It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
Posting articles irrelevent to what we're talking about is taking up way too much space.
Originally posted by Roth Joint
The "civil conflicts" have indeed already started but I suppose it will initially be a war of "viewpoints" as can be derived from Titor's comments and from there it will grow into a "civil war" until it cannot be denied anymore around 2008. And that's exactly what's happening nowadays...
Titor never said that. He said there will be ARMED conflicts and Waco type events. Meaning people die, not shout at each other.
Isn't it interesting that you are denying any "conflict" just as can be analyzed from Titor's comments and others clearly see the "conflicts" or "events" developing in the United States and growing worse?
I guess you have 3-7 years ahead to keep on denying it until a nextdoor neighbour is holding a riot gun up your nose asking nicely for your boots. You would probably still deny it saying "o that's normal, it happens all the time"...(laughter)
As can be derived from Titor's postings and taking them into context it is clear he meant that the "conflicts" gradually and steadily would get worse, GROWING into a "civil war."
JT: "It doesn't exactly escalate as much as it opens the door for other aggression."
Never before was America so divided as it is today. I hope you will not deny that one either...
Furthermore Titor mentioned WACO together with Ruby Ridge and Elian Gonzalez remember?
What do you think what will happen? Nothing? Have you recently investigated the "unrest" in Militia Groups? You still want to deny "civil unrest" around the 2004 election?
What did Titor mean when he said “civil unrest develops near the next presidential election?” He said: “Real disruptions in world events begin with the destabilization of the West as a result of degrading US foreign policy and consistency. This becomes apparent around 2004 as civil unrest develops near the next presidential election.”
What will become apparent? Isn’t that the WORLDWIDE protests (a clear sign of 'civil unrest') against “degrading US foreign policy” with regards to the Iraq invasion?
Originally posted by Roth Joint
Only later they will GROW into armed conflicts. Titor was very clear about that. And as I stated to you before in my previous posts, WACO-type methods are already being used and will grow worse. I am not going over and over with you about this. If you want to deny it that's oke, but remember, I want your boots in 2010! (laughter again)
Aren't things great nowadays? Are you sure your on the same worldline?...
Nope. According to Titor that "stuff" will happen later.
Your wrong. It has everything to do with the "civil conflicts." Here's the full context:
Question: John talks about a civil war being started between the Democrats and Republicans. Later, this escalates into WW3 and he mentions that it is a good thing for us.
JT: "I don't believe I ever said the war was between Democrats and Republicans. If I am incorrect, please point that out. It doesn't exactly escalate as much as it opens the door for other aggression.
lol
I could see that one coming. You want to tell me that America is NOT divided?
Are you a Metro, Retro, Liberal, Arab or Christian? Are you a "Blue" or a "Red" Christian?
Well, I hate to be a party pooper but he did mention them in the same context and pertaining to the future "civil conflicts":
JT: "I don't remember a great deal about media coverage during the civil conflicts. I would probably characterize it the same way you see coverage of Waco, Ruby Ridge and Elian Gonzalez."
JT: "Waco, Ruby Ridge and Elian exist in your news archives. Telling you about impending plane crashes or other disasters (provided I could give you exact dates and times) may save lives at one point but cause cascading changes that take others at a later point."
As stated in my previous post: Worldwide protests against the Iraq invasion, teargas, rioting. No "unrest?" I am not going over and over again about this with you either.
It's heading for it and fast if the oil prices keep on rising in this year in 2005.
How would you define "civil unrest?" Apparently we disagree on that. For me personally the worldwide protests against the Iraq invasion whether peaceful or not (obviously not when reading the news articles), are signs of unrest amongst civilians, or "civil unrest." It's how you look at it I guess... a matter of "viewpoint" perhaps?
Originally posted by Roth Joint
Only later they will GROW into armed conflicts. Titor was very clear about that. And as I stated to you before in my previous posts, WACO-type methods are already being used and will grow worse. I am not going over and over with you about this. If you want to deny it that's oke, but remember, I want your boots in 2010! (laughter again)
Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
Can you not read? I posted where Titor defined conflicts and war as ARMED conflicts. NO WHERE did he say armed conflits will come later. He said they will escalate. Meaning become more intense.
Aren't things great nowadays? Are you sure your on the same worldline?...
Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
This doesn't make sense and addresses nothing of my post...
Nope. According to Titor that "stuff" will happen later.
Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
Then why did he make it clear that it was 2004?
Your wrong. It has everything to do with the "civil conflicts." Here's the full context:
Question: John talks about a civil war being started between the Democrats and Republicans. Later, this escalates into WW3 and he mentions that it is a good thing for us.
JT: "I don't believe I ever said the war was between Democrats and Republicans. If I am incorrect, please point that out. It doesn't exactly escalate as much as it opens the door for other aggression.
Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
Ok, what does this have to do with civil conflicts?
Also, he's refering to the Civil War leading to WW3. When he says "It doesn't exactly escalate as much as it opens the door..." the "It" is the Civil War. Meaning the War doesn't escalate to WW3, it opens the door for aggression from other countries.
lol
I could see that one coming. You want to tell me that America is NOT divided?
Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
Did I say that? No. But it is FAR from being the most divided it's ever been. Again look at American history. You're telling me America is more divided now than during the civil war? Or during the Civil Rights movements? Come on. THINK!
Are you a Metro, Retro, Liberal, Arab or Christian? Are you a "Blue" or a "Red" Christian?
Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
America has ALWAYS been a mixture of cultures, religions, ideologies, etc. This is NOTHING new.
Well, I hate to be a party pooper but he did mention them in the same context and pertaining to the future "civil conflicts":
JT: "I don't remember a great deal about media coverage during the civil conflicts. I would probably characterize it the same way you see coverage of Waco, Ruby Ridge and Elian Gonzalez."
JT: "Waco, Ruby Ridge and Elian exist in your news archives. Telling you about impending plane crashes or other disasters (provided I could give you exact dates and times) may save lives at one point but cause cascading changes that take others at a later point."
Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
LOL
He's talking about MEDIA COVERAGE of those events. You're reaching now.
As stated in my previous post: Worldwide protests against the Iraq invasion, teargas, rioting. No "unrest?" I am not going over and over again about this with you either.
Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
1. He was clearly talking about unrest here in America
2. There were no riots
3. If there was unrest, why did it stop?
It's heading for it and fast if the oil prices keep on rising in this year in 2005.
Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
So it'll be oil?
I thought it was America's fault?
How would you define "civil unrest?" Apparently we disagree on that. For me personally the worldwide protests against the Iraq invasion whether peaceful or not (obviously not when reading the news articles), are signs of unrest amongst civilians, or "civil unrest." It's how you look at it I guess... a matter of "viewpoint" perhaps?
Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
lol
Even if you do include protests as "unrest", who cares?? There were protesters protesting Vietnam, GW1, Kosovo, etc. None of those events lead to the West collapsing or any civil wars, so why should these??
Originally posted by Roth Joint
It would NOT escalate and it would NOT be outright open fighting in the beginning.
JT: "It doesn't exactly escalate as much as it opens the door for other aggression."
"Outright open fighting was common BY THEN and I joined a shotgun infantry unit in 2011."
The "civil conflicts" indeed have already started as a "war" of authorities against "minorities." Please don't tell me you think it's normal that law-enforcement officers can get away with tasering unarmed children and adults tasering to death.
According to Titor these WACO type events (methods) will grow into a "civil war" until it cannot be denied anymore around 2008 when it's on everyone's doorstep.
NOWHERE did Titor say that it would open the door for aggression from other countries.
Right. If you don't want to hear it from me maybe you do want to listen to the experts:
Your almost there... Titor is indeed talking about media coverage of the "CIVIL CONFLICTS." Apperently there would be NO NEED to mention
WACO, Ruby Ridge and Elian Gonzalez in one breath if they would NOT be related in some way to these "civil conflicts." Titor made it clear that he mentioned the METHODS being used upon the American citizens and NOT that there would be people burning to death every month.
As I said before in a previous post, yes the rising oil prices are due to the "degrading US Foreign Policy" with regards to the Iraq invasion.
Good question. Let’s just wait and see what happens…
Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
Can we get someone else in here arguing Titor's viewpoints. Please.
Roth has either a severe reading comprehension problem, or he just likes doing this stuff to...I don't know...piss people off.
He's been shown he's wrong on certain points, yet he come right back to them. Not even addressing the corrections.
Originally posted by Roth Joint
It would NOT escalate and it would NOT be outright open fighting in the beginning.
JT: "It doesn't exactly escalate as much as it opens the door for other aggression."
"Outright open fighting was common BY THEN and I joined a shotgun infantry unit in 2011."
Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
As was said already:
1. Titor said it WOULD be armed fighting in the begining. YOU said it wouldn't. The civil war BEGINS as Waco type events. That's open fighting.
2. The "IT" that opens the door to other aggression is the Civil War itself. It opens the door for Russia to attack.
3. It was common meaning....it was common and not just incidents here and there. He joined the infantry unit by 2011, because HE WAS STILL A KID before then.
The "civil conflicts" indeed have already started as a "war" of authorities against "minorities." Please don't tell me you think it's normal that law-enforcement officers can get away with tasering unarmed children and adults tasering to death.
Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
Show me one of those incidents where the officer got away without dur process. Just show me ONE.
According to Titor these WACO type events (methods) will grow into a "civil war" until it cannot be denied anymore around 2008 when it's on everyone's doorstep.
Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
Doesn't negate the fact that those waco type events or methods were supposed start last year and haven't.
NOWHERE did Titor say that it would open the door for aggression from other countries.
Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
Did you not read and comprehend the question?
The question (wasn't really a question) was about the war leading to WW3. WW3 is the aggression from other countries. He stated the war doesn't escalate to WW3, it opens the door for it.
Right. If you don't want to hear it from me maybe you do want to listen to the experts:
Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
Everyone with an opinion is now an expert?
lol, please.
Being spit on, being segregated, being yelled at, beat, raped, killed because you're a different race. Because you're different. THAT'S division. We unfortunately have seen that in this country, and I know you're not American because no American will ever compare what happen then to any petty political differences we have now.
You're a fool if you think this country is worse than it was then.
Your almost there... Titor is indeed talking about media coverage of the "CIVIL CONFLICTS." Apperently there would be NO NEED to mention
WACO, Ruby Ridge and Elian Gonzalez in one breath if they would NOT be related in some way to these "civil conflicts." Titor made it clear that he mentioned the METHODS being used upon the American citizens and NOT that there would be people burning to death every month.
Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
Here's where your reading comprehension problem really shows. The question was about media coverage of the war. The answer was about media coverage of the war. Nothing more, nothing less.
Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
Bottom line for the crap you wrote next.
1. Protests aren't civil unrest.
2. The west is not destabalized
As I said before in a previous post, yes the rising oil prices are due to the "degrading US Foreign Policy" with regards to the Iraq invasion.
Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
This is where your ignorance (or utter stupidity), really show. This has been adressed already, so I'm not wasting time.
Good question. Let’s just wait and see what happens…
Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
Nice way of saying, "Because I have no clue of what I'm talking about"
Moving on! Please.
Originally posted by Roth Joint
Your anger is blinding you. There's a huge difference between saying that someone has been shown wrong and actually showing someone is wrong based on facts. You have done neither. Apparently you are only good in shouting you are right and others are wrong. Yet you haven't presented any single fact. Your words are empty and meaningless. Are you always "pissed off" when someone doesn't agree with you or has an other viewpoint then you do? I wonder what you would do if I would be standing in front of you right now...
Originally posted by Roth Joint
Titor already mentioned Russia's attack and motives in detail many times before. It wouldn't make sense to point to Russia again when answering a question about whether the "civil war" would be started between the Democrats and Republicans. In response to THAT Titor answered that it wouldn't escalate as much (in the sense of Democrats against Republicans) as it would "open the door for other aggression." With the situation in America as it is right now, we can see that clearly happening.
Titor already mentioned that WW3 would be initiated by the Russians as an attack on the American Federal Empire.
When he gave his answer he meant that it wouldn’t escalate into WW3 as a result of fights between Democrats and Republicans but that the “civil conflict” initiated by law-enforcement officers “opens the door for other aggression,” NOT from other countries or Russia (it had its plans already their for a long time), but aggression from within the citizens of the US! This meaning it would not escalate as a result of Dems vs Reps is in agreement with Titor's comment that the "conflict flares up and down for 10 years."
From his point of view the worldwide massive anti Iraq war protests would initiate a “new era”
and be a clear sign of "civil unrest” openly opposing the Iraq invasion.
And Titor makes a clear distinction between his “civil unrest” and his “civil conflict.”
Furthermore he clearly states that it all really starts in 2005.
Titor clearly states that it would indeed be a conflict where organized groups engage in manoeuvre and armed conflict wherein WACO-type methods are being used by law-enforcement officers against “minorities”
Titor clearly states that his family was merely avoiding conflict with the federal police and National Guard starting from 2006. Again, with the situation in America as it is right now, we can see that clearly happening already
The civil war in the United States will start in 2004.
According to Titor these WACO type events (methods) will grow into a "civil war" until it cannot be denied anymore around 2008 when it's on everyone's doorstep.
What do you know about that? Have you read every incident/event that happened over the past few months?
Your arrogance is blinding you even more. How would you define the abovementioned event? Let me guess, in your eyes it is completely normal for law-enforcement officers to Taser someone to Death without any consequence. It happens all the time... right?
Again, your anger and your arrogance are blinding you. You are disregarding and neglecting a Professor in Politics. Don't be a fool yourself. Personally, I would worry more about that.
That's oke. You just see it as you want to see it.
1. The Anti Iraq War massive protest were most definitely "civil unrest' in the sense Titor mentioned it and he clearly makes a distinction between "civil unrest" and "civil conflicts."
That's oke. You just go ahead showing your arrogance, ignorance and contempt to others who are experts on this. How very unwise.
Originally posted by earthchild
I believe that the final battle has already begun March 22, 2005.
Originally posted by Roth Joint
According to Titor these WACO type events (methods) will grow into a "civil war" until it cannot be denied anymore around 2008 when it's on everyone's doorstep.
Originally posted by earthchild
Thats not a silly question at all because March 22 has absolutely no significance whatsoever and perhaps that why the day was chosen.
I believe that was the day the holy spirit came back to earth to begin the final battle and it will continue until the end.
I can't prove it, that's just what I know.
Originally posted by Legend
I'm confused... The Anti-Christ was born last year on March 22?
A war started? I'm thinking too hard, I am missing something. Is there a post that was deleted before I read it?
-Chris
Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
Nope you're not missing anything. It's just amazing how all these predicitons are starting to come together and how precisely they match the Titor story.
Originally posted by Simulacra
As far as talks of the 'Anti-Christ', it's nonsense. Matter of fact, I believe in John Titor more than I believe in some Judaeo-Christian myth of the 'Anti-Christ'
Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
As far as the one world ruler end of the world bringing Anti-Christ...wouldn't that be what he wants you to believe? That he's just a myth? I don't think he (or she??) would just go around telling everyone that thy're the Anti-Christ and make it obvious.
" However, there are a great many "non lethal" weapon systems in
development that turn out to be quite lethal."
Originally posted by Simulacra
I could see another 'Rodney King' size riot happen if these police officers actually use these 'non-lethal' devices on humans and it results in their death.