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.

 

The American Civil War of 2005 as predicted by John Titor

page: 13
31
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 16 2005 @ 04:28 PM
link   

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.

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)

In Titor's eyes "conflict" was most definitely ALSO people shouting at eachother as you wish. JT: "The guise of productive interaction and communication is thwarted by illogical verbal attacks and misdirection. I understand why the news does it. They are trying to hold an audience by generating CONFLICT. For a while, I thought that was the goal here too but it appears that anger and CONFLICT is being created on this site to cause genuine harm and pain."


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?

Getting worse? Are you kidding me? Perhaps you don't know much about America history. All you have to do is look back to the '60s. Right now the US is NO WHERE close to the tension we had back then. And as I said before we weren't in danger of civil war then, so why would we be in danger of civil war now, since things are 100X better than they were back then?

lol
Aren't things great nowadays? Are you sure your on the same worldline?...


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)

We're talking about now. That stuff was supposed to start happening last year. It's not.

Nope. According to Titor that "stuff" will happen later.


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."

He CLEARLY states several times that the "Civil War" starts in 2004(5). The conflicts are the "battles", if you will, that gradually get worse.

At least we agree here on something. The "conflicts" will gradually get worse indeed. Wasn't it Titor who also said: "What I feel is not anger, it is sadness that you cannot see what I see." "I realize my claims are a bit ridiculous but my intent is not really to be believed." He could have said it just now...


JT: "It doesn't exactly escalate as much as it opens the door for other aggression."

lol, here he's talking about politics.

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. Yes, I think the war would be good for society and I would be happy to debate that with you."


Never before was America so divided as it is today. I hope you will not deny that one either...

Again, here's more proof you have NO clue about America history.

lol
I could see that one coming. You want to tell me that America is NOT divided? Again I am not going over and over about this with you. Never before was America so divided as it is today. Are you a Metro, Retro, Liberal, Arab or Christian? Are you a "Blue" or a "Red" Christian?


Furthermore Titor mentioned WACO together with Ruby Ridge and Elian Gonzalez remember?

No he didn't. He mentioned those, but not in the same context as Waco, and not pertaining to the Civil War.

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."


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 are you talking about?
There hasn't been widespread "civil unrest" in the US since the 60s.
Any protests during the election were people exercising their right to peacfully protest, there was no civil unrest or I'm sure the rioting, etc. would have lasted until at least the inaguartion or beyond.

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.


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.”


So the West is now destabilized?

It's heading for it and fast if the oil prices keep on rising in this year in 2005.


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?

What part of PEACEFUL PROTEST(s) ISN'T CIVIL UNREST is hard to comprehend?

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?




posted on Apr, 16 2005 @ 06:27 PM
link   

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)

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?...

This doesn't make sense and addresses nothing of my post...


Nope. According to Titor that "stuff" will happen later.

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.

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?

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?

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."

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.

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.

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?

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??



posted on Apr, 16 2005 @ 08:50 PM
link   

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.

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."


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...


I am impressed...


Nope. According to Titor that "stuff" will happen later.


Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
Then why did he make it clear that it was 2004?

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.


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.

NOWHERE did Titor say that it would open the door for aggression from other countries.
The "It" is indeed the "civil war" or "civil conflicts" as Titor also mentioned them, opening the door for other aggression leading to "organized groups engaging in manoeuver and armed conflict."



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!


Right. If you don't want to hear it from me maybe you do want to listen to the experts:

www.commondreams.org...
"Not since the civil war has the country been so divided," argues John White, professor of politics at the Catholic University of America. Whether Bush wins or loses, these rifts will endure. America is not just a nation at war with the world; it is a nation at war with itself."

www.thebcobserver.com...(c1si3e55m0yqp155pjcufajj)/Article.aspx?ArticleID=495&IssueID=14
"This election season has witnessed a political polarization and
division between Americans that has not faced this country for
generations. Such animosity between political rivals has been seen
only a few times since the founding of our successful experiment. We
have had regional conflicts (the Civil War) and generational
conflicts (The World War II and Vietnam generations). In 2004, a new
clash has divided this country more than it has been torn for over a
century. Cultural and ideological differences which transcend region
or ancestry have torn this country asunder and have defined the
extreme polarization of this election. The divisions at Boston
College embody these cultural conflicts."

www.dfw.com...
"But it's highly unlikely that either George W. Bush or John Kerry
will be able to bridge the partisan divide and usher in a new era of
civility."

"The bitter ideological conflicts that predate this election year
will persist in 2005."

"Rather, the president in 2005 will be forced to deal with a toxic
political climate, decades in the making, that is now virtually
institutionalized."

"And with liberals now dominating the Democrats, there are fewer
people on either side willing to compromise."

"Acrimony aside, the ideological divide also reflects a profound
philosophical disagreement about the future path of the nation."

"Either man will be forced to deal with the same daunting realities:
Huge budget deficits and historically low revenues as a share of the
gross domestic product (as a result of the Bush tax cuts); the
ongoing rise of health-care costs; the expense of financing Iraq,
with the aim of stabilizing the war zone and crafting a U.S. exit
strategy; and more spending pressure for defense and homeland
security."

"In Washington, though, every day is a zero-sum game: 'What can I do
to get more power for myself, because the other guys are the
enemy?'... So the idea is, we're not going to give them any more
power; we've got to keep it for ourselves."

"Or, as the poet William Butler Yeats once penned, "Things fall
apart; the centre cannot hold.""

www.sptimes.com...
"The [Inauguration] day included reminders that the nation remains
deeply divided"

www.commondreams.org...
"Now I have that same queasy feeling - except this time it's not only
about the simple matter of who will win and who will lose on November
2. Now it's a deep concern about what is happening to the United
States itself."

"As a result, any action taken in the name of 9/11 cannot be
questioned. Oppose the Patriot Act, with its restrictions on civil
liberties, and you are a friend of the terrorists - and, if you are a
Democratic congressional candidate, Republicans will air TV ads
against you placing your face alongside that of Osama bin Laden."

"Bush is a subtle enough politician not to make his campaign an overt
religious crusade. But he communicates, through nods and winks, to
his evangelical base: they know the mission he is on. He uses their
language, answering a question on abortion by referring to a "culture
of life", one of their favored phrases, or nodding to a 19th-century
supreme court ruling often cited in their own literature."

"This is a revolutionary shift for a country that was founded on the
separation of church and state. If Bush wins on November 2, the
chances are strong that the shift will accelerate, perhaps even
towards permanence."

"That leaves two questions, one for the future, one for November 2.
For the future: how long can these two competing world views, so far
apart from each other and so sharply divided, co-exist in the same
country? For November 2: which of these two camps is going to be
absolutely determined to win?"


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.


I refer to my answer above. Listen to the experts.



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.


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.

JT: "However, there are a great many 'non lethal' weapon systems in development that turn out to be quite lethal. Sometimes I watch your television programs that show SWAT teams using new non-lethal weapons. They usually start out with, "In the future, the army and police will fight its enemies with new weapons systems" When they use the word "enemy", they're talking about YOU! You don't really think the Marines are going to jump out of helicopters overseas with sticky goop, pepper spray and seizure lights, do you?"



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?


1. NO. Titor 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." With the "this" Titor meant the "degrading US foreign policy and consistency" clearly witnessed by the many worldwide anti-Iraq war protesters.

2. Yes there are. Riots and protests take place all over the world but none are acknowledged.

www.guardian.co.uk...
As violent anti-war protests took place outside the EU summit in Athens and more than 100 people were arrested

www.freerepublic.com...
Protests Target Bush at Summit in Chile
Posted on 11/19/2004 12:21:22 PM

SANTIAGO, Chile - Riot police used water cannons and tear gas Friday to break up a demonstration by hundreds of rock-throwing protesters before more than 20,000 people marched to vent their anger at Pacific Rim leaders, particularly President Bush.

www.democraticwings.com...
Italy protests Bush's visit
From the BBC:

Riot police fired some tear gas in the tense but mostly peaceful rallies, in which flares and fireworks were thrown. Organisers say 150,000 people have turned out for the protest, while police put the figure at 25,000...

3. I didn’t know that “civil unrest” should continue for a certain amount of time for it to be acknowledged as “civil unrest.” Titor made a clear distinction between “civil unrest” and the “civil conflicts.”



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?


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. "Action causes re-action" and "economic warfare" remember?



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??

Good question. Let’s just wait and see what happens…



posted on Apr, 17 2005 @ 01:48 AM
link   
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.

Ex.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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:

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.

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.


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.

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…

Nice way of saying, "Because I have no clue of what I'm talking about"



Moving on! Please.



posted on Apr, 17 2005 @ 06:07 AM
link   

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.

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
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.

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.

The question was: John talks about a civil war being started between the Democrats and Republicans. Later, this escalates into WW3…

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 Titor’s point of view it becomes apparent that the roots of the “US Civil War” could be observed in 2004 as “civil unrest” develops near the next Presidential “election” (2004) in his point of view “as a result of degrading US foreign policy.” 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 gives another hint when he showed us that we clearly could see the signs of a developing “civil war” in 2000/2001. JT: “For a few months now, I have bee trying to alert anyone that would listen to the possibility of a civil war in the United States in 2005. Does that seem more likely now?” And another hint when he said: “It is a mistake to give anyone your unwavering belief...but you will find that out yourself 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”, BUT that it wouldn’t escalate as much in the sense of angry Democrats vs Republicans but opens the door for OTHER aggression AND that outright open fighting would ONLY be common later on somewhere around 2008-2010 as 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 "while you sit by and watch your Constitution being torn away from you."

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.”
“From the age of 8 to 12, [ 2006 to 2010 ] 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.”
“The year 2008 was a general date by which time everyone will realize the world they thought they were living in was over. The civil war in the United States will start in 2004. I would describe it as having a Waco type event every month that steadily gets worse. The conflict will consume everyone in the US by 2012”
"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."
“I would define it as a conflict where organized groups engage in maneuver and armed conflict.”
"Outright open fighting was common BY THEN and I joined a shotgun infantry unit in 2011."
"That conflict flares up and down for 10 years."



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.

Oke.

www.officer.com...
Taser-linked Death Ruled a Homicide in Toledo, Ohio
(but NO prosecutions and Taser use to continue!)

After he was carried into the county jail, Turner was booked and ate a boxed lunch before becoming agitated again in his cell. He refused attempts to restrain him and corrections officers then shocked him with a Taser.

A nurse dispatched to Turner's cell as a matter of procedure after the stun gun's use discovered he was unresponsive. He died a short time later at St. Vincent Mercy Medical Center.

No criminal or administrative charges were filed against the jail officials. City police officers also faced no criminal charges, but four police officers and a sergeant were administratively charged for improperly handcuffing Turner at the time of his arrest. Hearings on the charges were set for last month but were continued. No new dates have been set.

Family seeks firings
Shawn Turner said yesterday he was pleased with the coroner's ruling in his brother's death. The central city resident and TARTA bus driver said he wants those involved, particularly those at the sheriff's office, fired.

"If I did my job and I killed someone, do you think they'd keep me? No, they wouldn't keep me," he said.

While calling Turner's death "unfortunate," Steve Tuttle, vice president of communications for Taser International, said the firm continues to believe in the life-saving value of its devices.

Taser use to continue
Toledo police Chief Mike Navarre said in a statement yesterday that his department will continue to use Tasers, will review and analyze studies detailing the effects of the devices, and "will take any appropriate further action based upon those findings."

David Taylor III, a Toledo lawyer and former president of the NAACP's Toledo branch, sent a letter to the Toledo FBI office yesterday demanding an immediate investigation by the U.S. Justice Department into what he called a violation of Turner's civil rights.


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.

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?



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.

Again, your wrong. Your contempt shows your true face. I refer to my answer above.



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.

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.

www.commondreams.org...
"Not since the civil war has the country been so divided," argues John White, professor of politics at the Catholic University of America. Whether Bush wins or loses, these rifts will endure. America is not just a nation at war with the world; it is a nation at war with itself."



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.

That's oke. You just see it as you want to see it. Titor specifically mentioned WACO, Ruby Ridge and Elian Gonzalez in one breath 2 times over as representative cases in relation to the "civil conflicts" media coverage.


Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
Bottom line for the crap you wrote next.
1. Protests aren't civil unrest.
2. The west is not destabalized


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."

2. We are still in the early days of 2005. Let's just wait and see what will happen.



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.

That's oke. You just go ahead showing your arrogance, ignorance and contempt to others who are experts on this. How very unwise.



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.

You are truly showing what you are worth here. I still hope I have contributed to enriching your insights and wisdom, even if that would mean for just a tiny little bit. However I cannot deny that I have the feeling that even that tiny little bit was entirely wasted on you. So I will give you the last word and will be off. I'll leave my posts for others.


[edit on 17-4-2005 by Roth Joint]



posted on Apr, 17 2005 @ 06:16 AM
link   
i remember reading that the civil war was suppose to start march 16th in up state ny by or near a campus. i could be wrong



posted on Apr, 17 2005 @ 12:24 PM
link   
I believe that the final battle has already begun March 22, 2005.

It is not an obvious outright war but rather insidious, which is worse, the signs are all around us that it is already begun - people just aren't ready to believe.
I Believe the war will end with the awakening of mass consciousness .
at least I hope thats the way it ends....

All we can do now is stay strong to our beliefs.

OUR beliefs being that which each of us hold dear as individuals, not what someone else tells us to have faith in. If you are true to yourself then you cannot fail no matter what.

It's going to be a tough, long road ahead till the end..

at least thats what I believe anyway



posted on Apr, 17 2005 @ 01:58 PM
link   

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...

lol
You're the one trying to prove a work of fiction is true.
Everything I have presented is either taken straight from real life, or taken from the story of John Titor. I'm not angry, I'm annoyed that you refuse to stop twisting words to fit your agenda. If you were here standing in front of me, I would take you step by step through the story of JT, then I would take you step by step of the story 'Alas, Babylon' to show you the only differences is that John Titor put it in a post cold war setting. Both however are works of fiction. John's "predictions" are nothing new. They are not unique. Who knows maybe years and years from now, when we're struggling for our very survival, maybe this stuff can come true. But at the present, there is just no way. None whatsoever. Unless something overly drastic, earth shattering, and life changing happens in the next few weeks.


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.

1. He was answering 2 statement. Hence the period after his first statement of it wouldn't be a war between Repubs and Dems. He then goes on to say that the civil war, which is not between political parties, opens the door....

2. More proof you're not American. Because there is no way we are willing to kill or go to war with each other over political beliefs. Very rarely are there even fist fights. So how can you see that situation now?


Titor already mentioned that WW3 would be initiated by the Russians as an attack on the American Federal Empire.

Exactly.
Something Russia would never have done had there not been a civil war to open the door to that.


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."

1. Titor never states the civil conflicts are initiated by law-enfocrement officers.
2. Titor mentions Dems and Repubs twice. The first to say that the war isn't between them. The second to state they don't exsist in the future. That's it.
The war is not politically motivated by dems vs. repubs. Period. Several times he mentions the city vs. country thing. Class differences have more to do with this fictional war that political differences. Can you walk down the street and distinguish between a Dem and a Reb?


From his point of view the worldwide massive anti Iraq war protests would initiate a “new era”

He never mentions Iraq.
He never mentions a "new era" so why is that in quotes?



and be a clear sign of "civil unrest” openly opposing the Iraq invasion.

Maybe you have some weird version of what unrest means, but typically here on earth unrest means disorder, lawlessness, rioting, etc. It typically happens when the leadership is overthrown. The few days after Baghdad fell in Iraq, THAT was civil unrest. People opposing the war are doing nothing but voicing their opinion.


And Titor makes a clear distinction between his “civil unrest” and his “civil conflict.”

He only mentions civil unrest once when talking about around election time. That civil unrest never materialized. How many cities had to call out the national guard because of the elections? How many people died because of the unrest around the elections? None.
I'm sorry our country is more civilized than you think. I know you want us to be a bunch of lawless pigs who riot and cause civil unrest every chance we get, but...I'm sorry, that just doesn't happen for nothing in this country.


Furthermore he clearly states that it all really starts in 2005.

Then why did he apologize for saying 2005 and said he meant 2004?


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”

He never mentions Waco-type methods. That's all you. He specifically states Waco-type events. Meaning Waco-type events.
He also never mentions police vs. minorities. So why is that in quotes?


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

LOL
You're not American then. Because no where in America is the situation where people are afraid of the Federal Police and National Guard. The national guard aren't even called out anywhere!
I just went to a little kid's birthday party, his mother is a Fed. police officer. Not once did she threaten me



The civil war in the United States will start in 2004.

This is clear. WAR. 2004. WAR. 2004.
He later explains how he sees war as armed conflict between organized groups.
WAR. 2004. WAR. 2004.
It's 2005. No war.


I would describe it as having a Waco type event every month that steadily gets worse. The conflict will consume everyone in the US by 2012”
"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."
“I would define it as a conflict where organized groups engage in maneuver and armed conflict.”
"Outright open fighting was common BY THEN and I joined a shotgun infantry unit in 2011."
"That conflict flares up and down for 10 years."


As far as the article.
I know you don't know any police officers, maybe haven't even talked to a few. But if someone is resisting you like that, using a taser is probably the most effective way of subduing the person without killing them. It's unfortunate that he died, but he shouldn't have resisted in the first place and also unless you have some other conditions a taser alone won't kill you. To you it may seem cruel to use it, but you have no idea what police officers have to put up with on a DAILY basis.



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.

That was not a waco type event (or method). Not even close. Stuff like that happened before Waco, they'll continue to happen. Again, Waco is the standard. If he wanted the standard lower, he would have said "police tasering criminals will eventually grow into a civil war"




What do you know about that? Have you read every incident/event that happened over the past few months?

?
A Waco type even (or method) is not something you can hide. If it has happened the media would have been all over it. The Democrats too, because they took a lot of heat for what happened. If the same thing happened under a Republican accusations of hypocrisy would have been flying everywhere.



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?

People dying from a taser doesn't happen often. It's extremely rare in fact. Police officers being sent to jail for doing their job doesn't happen very often. What would you have liked to see happen? Them shoot the guy? No, you have no proof whatsoever they weren't trying to kill him.



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.

You have never been to an American university and have had to sit under a political or politically motivated proffesor. I have and I can tell you some of the most blatenly arrogant, ignorant, and outright incorrect stuff has been spewed by them because they all have their own agendas. They are far from "experts"
I know you said you'd stop but answer me this one thing.

Do you think this country is worse off now, do you think it's more divided now than the pre civil rights era? Or during the Civil War?
I want YOU to answer, do no post some article of someone else's opinion.



That's oke. You just see it as you want to see it.

No, I just posted what Titor said. You're seeing it as you want to see it. I'm just stating what the author said. Nothing more. Nothing less.




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."

The only civil conflict Titor mentions was the civil war.
The massive protest were just that. Protest. Had those people gotten out of hand (which there was no reason too) and started chaos in their respective countries, then it could have escalated to civil unrest. But it didn't.

2. We are still in the early days of 2005. Let's just wait and see what will happen.



That's oke. You just go ahead showing your arrogance, ignorance and contempt to others who are experts on this. How very unwise.

No I'm going by expert analysis from people who don't have an agenda, my own research, and good old common sense.


Ahhh it's a beautiful day today. Maybe I'll go to the park. Hopefully those big bad meany police officers will let me out of the house. After I give them my boots of course



Have a nice day Roth.



posted on Apr, 17 2005 @ 02:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by earthchild
I believe that the final battle has already begun March 22, 2005.

I probably should know this and may look silly for asking but -
What happened on March 22?



posted on Apr, 17 2005 @ 02:53 PM
link   
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.



posted on Apr, 17 2005 @ 03:45 PM
link   

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.


That's what I remember most about reading JT's post. So I'll have to want until then to see if he's fake or not. Eventually we'll know.



posted on Apr, 17 2005 @ 06:17 PM
link   
Something to think about…

JT: “Unfortunately, I have decided not to discuss events that you or I can do anything about. It is important that they be a surprise.”

“I will not disclose any detailed information that would allow someone to avoid death by probability. This means no [detailed] earthquake or bombing information.”

“I will not disclose names or events associated with individuals.”

”The really interesting information is months or years away and I'd be gone when it happens.”

South America went relatively unharmed. However, there is still a great deal of internal conflict with conventional arms.”

”There's a slim chance your worldline is just different enough my "prediction" won't happen.”

”As far as I can tell right now, you are headed toward the same events I would call "my history" in 2036.”

G° : not north and south again was it?
TimeTravel_0 : In 2036, they are our largets trading partner.
TimeTravel_0 : No...more like city angainst country.'
wyrmkin_37 : majorities against minorities.......
TimeTravel_0 : Yes.
TimeTravel_0 : You know...guns versus no guns.
TimeTravel_0 : Power versus no power.
wyrmkin_37 : time to pour another jack and coke
TimeTravel_0 : Un troops versus no UN troops.

TimeTravel_0 : I just wish things didn’t have to happen the way they will.
Yareisa : we cannot change it?
TimeTravel_0 : Its too late.
Yareisa : I sensed that
TimeTravel_0 : Go north.


2001-09-11: ORGANIZED PLANE CRASHES INTO NY TWIN TOWERS BY EVIL ACT OF TERROR

“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.”

Possible hint:
”It happens about the same time they stop coming to your house when you dial 911.”

2003-03-19: US IRAQ INVASION ON BASIS OF “SUSPECTED” POSSESSION OF WMD

“None of the things I have said will be a surprise. They were set in motion ten, twenty, even thirty years ago. Are you really surprised to find out that Iraq has nukes now or is that just BS to whip everyone up into accepting the next war?”

Possible hint:
”The last resort for a defensive Israel and its offensive Arab neighbors is to use weapons of mass destruction.” [The term “weapons of mass destruction” was used multiple times by the Bush Administration as an effective fear strategy to justify attack on Iraq’s soil]

2004-12-26: TSUNAMI SOUTH-EAST ASIA 100,000+ PEOPLE DIED IN JUST ONE DAY

“I get no pleasure out of being right when it comes to CJD disease, war in the Middle East or suffering people in far away lands. There's nothing like the look on someone's face when you tell them 100,000 people will be dead tomorrow.”

Possible hint:
“Even for you, Tesla technology can be found in appliances, motors and generators. I would have to say we have come a long way on Tesla's foundation but we don't have electricity rays that cause earthquakes.”


March/April, 2005:
TERRI SCHIAVO & PATRIOT ACT: DISCUSSIONS INDIVIDUAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS


“As you know, my interest is in history and in the paradox of thought. I do however, find it interesting how important the Constitution became to the average US citizen's life, if even for a short moment.”

Possible hint:
My definition of a patriot is anyone who defends the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”
“They were betting that people wanted security instead of freedom and they were wrong.”



posted on Apr, 17 2005 @ 07:51 PM
link   

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.

I see.
But....
Someone gave birth to a boy last year, so...wouldn't that mean the anti christ was born last year and the war really began last year? Man, this is all confusing....where are the Mayans when you need them.



posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 08:07 AM
link   
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



posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 09:21 AM
link   

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

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.



posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 09:52 AM
link   

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.


Sarcasm. Funny.

The reason why I started this post was to correlate the predictions of notable psychics to the world future as foretold by John Titor. 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'



posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 10:15 AM
link   

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'

Well there are plenty of "anti-christs" already out there. Just look at France


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.



posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 10:58 AM
link   

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.


The notion of the 'Anti-Christ' holds more perpetual myth than an internet story about a time traveller warning the war of World War III. At the end of 2005, Titors story will either be:

1.) Confirmed
2.) Or proven to be a hoax

That should be the end of Titor (although some will still try to interpret his words into modern phenomenon). But the Anti-Christ will always be pondered and expected because there is no given date. The Anti-Christ myth is endless.



posted on Apr, 24 2005 @ 09:37 AM
link   
Anyone remember Titor stating:




" However, there are a great many "non lethal" weapon systems in
development that turn out to be quite lethal."


Well what he was implying was the development of weapons such as HERF, LERF and HAARP. Although HAARP is still standing high in the barren desert of Alaska (and some claim that it is being used as I type this message), HERF (High energy radio frequency) and LERF (Low) has been implemented into some police divisions as a source of 'non-lethal' weapons. 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.



posted on Apr, 25 2005 @ 08:39 PM
link   

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.

I seriously doubt it.
People usually don't riot when stuff like that happens. Unless it was racially motivated or something.


The Rodney King riot happened after the police were initially cleared. Not after they beat him.



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join