before will still qualify for Chapter 7.

What about privately funded organizations trying to keep a stranglehold on a business model which has DIED by suing private american citizens for using perfectly legal programs to either download music or make backup copies of family videos?

What are you talking about?

What about the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES BUGGING CITIZENS PHONES WITHOUT GOING THROUGH THE PERFECTLY LEGAL SYSTEM TO DO SO?!

Are you ignorant enough to think this is something new? Now it is completely wrong, and totally unacceptable! But if you're going to blame this president for it, then well....you have a lot of catching up to do.
(blaming any president wouldn't be totally appropiate as alot of this occurs with out their knowledge)

Or the push for a Universal ID card?!

Fortunately for us, politicians still care about their future. Most enjoy being reelected and keeping their jobs. Right now, the American people will not accept a National ID, so I seriously doubt it'll make it through congress any time soon.

What about an elderly Gentleman in New Orleans being beaten by police officers for NO REASON?

Again I ask, do you really believe this stuff is new?

The Patriot Act, Homeland Security, Detaining citizens of the USA without any means of prosecution or representation because they are "TERRORISTS" or "CYBERTERRORISTS".

As far as I know this has not happened to any US citizen.....so far. If I am wrong please let me know.

We are supposed to CARE about 2000 Civilians who have died when HOW MANY troops have died for a War of Aggression waged by the President of the USA?!

So...we shouldn't care for any civilians that died?

I AM AN AMERICAN. And I am watching what is happening to my country, so don't you dare even pretend that NOTHING has happened, and that EVERYTHING is fine. Everything is NOT fine.

I think I'll give you a WATS for that statement. Made me fall out of my chair laughing!
1. NOT ONCE have I even suggested that "everything is fine"

2. You haven't done any been outside this country have you? If you think America is bad....do a little int. traveling.

I pay attention to what our government does, and I THINK about it, about how it would EFFECT me.

From what I can gather, it seems you haven't been paying attention long.

Let's do a little role playing (without straying too far from the Titor topic). People like to point out the mistakes the Bush administration has made (and there are tons! You can go on for days listing the mistakes). Yet rarely does anyone offer any solutions or say what they would have done. So, you're the President. 9/11 happens. What do you do?

And yet he never said there'd be full on war at ANY of those dates, he left that for 2008.

He stated that the Waco type events would steadily grow worse, starting in 2004.

1. Armed forces are always sent to disaster areas

No they aren't.

Well, if a tornado hits some rural town in the middle of nowhere then you're right, the national guard isn't sent. But during large scale disasters such as hurricanes and earthquakes...yes they are.

No, Marshall law was not declared. That is true. It's also true that they were given license to SHOOT people.

Do you mean permission to shoot people? I'd like to know where you heard that from.

Of course you don't let them shoot people. You catch them, like the Sniper almost a year ago shooting people on the freeway. You don't shoot them, criminal or not.

You do realize thousands of criminals are shot throughout the year right?

It is not a rumor that people were shot, nor is it a rumor people were beaten.

I'm talking about during Katrina.

Most of those stories about people being shot or beaten by police have turned out to be false. I'm still trying to find an incident that's actually been confirmed.
Here's an early article about the exaggerations:
Reports of violence exaggerated

Only one National Guardsman fired a shot. Sorta. Some idiot tried to attack him as he was patrolling an area. In the fight, his gun went off shooting himself in the leg. The criminal was not shot nor did any shooting.

Beatings? Sure. Some idiot was beat (by civilians) because he tried to rape a girl.

1. I'm sorry, you seem to be John Titor... please, explain to us what JOHN TITOR thought Waco Event meant.

He said Waco like events. So I'm assuming he mean events like Waco.
Forgive me for assuming he meant what he said.

2. I'm sorry, you seem to be John Titor... please, explain to us what JOHN TITOR thought Civil War meant.

Civil war by definition means fighting within the same country between two or more factions. If Titor meant something else, why would he say "Civil War"?
He also stated the war would be between city and country, which the people on this board have interpreted to mean the government vs. the people. This would be a pretty good interpretation based on some of Titor's other quotes. In the same breath of when he told us the war would start he also described his definition of war. Two or more groups manuvering and engaging in armed conflict.
This isn't rocket science. If I told you a nuclear war would start tomorrow. How would you interpret that?

3. No Western Collapse? Our Western Economy is now almost entirely based ELSEWHERE. We're IMPOTENT.

Well first, the US does not make up the west alone. Second, despite all of what you said, our economy continues to grow and remains the strongest it's been in a while. There's also more to society than the economy. The other aspects of western society have not collapsed either.

4. CJD (Creutzfeldt Jakob Disease) is what Titor mentioned as being caused by MCD... and he also said that symptoms didn't show up for DECADES.

link?

Okay, what the @*#(&#@ is your problem with calling everyone DUDE, DOOOOD?

Define "everyone"
I have used that maybe 5 times in all my almost 1500 posts. ATS has strict rules about namecalling and profanity so..."dude" it is

You know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ABOUT BEAURACRACY and the magic of VANISHING PAPERS. Just because you have the internet, you think that everything is at your fingertips? Build a better Idiot proof box, Mother Nature will build a bigger idiot... Build a better Mousetrap, the mice WILL get smarter.

Ummm.....you just explained why it's impossible to hide a civil war for four years. They can try to hide it all they want, but people will find a way to get the info out.
Besides you underestimate the media. Especially mainstream. They want ratings and are basically willing to do anything for them. Do you honestly think they will not cover one of the biggest stories in world history?

Take one guess as to why the vast majority of Americans have not experienced that.

Because a vast majority of americans are.... Not smart enough to care beyond the most recent episode of Desperate Housewives or Trading Spouses.

True. But that's not what I asked.
Why are vast majority of Americans living normally and not experiencing the stuff IC was talking about?
This war was supposed to have started two years ago and progressivly get worse. Millions of people are to die in this war. What gives?

I do not argue that Titor is true or false... but I am afraid of what has become of my country. It scares me what eveyone is LETTING happen... and that has nothing to do with John.

And it bothers me when people claim that all is hunky dory. This, and this alone, I agree with Titor on... this culture of ours is diseased, maggot infested, rotten, and dying. How long it takes is up to the future.

After all, Rome wasn't built in a day, it won't burn in one.

Now you get what Titor was doing. He was showing what could happen if we continue down the path he percieved we're going in. He used a different way of doing it (sorta...his method has been used many times before in various books, movies, etc.), but the message has been there for decades.

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
Let's do a little role playing (without straying too far from the Titor topic). People like to point out the mistakes the Bush administration has made (and there are tons! You can go on for days listing the mistakes). Yet rarely does anyone offer any solutions or say what they would have done. So, you're the President. 9/11 happens. What do you do?

This was the greatest and ONLY chance for a President to show the entire world America has decided to fight for world peace and NOT for war. America, the SUPERPOWER who could have shown the entire world that it did not need a war, that they accepted their loss and that it only has strengthened its morality and could have truly been the GREAT NATION it pretends to be by saying:

“Okay, here we are and let’s come together now. We are not going to retaliate out of vengeance, but we’re going to find out who did it, put them on trial and listen to why they are so angry. Then we will reassess how we will deal with this anger.”

But no, there should be a “war on terror.” We will show them our balls. We will destroy everything that could have lead us to a higher spiritual path of existence and we will reverse time with 50 years. This President, this administration could have decided so differently. They have chosen otherwise. They have made the wrong decision. The decision of war.

(quote)
Since the wheels of history do not roll backwards we will never know what would have happened if the U.S. had reacted differently to that fateful day. What if the U.S. had decided to rectify all the wrongs of the world community and correct injustices committed only by those who could afford to commit them? Rather than taking out stuffy dossiers from dusty shelves for conquering the godforsaken distant territories in the steps of the "late" Roman Empire by sending troops to the four corners of the world, the U.S. could have become an arbiter in a world replete with injustice. The Palestinian problem has always been there to be solved, the inequalities imposed on women, the poor and needy are there too. Tyrants who rule ruthlessly and steal from the coffers of their own countries are also there to be taken care of. Using a UN mandate and getting help from the countries on the same wavelength, the U.S. would have been the leader of all the democratic forces to make world more just.
Mr. Bush has chosen a different path and made himself and his cronies look bad in the eyes of the human community.
(end quote)

www.archinect.com...

UnExpecte

EDIT: Sorry, TJW beat me to breaking down TheCrystalSword's post. I did good, too.


[edit on 1/5/2006 by Legend]

Originally posted by UnExpecte
Since the wheels of history do not roll backwards...
UnExpecte

I think we are still debating that...

This seems interesting

www.abovetopsecret.com...

its a disussion about the FTL drive theory that just went public.

In the article the US offers the use of the "Z-Machine" for research. For those that don't remember reading it here is the article referenced in one of "Titor's" dialogs.

observer.guardian.co.uk...

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
I'm not in agreement with that decision either, but have you actually read it?
I have. The ruling just upheld decades old laws. This isn't on the Supreme Court, it's on the state courts and lawmakers.

Who is responsible isn't the point, how long it has been allowed to go on isn't the point. The point is, is it being abused NOW? SHOULD it be repealed, and SHOULD we take a closer look at such things before more laws that are "Essentially harmless through disuse" are passed that effect us all 20 years down the road when the government thinks we FORGOT about it?

"You're just complaining about this now? That law was passed twenty years ago" Isn't an argument for it being alright.

How many looters were shot btw?
None

Making a wild speculative guess, I would argue more than zero. Not everything gets reported.

That's the thing. People now have internet access and see all this stuff so they think all this stuff is new.

I never said it was a new thing... but it has grown steadily worse, or at least blatantly apparent with the advent of all this technology. Perhaps it is different when it's behind closed doors, but being faced with it makes it intolerable... and not just the rich and the poor division of law, but also the other divisions that are equally as unjust.

Have you read the revisions?
They affect mainly those who are on the borderline of being approved for Chapter 7 and being approved for Chapter 13. Before people were just given Chapter 7, now more borderline folks will be given Chapter 13. Those who were really in need of Chapter 7 and could not afford Chapter 13 before will still qualify for Chapter 7.

From what I understand, and no I have not read these laws... it makes it prohibitively difficult for people to claim bankruptcy in order to write off debt. Some people need to write off debt or become homeless... are you saying its better for them to become homeless, or is the actual ruling DIFFERENT?

What are you talking about?

That the government and law seem to favor the RIAA and the MPAA, as well as other corporate models which have outlived their usefulness... because they pay immense amounts of money into the administrative coffers. Some things that have been done are criminal, but they get away with it.

Are you ignorant enough to think this is something new? Now it is completely wrong, and totally unacceptable! But if you're going to blame this president for it, then well....you have a lot of catching up to do.
(blaming any president wouldn't be totally appropiate as alot of this occurs with out their knowledge)

I blame the president, because the president is responsible for himself. I blame him for what he does, nobody else. Even if he is a shill, he makes that choice, and he is to blame. Nobody else.

As for the tapping, what, are you saying EVERY president tapped the phones and that tapping the phones illegally is what president's should DO? Is it okay because someone ELSE did it? Does it make it any less eggregious?

Fortunately for us, politicians still care about their future.

No they don't. They care about getting re-elected. They could give a crap less about yours or my futures, extremely rare exceptions aside.

Most enjoy being reelected and keeping their jobs. Right now, the American people will not accept a National ID, so I seriously doubt it'll make it through c
congress any time soon.

You underestimate how powerful fear is, and how willing Americans are to letting the government make things a necessity for "Their own protection". Maybe you and I are different, but don't give the public the benefit of intelligence. As noted, most don't care beyond the recent episodes of Desperate Housewives or Trading Spouses, other than what the next fad is.

Again I ask, do you really believe this stuff is new?

No I don't. But that doesn't mean it is acceptable or should be accepted. Was anyone fired over it? Answer me that.

As far as I know this has not happened to any US citizen.....so far. If I am wrong please let me know.

Nobody that has been officially reported on. What, do you really think the government can't keep the news from reporting on things? Do you HONESTLY think that they have no power over the media? It's all for our own good anyways, isn't it?

So...we shouldn't care for any civilians that died?

Not if caring means using their deaths as an excuse for aggressive warmaking and excusing violations of our rights. I have heard so much spin using the deaths of those two thousand people in getting something pushed through into popularity it makes me want to vomit.

I think I'll give you a WATS for that statement. Made me fall out of my chair laughing!
1. NOT ONCE have I even suggested that "everything is fine"

2. You haven't done any been outside this country have you? If you think America is bad....do a little int. traveling.

Yes, I have done some travelling. What other countries are like has absolutely no bearing on what america should be like. Just because we're "BETTER" to live in doesn't mean we're the "BEST" we could be... and it doesn't mean that our government has our best interests at heart, or that our Rights can't be torn away just as easily as other countries violate their people's.

From what I can gather, it seems you haven't been paying attention long.

I pay more attention than your average joe, just because i have a difference of opinion to you doesn't mean I'm ignorant.

Let's do a little role playing (without straying too far from the Titor topic). People like to point out the mistakes the Bush administration has made (and there are tons! You can go on for days listing the mistakes). Yet rarely does anyone offer any solutions or say what they would have done. So, you're the President. 9/11 happens. What do you do?

I hunt the people down responsible, killing those who must be, and putting them to trial before likely execution.

I don't go "Spread Democracy". If an idea is good enough, you don't have to force it down people's throats, they'll steal it.

Not to mention it's completely unrelated to 9/11. Iraq was not directly responsible, those directly responsible need to be proven to have paid for their crimes before anything else happens.

And We do not have a right to usurp other countries governments to supplant it with our own ideals. Even if we did, that would mean being consistent and doing it for all dictatorships, which we are not going to do and never will.

He stated that the Waco type events would steadily grow worse, starting in 2004.

That he did say. You are assuming his definition is the definitional definition, or one that matches your definition of WACO type events. You can't say that Definitely.

What he didn't say is that there'd be out and out fighting before 2008.

Well, if a tornado hits some rural town in the middle of nowhere then you're right, the national guard isn't sent. But during large scale disasters such as hurricanes and earthquakes...yes they are.

No.... they aren't. Only when its good PR for the administration do they do that. Orlando has been through so many hurricanes it isn't funny, as has a good deal of florida... and yet, I can't think of any instance when the military was sent to Florida.

Do you mean permission to shoot people? I'd like to know where you heard that from.

The news. Perhaps I should not believe everything I hear there... but then, that leaves the news out as a credible source for anything.

You do realize thousands of criminals are shot throughout the year right?

Yes, I do. Generally they aren't given permission to "Shoot to kill". Some die, and it is a persons right to defend themselves. Accidents also happen.

However, I am under the distinct impression that permission was given to use deadly force.

I'm talking about during Katrina.

So am I.

Most of those stories about people being shot or beaten by police have turned out to be false. I'm still trying to find an incident that's actually been confirmed.

I have no doubt that people were beaten and killed during Katrina. And not just by the unruly mob. Numbers and frequency may be your issue, it isn't with me.

Only one National Guardsman fired a shot. Sorta. Some idiot tried to attack him as he was patrolling an area. In the fight, his gun went off shooting himself in the leg. The criminal was not shot nor did any shooting.

I find that very hard to believe, considering the numbers and how events such as that usually play themselves out.

Beatings? Sure. Some idiot was beat (by civilians) because he tried to rape a girl.

I am referring to the elderly black gentleman who was being cordial and polite and was beaten almost to death by soldiers.

He said Waco like events. So I'm assuming he mean events like Waco.
Forgive me for assuming he meant what he said.

You're being sarcastic, but you really do need to be forgiven for thinking he meant what you THINK he meant. That's a common error humans tend to make, assuming that their points of reference are identical. It's the most common social faux pas as well.

Civil war by definition means fighting within the same country between two or more factions. If Titor meant something else, why would he say "Civil War"?
He also stated the war would be between city and country, which the people on this board have interpreted to mean the government vs. the people. This would be a pretty good interpretation based on some of Titor's other quotes. In the same breath of when he told us the war would start he also described his definition of war. Two or more groups manuvering and engaging in armed conflict.

We've already determined just by this thread ALONE that people do not share definitions of what things mean.... so you really have no right to assume he meant what you FEEL he meant. Either way its speculation.

This isn't rocket science. If I told you a nuclear war would start tomorrow. How would you interpret that?

You could mean a myriad of different things merely because you said the word "START"... and definitionally, you could mean that we began on the path to a Nuclear war that would take place years down the road, or perhaps you literally mean tomorrow... or perhaps you mean "NUCLEAR WAR" in some other fashion such as an explosively violent conflict.

Well first, the US does not make up the west alone. Second, despite all of what you said, our economy continues to grow and remains the strongest it's been in a while. There's also more to society than the economy. The other aspects of western society have not collapsed either.

You ever play Jenga? Most of our culture relies upon the success of our economy and the ability for us to continue to lead the lifestyle we live. Our economy is entirely reliant on foreign countries nowadays... and if you pull that last peg out from underneath the tower, the whole thing comes down.

As for CJD, I feel you are competent enough to look up Creutzfeldt Jakob Disease, it's neurological in nature and tends to share symptoms with Alzheimers as well as other problematic symptoms.

Alzheimers doesn't have an onset of "WHEN YOU GET IT", you have it and you have it... and it doesn't effect you for decades.

You should also read up on Prions.

Define "everyone"
I have used that maybe 5 times in all my almost 1500 posts. ATS has strict rules about namecalling and profanity so..."dude" it is

The manner in which you use it is a diminutive, and thusly just as insulting, just not as readily apparent as the others.

Ummm.....you just explained why it's impossible to hide a civil war for four years. They can try to hide it all they want, but people will find a way to get the info out.

Actually, I was just arguing that current day technology DOESN'T Reveal everything, things can be just as easily hidden now as they were before. You just have to be smarter about it... There is no "See, look, we have this technology, now nobody can ever hide stuff from us again!" type scenarior, it doesn't work. Build a better Mousetrap, they'll build a better mouse. Build a better system, they'll build a better obfuscation of information.

Besides you underestimate the media. Especially mainstream. They want ratings and are basically willing to do anything for them. Do you honestly think they will not cover one of the biggest stories in world history?

And I think you are OVERestimating the media.

True. But that's not what I asked.
Why are vast majority of Americans living normally and not experiencing the stuff IC was talking about?
This war was supposed to have started two years ago and progressivly get worse. Millions of people are to die in this war. What gives?

Because they do not care to notice what does NOT effect them. Everything is fine so long as it stays out of my back yard.

And the millions who are supposed to die are supposed to be incinerated, arms aren't taken up until after 2008... civil war begins quietly, until it can no longer be ignored.

I like that you ignored the point I made about the last American Civil War, because it DID NOT begin when gunshots were fired, it began years ahead of time.

Now you get what Titor was doing. He was showing what could happen if we continue down the path he percieved we're going in. He used a different way of doing it (sorta...his method has been used many times before in various books, movies, etc.), but the message has been there for decades.

No, I only get what you believe he was doing. Whether you believe in him or not isn't the matter of his message, its that you rabidly seek to disprove he was a timetraveller that is. Don't discredit the message, discredit the messenger... its a repeated ad hominem attack which serves no other purpose but to make other people feel that you think they are stupid for believing in something that could still very well be true.

But you want the last say, you want to say "Look, he's a hoax" and have people believe you. You, in your view, want people to stop being stupid about something and wake up to the reality of the sham.

You've only proved to yourself that Titor isn't really what he claimed... just like many of the other skeptics. And really, that's all you CAN prove, seeing as how proof is a relative measure of observation.

thats right media will do anything for ratings
INCLUDING telling you what it is you want to hear, and the kind of twist your expecting. you want conservative go fox, you want liberal or whatever CNN.

they are here to benefit themselves, and they will do just that. reporting that attacks and chaos is going on makes great news, then they discredit themselves later, even if they have it on footage. they make up some bs story to then justify it so the american public will say "o well we were missing that part of the story"

who ever said that part of the story was true? the companies that dont want you to get too suspicious of whats going on, all the while keeping the news exciting. the only credible source is your own eyes and ears first hand. till then you dont know anything more then the faith you have in some one else. i for one dont have much faith in greedy corp. who want money, but at the same time have their own political agendas.

Originally posted by TheCrystalSword
Who is responsible isn't the point, how long it has been allowed to go on isn't the point. The point is, is it being abused NOW? SHOULD it be repealed, and SHOULD we take a closer look at such things before more laws that are "Essentially harmless through disuse" are passed that effect us all 20 years down the road when the government thinks we FORGOT about it?

It is not being abused now. The only reason why you're hearing about it is because of that one case in Conn.
That case shouldn't have went to the SC anyway as the majority of the residences voted in favor of leaving anyway.

"You're just complaining about this now? That law was passed twenty years ago" Isn't an argument for it being alright.

Didn't say it was. Just curious as to why you're now mentioning it....

Making a wild speculative guess, I would argue more than zero. Not everything gets reported.

True. I should have said there were no reports of looters getting shot and no hosipital records of looters being shot. But hey, they could have missed someone right?

I never said it was a new thing... but it has grown steadily worse, or at least blatantly apparent with the advent of all this technology.

What has grown worse?
.

From what I understand, and no I have not read these laws... it makes it prohibitively difficult for people to claim bankruptcy in order to write off debt. Some people need to write off debt or become homeless... are you saying its better for them to become homeless, or is the actual ruling DIFFERENT?

Abusing claiming bankruptcy is abou the only thing the new laws make difficult.
Again, the new laws mainly affect the borderline people in a negative way as they won't have as much extra money as before the laws were passed (if filing of chapter 13. As I said before, if you really needed chapter 7 before, you'll still get it)

That the government and law seem to favor the RIAA and the MPAA, as well as other corporate models which have outlived their usefulness... because they pay immense amounts of money into the administrative coffers. Some things that have been done are criminal, but they get away with it.

Until the copyright laws change, they're right. I don't like it either and it really doesn't matter what they do that's criminal...in the case of people downloading copyrighted material...they're right. The penalties are absolutely ridiculous. Want it to change? Get whoever to change the copyright laws.

As for the tapping, what, are you saying EVERY president tapped the phones and that tapping the phones illegally is what president's should DO? Is it okay because someone ELSE did it? Does it make it any less eggregious?

What part of "it's wrong and totally unacceptable" is hard to understand?

Fortunately for us, politicians still care about their future.

No they don't. They care about getting re-elected. They could give a crap less about yours or my futures, extremely rare exceptions aside.

I said "their"

You underestimate how powerful fear is, and how willing Americans are to letting the government make things a necessity for "Their own protection".

If they had something to fear, things would be different.
Right now with the last terror attack just over 4 years behind us, the atmosphere is not right for that to pass.

Maybe you and I are different, but don't give the public the benefit of intelligence. As noted, most don't care beyond the recent episodes of Desperate Housewives or Trading Spouses, other than what the next fad is.

Again I ask, do you really believe this stuff is new?

No I don't. But that doesn't mean it is acceptable or should be accepted. Was anyone fired over it? Answer me that.

Not sure of the case you're talking about but the answer is probably no.
What point are you trying to make? That this goes on? Well the good that the police do outshines the bad so with that being the case there have been many in the past 100+ years that have gotten away with stuff. There will be many in the next 100+ years that get away with stuff.

Nobody that has been officially reported on. What, do you really think the government can't keep the news from reporting on things? Do you HONESTLY think that they have no power over the media? It's all for our own good anyways, isn't it?

The thing is, it's not even being reported in the underground media. So we can make rumors all we want, but in the end the rumors and speculations are baseless.

Not if caring means using their deaths as an excuse for aggressive warmaking and excusing violations of our rights. I have heard so much spin using the deaths of those two thousand people in getting something pushed through into popularity it makes me want to vomit.

I know the Patriot Act was pushed through because of 9/11, I can't think of too much else
The PA certainly isn't popular, where did you get that from?

Yes, I have done some travelling. What other countries are like has absolutely no bearing on what america should be like. Just because we're "BETTER" to live in doesn't mean we're the "BEST" we could be... and it doesn't mean that our government has our best interests at heart, or that our Rights can't be torn away just as easily as other countries violate their people's.

I mentioned that because, despite all our gov is doing it could be much much worse.

I pay more attention than your average joe, just because i have a difference of opinion to you doesn't mean I'm ignorant.

I should have said "you" in a general sense.
It's funny how people jump all over the Bush admin like they're doing something new. I'm wondering have you all been sleep the past 50 years!? It's obvious the only (history) books they've read were in high school or the equivilant.

I hunt the people down responsible, killing those who must be, and putting them to trial before likely execution.

Completely agree.
It's just that that alone will just continue a vicious cycle. Eventually someone has to get to the root of the problem.

I don't go "Spread Democracy". If an idea is good enough, you don't have to force it down people's throats, they'll steal it.

Not to mention it's completely unrelated to 9/11. Iraq was not directly responsible, those directly responsible need to be proven to have paid for their crimes before anything else happens.

That is I believe the single biggest mistake Bush made.
Not finishing the job he started first, then jumping into a more volitile job. A war with Iraq was going to happen sooner or later, it's been on the drawing board since the first Gulf War. It was inevitable. 9/11 provided the atmosphere, but not the timing. After 9/11 we basically could have done anything we wanted (support to attack Iraq was around 80% or so). But we had a mission to complete first. Finding and taking care of those responsible. Of course that wasn't going to happen overnight. That would take years. And by the time it would be completed, our window to attack Iraq would have been closed.
It was an horrible idea to try to overlap the two, but I guess they felt like they had to. Big mistake.

That he did say. You are assuming his definition is the definitional definition, or one that matches your definition of WACO type events. You can't say that Definitely.

I said I'm assuming by waco type events Titor meant waco type events. If he meant anything else I'm sure he would have said something else.

What he didn't say is that there'd be out and out fighting before 2008.

Throughout all the US.
It's a pretty good guess that it would take 4 years for it to spread across the whole US.

No.... they aren't. Only when its good PR for the administration do they do that. Orlando has been through so many hurricanes it isn't funny, as has a good deal of florida... and yet, I can't think of any instance when the military was sent to Florida.

That's because they're sent to the beach, where most of the damage occurs. The National Guard are always sent into areas following a major natural disaster.
And they aren't "sent" they're there already. Each state has their own units. 7000 were used during Hurricane Andrew if you want a Florida example.

The news. Perhaps I should not believe everything I hear there... but then, that leaves the news out as a credible source for anything.

Well it's credible...if you get updated information.

Yes, I do. Generally they aren't given permission to "Shoot to kill". Some die, and it is a persons right to defend themselves. Accidents also happen.

However, I am under the distinct impression that permission was given to use deadly force.

Well they weren't. The same rules applied. Unless you can find something credible that says otherwise....

I have no doubt that people were beaten and killed during Katrina. And not just by the unruly mob. Numbers and frequency may be your issue, it isn't with me.

I have no problem believing you. If you provide the info to where you're getting that from....

I find that very hard to believe, considering the numbers and how events such as that usually play themselves out.

Again, please show where any source says otherwise...

And numbers?

I am referring to the elderly black gentleman who was being cordial and polite and was beaten almost to death by soldiers.

Source?

You're being sarcastic, but you really do need to be forgiven for thinking he meant what you THINK he meant. That's a common error humans tend to make, assuming that their points of reference are identical. It's the most common social faux pas as well.

He said it several times. Forgive me for believing he knew what he was talking about.
.

I'll get to the rest later

And now has JT said, a new federal police will be created:

www.infowars.com...
Has America ever had a federal police force? No. Why do we need one now? To protect us, or to oppress us? It sure looks as if this new police force will be have the authority to arrest anyone that gets too close to a member of Congress. Bush says trust me, it’s for your own protection. Isn’t that exactly what Hitler told Germany?


Another thing: The War in Iran in March could lead to that as JT said:

The Jewish population in Israel is not prepared for a true offensive war. They are prepared for the ultimate defense. Wavering western support for Israel is what gives Israel's neighbors the confidence to attack. The last resort for a defensive Israel and its offensive Arab neighbors is to use weapons of mass destruction. In the grand scheme of things, the war in the Middle East is a part of what's to come, not the cause.

Originally posted by Vitchilo
And now has JT said, a new federal police will be created:

www.infowars.com...
Has America ever had a federal police force? No. Why do we need one now? To protect us, or to oppress us? It sure looks as if this new police force will be have the authority to arrest anyone that gets too close to a member of Congress. Bush says trust me, it’s for your own protection. Isn’t that exactly what Hitler told Germany?

Well that is quite incredible news! So this is what Joe Titor meant? If I remember correctly it was once said here that Joe Titor said a federal police would be formed or be operative from 2006 or between 2006-2010 and beyond when around that time the Gov. would begin to separate the city from the country. I thought Titro was talking about the ATF, FBI, DEA, FPS and so on, but now they are actually talking about a NEW federal police? This is so CREEPY! Good find Vitchilo! I am going to find out if I can find more on this.

More news on new federal police force.

H.R. 3199 Support, (James F. Sensenbrenner, R-WI) Introduced July 11, 2005. The “USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005.” A bill to make permanent 14 of the 16 provisions of the Patriot Act (PL 107-56) scheduled to expire at the end of 2005 and extend for 10 years the remaining two provisions, which effect government access to business and other records and “roving” wiretaps;
Recent Action: The House amended and passed on 7/21/05. The Senate amended and unanimously passed on 7/29/05. Currently in conference negotiations with the Senate.

(quote)
Rep. Dana Rohrabacher [R-CA]: Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this conference report which would reauthorize the PATRIOT Act by making permanent the expansions of Federal police powers that were temporarily put into the original bill and sunsetted in that bill.

I am unmoved by the argument that we can have faith that, in the future, that there will be proper oversight because there has been proper oversight so far in determining whether or not the new police powers that were put in the original PATRIOT Act were abused. Long after Mr. Sensenbrenner and myself and others are gone from here, these powers will remain, and Congress may not have that proper oversight.

Let me note that the people in the pro-life movement should take note of what is happening here because the expanded police powers of the Federal Government will be used against them. Our second amendment friends already understand that. Proposition 187, the anti-illegal immigration group in California, the FBI went after them in the last administration.

When you expand the police powers of the Federal Government, no matter how much oversight we might have today and say that power is not being abused, we have opened the door to abuse. That is not what our Founding Fathers had in mind. Our Founding Fathers said, only temporarily increase those powers in an emergency. Otherwise, deny those powers to the Federal Government.
(end quote)

www.govtrack.us...

Originally posted by Vitchilo
And now has JT said, a new federal police will be created:

www.infowars.com...
Has America ever had a federal police force? No. Why do we need one now? To protect us, or to oppress us? It sure looks as if this new police force will be have the authority to arrest anyone that gets too close to a member of Congress. Bush says trust me, it’s for your own protection. Isn’t that exactly what Hitler told Germany?

lol
Misinformation at it's finest!
1. John Titor never said a new federal police force will be created. Funny how the Titorites are making stuff up now as they go along.

2. America has about 60 different federal police forces . First one starting in the 1700s when the Treasury department was formed (Customs is the largest Treasury police force). The FBI is the largest Department of Justice police force and I believe the largest federal police force.

3. Anyone who gets too close to a congressman without permission should be arrested! How can you be against that? And Bush has said nothing about any of this. Besides why would he say it's for our protection when it's for the congressman's protection?

Another thing: The War in Iran in March could lead to that as JT said:

The Jewish population in Israel is not prepared for a true offensive war. They are prepared for the ultimate defense. Wavering western support for Israel is what gives Israel's neighbors the confidence to attack. The last resort for a defensive Israel and its offensive Arab neighbors is to use weapons of mass destruction. In the grand scheme of things, the war in the Middle East is a part of what's to come, not the cause.

1. What war with Iran? If you're talking about the US, then you'll be sorely disappointed. There's no way we're going to war with anyone with us being so dedicated to Iraq right now.
If you're talking about Isreal, then you'll be disappointed again. 1st of all, Isreali elections are in March. 2nd, have you seen the news lately about Sharon having a stroke? How could you have missed it? There won't be any actions done by Isreal until the new gov is sworn in. Iran would be stupid to attack Isreal (or our troops in Iraq). So what are you talking about?

2. Titor didn't study enough about Isreali history. Remember 1956? 1967?
1982? Isreal is more than capable of conducting a true offensive war. Wavering western support? lol, please. The west needs an ally in that area. There's no way Isreal will ever not be an ally. Isreal's neighbors know that. They also know what Isreal is capable of. Attacking Isreal will not benefit them and the know it.
That was one of Titor's most blatently wrong predictions.

Unexpected:

Well that is quite incredible news! So this is what Joe Titor meant? If I remember correctly it was once said here that Joe Titor said a federal police would be formed or be operative from 2006 or between 2006-2010 and beyond when around that time the Gov. would begin to separate the city from the country. I thought Titro was talking about the ATF, FBI, DEA, FPS and so on, but now they are actually talking about a NEW federal police? This is so CREEPY! Good find Vitchilo! I am going to find out if I can find more on this.

Titor never came close to even remotely saying any of that.
Please read the Titor archieves or go to the sites which keep Titor's post in tack.

And oh yeah, I guess I should have mentioned this before in responding to Vits quote about H.R. 3199.
Have you actually read the thing!?
I take it you haven't as it does not create anything! Especially not a federal police force. You have to remember, sites like infowars are meant to scare you. The people who run the site don't really understand any of those bills and laws, but they see certain buzzwords in there. They take those words and run wild with them. Context is always lost.


Anyway, back to Titor.....
TCS:

Actually, I was just arguing that current day technology DOESN'T Reveal everything, things can be just as easily hidden now as they were before. You just have to be smarter about it... There is no "See, look, we have this technology, now nobody can ever hide stuff from us again!" type scenarior, it doesn't work. Build a better Mousetrap, they'll build a better mouse. Build a better system, they'll build a better obfuscation of information

If you're talking about some petty thing then yes, you may be able to still hide it. We're talkin about a civil war here though. In which over half the population in the US dies.
You can't hide that. You couldn't hide that in a third world country.
Try to build a better system of obstucting info and people will build a better system of getting the info out.

And I think you are OVERestimating the media.

How so?
Millions of people dying in a civil war in the most powerful nation the world has seen in centuries and you think they can hide that?

Waco was covered right? You consider Katrina another waco and that was covered right? What makes you think things bigger than that can't be covered?

Nevermind the media for a second. How do you hide a civil war in which millions are dying from the people? Everyone and their mother has internet access and everyone and their mother has a cell phone.


The city of Jamestown, North Dakota will have a Healthy Lifestyle Coalition Meeting at the Jamestown Hospital in Room 440 next Thursday. I found that info in a matter of seconds. Small, unimportant info.
Now if I can find that....what makes you think that one of the biggest and most important stories in world history could be hid?

And the millions who are supposed to die are supposed to be incinerated, arms aren't taken up until after 2008... civil war begins quietly, until it can no longer be ignored.

Not sure where you got that from.
Anyway, if arms aren't taken up until after 2008, then the civil war begins in 2008. Why would Titor say the war began in 2004? ( he described what "war" meant).
Again, I encourage you to read his quotes about 2008.

I like that you ignored the point I made about the last American Civil War, because it DID NOT begin when gunshots were fired, it began years ahead of time.

No, the war (using Titor's definition of war) began when the first gunshots rang out. The run up to the war began years earlier. Read Titor's quotes, he talked as if the run up to the war was occuring then and the Civil war would begin in 2004.

He also stated that the war would begin with monthly waco type events. Not once did he even hint that the war would start quietly. So what's a waco type event? Well, Waco was the last time an organized group of people engaged the federal government in armed conflict. Now just think about that for a second. If something like what happened at Waco happened over and over again and each time the situations got progressively worse, how could that not start a civil war? What happened at Waco matches Titor's definition of war which is groups manuvering and engaging in armed conflict. That was supposed to start in 2004.
He also mentioned how the 2004 eletions would be a mess due to all the civil unrest. That never materialized. Is rioting a "quiet" start to a civil war? I don't think so.

No, I only get what you believe he was doing. Whether you believe in him or not isn't the matter of his message, its that you rabidly seek to disprove he was a timetraveller that is. Don't discredit the message, discredit the messenger... its a repeated ad hominem attack which serves no other purpose but to make other people feel that you think they are stupid for believing in something that could still very well be true.

Oh you new people to this thread crack me up. Please read my previous posts concerning this very thing (I have several, but I can't remember which page #s).
Not once have I ever discredited the message. Only encouraged people to heed the message.
Please read my posts before ranting like that

But you want the last say, you want to say "Look, he's a hoax" and have people believe you. You, in your view, want people to stop being stupid about something and wake up to the reality of the sham.

Isn't the motto of this site to Deny Ignorance?

I could really care less if people believe me or not. As I have said before people are going to believe whatever they want no matter how much evidence or proof showing otherwise that they are shown. Human nature. But, if someone believes....say....Star War is real. Are you going to sit there and let them believe that? Or are you going to tell them it's just a movie?
This is no different.

Do you really think that Bush isn't able to attack Iran with nuclear weapons? Seriously?

I'm sure that all the people in the US believe in the propaganda against Iran. And so from here to the end of the year, probably in march, US and Israël will attack Iran.

Time will show me true. You'll see.

Originally posted by Vitchilo
Do you really think that Bush isn't able to attack Iran with nuclear weapons? Seriously?

I'm sure that all the people in the US believe in the propaganda against Iran. And so from here to the end of the year, probably in march, US and Israël will attack Iran.

Time will show me true. You'll see.

Fortunately for us we live in a real world and not yours.
You obviously have no clue about America and how we work, think, etc.

1. If anyone were going to attack Iran it would be Isreal.
2. Nukes? That was random. Why in the world would we use nuke on Iran? Not only would it be pointless but it would pit every single country in the world against us. Bush may not be the brightest person in the world (understatement) but come on. He's not that stupid. Plus you can't just go around nuking people. Do you realize how many authorizations it would take to get that cleared? If Iran hasn't used a nuke on us or our allies then it'd be impossible to get that cleared.
3. If the US were to nuke Iran, then that'd be it. There wouldn't be any war as there wouldn't be anyone left to fight it.
4. What exactly is this propaganda do we Americans believe?
5. Going back to the nuking Iran is pointless point. Iran (the people) are probably the most pro weastern people in the Mid east. Why would we piss them off for nothing?

Nuclear War by Bush

The press reports, while revealing certain features of the military agenda, largely serve to distort the broader nature of the military operation, which contemplates the preemptive use of tactical nuclear weapons.

The war agenda is based on the Bush administration's doctrine of "preemptive" nuclear war under the 2002 Nuclear Posture Review.




Media disinformation has been used extensively to conceal the devastating consequences of military action involving nuclear warheads against Iran. The fact that these surgical strikes would be carried out using both conventional and nuclear weapons is not an object of debate.

According to a 2003 Senate decision, the new generation of tactical nuclear weapons or "low yield" "mini-nukes", with an explosive capacity of up to 6 times a Hiroshima bomb, are now considered "safe for civilians" because the explosion is underground.

Through a propaganda campaign which has enlisted the support of "authoritative" nuclear scientists, the mini-nukes are being presented as an instrument of peace rather than war. The low-yield nukes have now been cleared for "battlefield use", they are slated to be used in the next stage of America's "war on Terrorism" alongside conventional weapons:

Administration officials argue that low-yield nuclear weapons are needed as a credible deterrent against rogue states.[Iran, North Korea] Their logic is that existing nuclear weapons are too destructive to be used except in a full-scale nuclear war. Potential enemies realize this, thus they do not consider the threat of nuclear retaliation to be credible. However, low-yield nuclear weapons are less destructive, thus might conceivably be used. That would make them more effective as a deterrent. ( Opponents Surprised By Elimination of Nuke Research Funds Defense News November 29, 2004)

In an utterly twisted logic, nuclear weapons are presented as a means to building peace and preventing "collateral damage". The Pentagon has intimated, in this regard, that the ‘mini-nukes’ (with a yield of less than 5000 tons) are harmless to civilians because the explosions ‘take place under ground’. Each of these ‘mini-nukes’, nonetheless, constitutes – in terms of explosion and potential radioactive fallout – a significant fraction of the atom bomb dropped on Hiroshima in 1945. Estimates of yield for Nagasaki and Hiroshima indicate that they were respectively of 21000 and 15000 tons.
In other words, the low yielding mini-nukes have an explosive capacity of one third of a Hiroshima bomb.



That's why they will use nukes. Because now they are no longer nukes, the are mini-nukes that don't affect civilians! How a joke!

The military manuals state that this new generation of nuclear weapons are "safe" for use in the battlefield


Also there is the CONCEPT PLAN (CONPLAN) 8022

CONPLAN 8022 is 'the overall umbrella plan for sort of the pre-planned strategic scenarios involving nuclear weapons.'

'It's specifically focused on these new types of threats -- Iran, North Korea -- proliferators and potentially terrorists too,' he said. 'There's nothing that says that they can't use CONPLAN 8022 in limited scenarios against Russian and Chinese targets.'(According to Hans Kristensen, of the Nuclear Information Project, quoted in Japanese economic News Wire, op cit)

CONPLAN is distinct from other military operations. it does not contemplate the deployment of ground troops.

CONPLAN 8022 is different from other war plans in that it posits a small-scale operation and no "boots on the ground." The typical war plan encompasses an amalgam of forces -- air, ground, sea -- and takes into account the logistics and political dimensions needed to sustain those forces in protracted operations.... The global strike plan is offensive, triggered by the perception of an imminent threat and carried out by presidential order.) (William Arkin, Washington Post, May 2005)

So there would be no soldiers just like at the beginning of the Iraq war.


But the death of Sharon could just make the operation later. The other that could be elected, Netanyahu, the war will go on.

The later they attack, the best the iranian's defenses and communications satellites will be.

One thing that could happen is that the bush's administration would be impeached and that the next administration will condamn Israël, but i don't think that this will happen.

TJW as crazy as it sounds i have given you credibility points for some of the post youve done for pointing out some decent aspects as far as common sense may go. but once you said america wouldnt attack iran, that was all gone.

i dont even know how you can say that. iran deciding not to take up russias deal and still follow nuclear power almost garentees we will go in. im not saying a ground invasion, that might not happen because of lack of resources, but you can believe they will go in bombing. dont quote me on this because im not sure but im pretty sure i read an article about possibily using small nuclear bunker busters or something to that extent.


anyway im waiting for torino, after that i will either continue to follow, or no longer follow this thread pretty much. maybe check in if i still remember it later in the year and see what the die hard believers are saying.

That’s Just Weird, you said:

John Titor never said a new federal police force will be created.
+
America has about 60 different federal police forces.
+
Unexpected:

Well that is quite incredible news! So this is what Joe Titor meant? If I remember correctly it was once said here that Joe Titor said a federal police would be formed or be operative from 2006 or between 2006-2010 and beyond when around that time the Gov. would begin to separate the city from the country. I thought Titro was talking about the ATF, FBI, DEA, FPS and so on, but now they are actually talking about a NEW federal police? This is so CREEPY! Good find Vitchilo! I am going to find out if I can find more on this.

Titor never came close to even remotely saying any of that.
Please read the Titor archieves or go to the sites which keep Titor's post in tack.

And oh yeah, I guess I should have mentioned this before in responding to Vits quote about H.R. 3199.
Have you actually read the thing!?
I take it you haven't as it does not create anything! Especially not a federal police force. You have to remember, sites like infowars are meant to scare you. The people who run the site don't really understand any of those bills and laws, but they see certain buzzwords in there. They take those words and run wild with them. Context is always lost.

I have looked into Joe Tittor’s messages and found this quote.

From the age of 8 to 12, we lived away from the cities and spent most of our time in a farm community with other families avoiding conflict with the federal police and National Guard. By that time, it was pretty clear that we were not going back to what we had and the division between the "cities" and the "country" was well defined. My father made a living by putting together 12-volt electrical systems and sailing "commodities" up and down the coast of Florida. I spent most of my time helping him.

I agree. I don’t think he is talking about a new federal police but about the already existing federal police forces. Must be somewhere between 2006-2010 as Joe was born in 1998, so that means he must be 7 or 8 now depending which month he was born in 1998. Anyway, I am curious what will happen this year and if there will be a well defined division between the city and the country between now and 2010.

About HR 3199 I believe the problem was that Sensenbrenner presented a bill to make 14 of the 16 provisions of the Patriot Act permanent and that Representative Dana Rohrabacher warned the Congress will not have that proper oversight on these permanent expanded police powers of the Federal Government and opens the door to abuse. I agree that these powers will corrupt.

Dana also said (and I think this is crucial) that this is not what our Founding Fathers had in mind and said only to temporarily increase those powers in an emergency.

I agree you should be careful what to believe and surely deny ignorance, I would rather say withstand ignorance! Sites like Infowars don’t really scare me. I am well aware of the rhetoric and manipulation of news at every ideological corner of the (internet) media. I’d rather shift the information I discover and weigh it. I also like to compare. Somewhere between the emotional and rational biased utterances you will always find some truth.

UnExpecte

please please please show me a picture of the current federal police.

just one



and are you using Joe titor for a reason ?

Where is John Titor now? and what does he have to say about the civil war?

Originally posted by Michaeljp86
Where is John Titor now? and what does he have to say about the civil war?

I officially am blocking everyone who posts here and WILL NOT read the JT story.

I want everyone to listen carefully. If you feel the need to ask a question that has been answered 1,993,456,235,321,642,626,242,753,675 times, then don't post. Please click this link:

John Titor Archive

It would save a little space on this thread.

Sorry, I'm flipping out. I just get aggravated at these kinds of posts.

-Chris