The American Civil War of 2005 as predicted by John Titor

Originally posted by Vitchilo
They are already putting chips on soldiers in Iraq so they can put robots who kill anyone who doesn't have a chip who's hostile...
[edit on 27-10-2006 by Vitchilo]

This caught my eye. I've never heard of it. can you give a link to where you found this info?

I heard it somewhere, i don't remember where, I can't find the link for now...

But there's an article about robots in Iraq Article 1
Chips in the Iraq troops Article
Chips for babies

So how long do we have to wait until we can all just sit back and laugh at John Titor for not being right about much if anything?

I think thats a fair question.

This is the first time I've seen anything about this. My first impression is someone having a great time scaring foolish people. My second is Titor believed this and he may be posting from a mental institution and he disappeared when they took his computer away. How those photos passed the smell test I can't imagine. Ever been to a military surplus store? I'd say he had.

It's the end of 2006. He made predictions for occurences in 2005 that never occured. If he came via a time machine his predictions would be spot on all the time. I think its OK to-


He is probably on ATS doing the same.

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird What?
No one lives in cities, the U.S. is a suburban society.

If you lived in a rural area you would call the suburbs a city, Country folk call the suburbs "the city" and they call urban and suburban society "city folks" lol.

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird When Alas Babylon was made in the 50s, the US was clearly divided like that. You had farm lands and rural areas, and you had cities. Suburban sprawl was just about to take off.

Suburban society in the 50's was already established well before ww2. It increased after ww2 and still increasing today. What? I thought farm lands is rural areas?

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird Unfortunately for Titor he kept that type of division in his story, so that now it doesn't even make sense since the US is no longer like that

Titor briefly mentions cities and major cities and converse about rural life ect... It's only how it was characterized or a representation of what is perceived by Titor, much in the way country folk perceive subtopia.

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird Now you have cities, suburbs, and then rural areas (which are QUICKLY diminishing - lol, you try finding farmland in Florida)

We always had cities, suburbs, and rural areas since or before ww2..... yes it is true, rural areas is QUICKLY diminishing.....due to advancement in technology.



[edit on 2-11-2006 by XPhiles]

The posse comitatus act is now nullify!

It generally prohibits Federal military personnel and units of the United States National Guard under Federal authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within the United States, except where expressly authorized by the Constitution or Congress. The Posse Comitatus Act and the Insurrection Act substantially limit the powers of the Federal government to use the military for law enforcement. [...] The John Warner Defense Authorization Act, signed October 17, 2006 (Section 1076) has effectively repealed this Act.

Insurrection Act:

On June 22, 2006, the Congress modified the Insurrection Act as part of the 2007 Defense Appropriations Bill. Section 1076 of the new law changes Sec. 333 of the "Insurrection Act," and widens the President's ability to deploy troops within the United States to enforce the laws. Under this act, the President may also deploy troops as a police force during a natural disaster, epidemic, serious public health emergency, terrorist attack, or incident, or other condition, when the President determines that the authorities of the state are incapable of maintaining public order. The bill also modified Sec. 334 of the Insurrection Act, giving the President authority to order the dispersal of either insurgents or "those obstructing the enforcement of the laws." (Like applying the unconstitutionals laws of Military Comissions Act and Patriot Act 1&2)

The new law changed the name of the chapter from "Insurrection" to "Enforcement of the Laws to Restore Public Order."

So try to tell me that people won't be angry when they will be aware of this? And JT saying he was fighting those who arrested people without due process...

And I though, why would Titor fight with a shotgun if he have the choice? Because they'll try to ban certains kinds of weapons... and automatic weapons are illegals in a lot of states...

[edit on 2-11-2006 by Vitchilo]

Originally posted by Vitchilo
The posse comitatus act is now nullify!

It generally prohibits Federal military personnel and units of the United States National Guard under Federal authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within the United States, except where expressly authorized by the Constitution or Congress. The Posse Comitatus Act and the Insurrection Act substantially limit the powers of the Federal government to use the military for law enforcement. [...] The John Warner Defense Authorization Act, signed October 17, 2006 (Section 1076) has effectively repealed this Act.

Ah! you changed your post from the last time I read it, you mention something about Operation FALCON. In this event I was wondering how many innocent people had there doors knock down unannounced by mistake, though they got more scum off the streets, they probably did it in such a way that it violates civil rights.

No matter, when Titor's temporal world lines converge with ours.... people will have to ask themself a question.

Does the civil war start in such a way that those willing will have time to
remove themselves to safer locations.

JohnTitor
Yes. You will be forced to ask yourself how many civil rights you will give up to
feel safe.

The posse comitatus act is now nullify! .....hmmm, I wonder why all the suppressing as of late....... Oh!

From JT:The Arab countries appear to have weapons of mass destruction. Do they use them against America?
Not against America but they are used against each other.

Now the news:
Source

The Times November 04, 2006

Six Arab states join rush to go nuclear
By Richard Beeston, Diplomatic Editor
Algeria, Egypt, Morocco, Tunisia, UAE and Saudi Arabia seek atom technology

[...]
All want to build civilian nuclear energy programmes, as they are permitted to under international law. But the sudden rush to nuclear power has raised suspicions that the real intention is to acquire nuclear technology which could be used for the first Arab atomic bomb.

And of course, to protect themselves from USA wars, they will push for nuclear weapons... and ultimately, they will use them against each others...

[edit on 4-11-2006 by Vitchilo]

muahahahahaha

ahahahaha

hahahahahahahahahahahaha

ahaha

hahahahahahaha

ha

laugh

BirDMan_X it's so easy to laugh, but I find it weak and inadequate in your case....is it so hard for you to write something constructive or something that pertains to Titor, sure he would laugh at us and you as well............but

EnronOutrunHomerun warned you once on your behaviour...

Originally posted by EnronOutrunHomerun
BirDMan_X - Please tone your language down and attempt to contribute to the discussion, apart from #-this and #-that....

Please familiarize yourself with the content of this thread:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

It will not be tolerated!

Maybe the next mod would point you to this.......

www.abovetopsecret.com...
1f.) Relevant Content: You will not post messages that are clearly outside of the stated topic of any forums nor disrupt a forum by deliberately posting repeated irrelevant messages or copies of identical messages (also known as "flooding").

[edit on 4-11-2006 by XPhiles]

If this doesn’t scare you (read: awaken you!)…. It certainly frightens me (read: awakens me!)….
John Titor:”The trick is to not turn off your fear when you'll need it the most.”

But ofcourse thatsjustweird will try to convince you it’s another ‘good thing’ for America…. How much is too much?…. Can you remember how John Titor was ridiculed for mentioning the ‘National Guard?’ Even one year ago? Well, here they are boys and girls, in your face reality, I guess the ‘show must go on’ eh?….. Oh boy…. That John Titor….

John Titor: “From the age of 8 to 12 [2006-2010], 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.”

What was Titor saying again about this time period and the ‘Constitution?’ Hmmm…. Let me think… oh yeah… there it is!:
“While you sit by and watch your Constitution being torn away from you”….”This time period is looked at as being full of lazy, self-centered, civically ignorant sheep. Perhaps you should be less concerned about me and more concerned about that.”

www.chattanoogan.com...
Bush Prepares To Impose Martial Law

posted November 2, 2006

The Republican re-writing of the Insurrection Act gives Bush the authority to declare martial law. For the first time since 1878, the president has the power to deploy troops within the United States. Bush and future presidents now have a power that, in other countries, is reserved to the dictator. [Another interesting Titor quote: "The President in 2009 was interested only in keeping his/her power base."]

Despite the unprecedented and shocking nature of this new law, there has been no outcry in the American media and little reaction from our elected officials in Congress.

The law states that "the President may employ the armed forces, including the National Guard in Federal service when he determines that the authorities of the State "refuse" or "fail" in maintaining public order, "in order to suppress, in any State, any domestic violence or conspiracy."

This means the president can take guardsmen from any state, over the objections of local governmental entities; ship them off to another state; conscript them in a law enforcement mode; and set them loose against "disorderly" citizenry - protesters, possibly.

This de-facto repeal of the Posse Comitatus Act is an ominous assault on American democratic tradition and jurisprudence.

We fail our Constitution, neglecting the rights of the states, when we make it easier for the President to declare martial law and trample on local and state sovereignty."

The balance of power between our 3 branches of government continues to tilt toward the unitary executive. It’s sad that most people don’t realize our democracy is rapidly slipping away.

www.globalresearch.ca...
Bush Moves Toward Martial Law
In a stealth maneuver, President Bush has signed into law a provision which, according to Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont), will actually encourage the President to declare federal martial law (1). It does so by revising the Insurrection Act, a set of laws that limits the President's ability to deploy troops within the United States. The Insurrection Act (10 U.S.C.331 -335) has historically, along with the Posse Comitatus Act (18 U.S.C.1385), helped to enforce strict prohibitions on military involvement in domestic law enforcement. With one cloaked swipe of his pen, Bush is seeking to undo those prohibitions.

President Bush seized this unprecedented power on the very same day that he signed the equally odious Military Commissions Act of 2006. In a sense, the two laws complement one another. One allows for torture and detention abroad, while the other seeks to enforce acquiescence at home, preparing to order the military onto the streets of America. Remember, the term for putting an area under military law enforcement control is precise; the term is "martial law."

On September 19th, a lone Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) noted that 2007's Defense Authorization Act contained a "widely opposed provision to allow the President more control over the National Guard [adopting] changes to the Insurrection Act, which will make it easier for this or any future President to use the military to restore domestic order WITHOUT the consent of the nation's governors."

In other words, the law facilitates the "transfer" of the newest in so-called "crowd control" technology and other weaponry designed to suppress dissent from the Pentagon to local militarized police units. The new law builds on and further codifies earlier "technology transfer" agreements, specifically the 1995 DOD-Justice Department memorandum of agreement achieved back during the Clinton-Reno regime.(4)

It has become clear in recent months that a critical mass of the American people have seen through the lies of the Bush administration; with the president's polls at an historic low, growing resistance to the war Iraq, and the Democrats likely to take back the Congress in mid-term elections, the Bush administration is on the ropes. And so it is particularly worrying that President Bush has seen fit, at this juncture to, in effect, declare himself dictator.

[edit on 5-11-2006 by Roth Joint]

Originally posted by Roth Joint
But ofcourse thatsjustweird will try to convince you it’s another ‘good thing’ for America….

Roth stfu
(if you don't know what that means, look it up)
The only thing I said was good for America was curbing the illegal immigration problem.

Fear mongering and putting words in people's mouth. That's ALL you've done in this thread. What good have you done?

How much is too much?…. Can you remember how John Titor was ridiculed for mentioning the ‘National Guard?’

No. No one remembers that because it never happened.

The links you posted are BS.
(just as a few of the ones you posted before, I didn't say anything because I foolishly thought people were smart enough to not believe it)
There is no martial law being planned, I can guarentee you that.

We've been through this before anyway. As was said many times previously in this thread, imposing martial law on a country as large as the U.S. is impossible. There's not an army in the world that can do it. (Also, since this is a Titor thread, Titor not once mentioned martial law being imposed. If it was imposed during his time he would have mentioned it as that would have been by far the largest military operation the world has ever seen. There's no way you couldn't mention something like that)
Why do you keep going to those sites for your info Roth? Don't you find it a bit odd that absolutely nothing they have ever said would happen has ever happened??
Those sites have less than zero credibility. The fact that you believe these sites really says something about you....

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird

We've been through this before anyway. As was said many times previously in this thread, imposing martial law on a country as large as the U.S. is impossible. There's not an army in the world that can do it. (Also, since this is a Titor thread, Titor not once mentioned martial law being imposed. If it was imposed during his time he would have mentioned it as that would have been by far the largest military operation the world has ever seen. There's no way you couldn't mention something like that)
Why do you keep going to those sites for your info Roth? Don't you find it a bit odd that absolutely nothing they have ever said would happen has ever happened??
Those sites have less than zero credibility. The fact that you believe these sites really says something about you....

That argument is a little disingenuous. I agree that there aren't enough service members in the world able to lock down the entire country, but major cities... thats another story.

[edit on 5-11-2006 by modese7en]

Originally posted by modese7en
That argument is a little disengenuous. I agree that there aren't enough service members in the world able to lock down the entire country, but major cities... thats another story.

What would be the point in locking down major cities? The majority of Americans live in suburbs....

What would be the point of imposing martial law in the first place? No one would do that, especially since they know they wouldn't be able to control it.



Edit: I should add. There's NOT even enough manpower to control the major cities. That's ridiculous. Do you know how many millions of troops that would take?

[edit on 5-11-2006 by ThatsJustWeird]

The problem people should remember if Titor was indeed who he said he was then any if not all his predictions would not be correct simply because he told someone they would happen before they did. The problem with time travel is if you interact with anyone you change history if he did indeed travel back in time and told us about these events its very possible they he changed when they would take place.

However that poses a problem called (by me at least) the never ending loop.

If history was changed and the predictions Titor made never took place then there wouldn't have been a civil war or a nuclear war, that would then mean Titor's reality wouldn't have existed, if it didn't exist then Titor couldn't have traveled back in time and if he didn't travel back in time history cant have been changed, therefore the civil war and nuclear war would have taken place and Titor would have traveled back in time (/loop)

So Titor is either not real, from a different parallel universe/reality/alien/etc, he deliberately told us the wrong dates because he knew what would happen if he altered history, or he changed history but not enough to wipe out his existence or the predictions he made.

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird

Originally posted by modese7en
That argument is a little disengenuous. I agree that there aren't enough service members in the world able to lock down the entire country, but major cities... thats another story.

What would be the point in locking down major cities? The majority of Americans live in suburbs....

What would be the point of imposing martial law in the first place? No one would do that, especially since they know they wouldn't be able to control it.



Edit: I should add. There's NOT even enough manpower to control the major cities. That's ridiculous. Do you know how many millions of troops that would take?

[edit on 5-11-2006 by ThatsJustWeird]

Against a combative and hostile population? You're damn right we couldn't pull it off. We haven't yet after 3 years trying to hold down Baghdad. But a pacified population thats scared of some boogyman bombing their walmart? Yeah, wouldn't take too many troops. Especially if you augment them with police forces and all those people are downright creating a religion out of supporting the troops.

The reason for martial law? Simple, to ensure that the power stays in the right hands. Happens all the time when a situation gets out of control, or a situation is engineered to get out of control. Take your pick.

P.S. People are moving to the city core in droves now a days. Stating that everyone lives in the suburbs is just deflection. I guess it just suits your argument to just forget the term metro area, or to understand that urban population centers include "suburbs" which are satellite towns that have been absorbed into the greater city area as urban sprawl has taken over. I defy you to go to the Bronx and tell them they're not New Yorkers, and that they're suburbanites.

Originally posted by modese7en
Against a combative and hostile population? You're damn right we couldn't pull it off. We haven't yet after 3 years trying to hold down Baghdad. But a pacified population thats scared of some boogyman bombing their walmart? Yeah, wouldn't take too many troops. Especially if you augment them with police forces and all those people are downright creating a religion out of supporting the troops.

BS
In ANY situation, controlling that many people is impossible.
Name one situation ever where that has happened in modern information age times? Or in a country with as many different cultures/beliefs/etc.?

P.S. People are moving to the city core in droves now a days.

Only in certain areas (the south and southwest).

Stating that everyone lives in the suburbs is just deflection. I guess it just suits your argument to just forget the term metro area, or to understand that urban population centers include "suburbs" which are satellite towns that have been absorbed into the greater city area as urban sprawl has taken over. I defy you to go to the Bronx and tell them they're not New Yorkers, and that they're suburbanites.

wtf are you talking about?
Metro areas are suburbs. If you're not in the city limits you're in the suburbs. Inner...outer burbs....doesn't matter, the fact remains that the vast majority of the US population lives within these areas. Even thinking about controlling an area that large - not only population wise, but geographically as well - is well below the level of saneness.

(not sure why you mentioned the Bronx, when has it not been a part of NYC?)

[edit on 5-11-2006 by ThatsJustWeird]

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird

Originally posted by modese7en
Against a combative and hostile population? You're damn right we couldn't pull it off. We haven't yet after 3 years trying to hold down Baghdad. But a pacified population thats scared of some boogyman bombing their walmart? Yeah, wouldn't take too many troops. Especially if you augment them with police forces and all those people are downright creating a religion out of supporting the troops.

BS
In ANY situation, controlling that many people is impossible.
Name one situation ever where that has happened in modern information age times? Or in a country with as many different cultures/beliefs/etc.?

P.S. People are moving to the city core in droves now a days.

Only in certain areas (the south and southwest).

Stating that everyone lives in the suburbs is just deflection. I guess it just suits your argument to just forget the term metro area, or to understand that urban population centers include "suburbs" which are satellite towns that have been absorbed into the greater city area as urban sprawl has taken over. I defy you to go to the Bronx and tell them they're not New Yorkers, and that they're suburbanites.

wtf are you talking about?
Metro areas are suburbs. If you're not in the city limits you're in the suburbs. Inner...outer burbs....doesn't matter, the fact remains that the vast majority of the US population lives within these areas. Even thinking about controlling an area that large - not only population wise, but geographically as well - is well below the level of saneness.

(not sure why you mentioned the Bronx, when has it not been a part of NYC?)

[edit on 5-11-2006 by ThatsJustWeird]

Really? Just the South and Southwest? Downtown population trends Thats just a few, and there are plenty on that list that are not located in the South or SW. Unless you're from Canada or Alaska or something. Lets not forget the population booms in Brooklyn, Harlem, and Manhattan recently.

Since its so easy to dismiss what someone says by saying its BS, I'm going to do something rare and say the same. What you're saying is BS. You can control any population as long as they support it.

Sometimes martial law isnt something the people don't want, as crazy as that sounds. If people want to be safe, and if having troops in the streets (or maybe the airports? or New York, or DC, New Orleans... wow those happened in a recent age and are not a farcry from outright martial law) makes them feel safe, they wont object.

and the idea that if people live in a community that is damn near indistinguishable from the downtown urban area, save for the fact that they do not live in the exact vicinity of a cluster of high rises, and instead can look out their windows and see the city skyline means they don't, in fact, live in that city is just... I don't even know what it is other than silly. Its a BS argument and I know you can do alot better than that T. The suburbs are definately not rural, or country, and anyone from a rural area views the people who live in those suburbs as being cityfolk, and suburbs are definately connected to and part of the city they are "sub" to.

Oh, I know what to call it now; semantics. I'm usually with you on most things T, but not tonight.

*edit* BTW, I missed that little snark about the "level of saneness" in what I'm saying. Maybe you should learn to read what someone is saying instead of keeping your own picture of a martial law sitiuation in your head. If the people support martial law, and stricter laws, whats there to stop that from happening? To me, to think that in that enviroment there is something that magically makes martial law any less possible is "well below sanity."

[edit on 6-11-2006 by modese7en]

[edit on 6-11-2006 by modese7en]

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird

Originally posted by Roth Joint
But ofcourse thatsjustweird will try to convince you it’s another ‘good thing’ for America….

Roth stfu
(if you don't know what that means, look it up)
The only thing I said was good for America was curbing the illegal immigration problem.

Fear mongering and putting words in people's mouth. That's ALL you've done in this thread. What good have you done?

How much is too much?…. Can you remember how John Titor was ridiculed for mentioning the ‘National Guard?’

No. No one remembers that because it never happened.

The links you posted are BS.
(just as a few of the ones you posted before, I didn't say anything because I foolishly thought people were smart enough to not believe it)
There is no martial law being planned, I can guarentee you that.

We've been through this before anyway. As was said many times previously in this thread, imposing martial law on a country as large as the U.S. is impossible. There's not an army in the world that can do it. (Also, since this is a Titor thread, Titor not once mentioned martial law being imposed. If it was imposed during his time he would have mentioned it as that would have been by far the largest military operation the world has ever seen. There's no way you couldn't mention something like that)
Why do you keep going to those sites for your info Roth? Don't you find it a bit odd that absolutely nothing they have ever said would happen has ever happened??
Those sites have less than zero credibility. The fact that you believe these sites really says something about you....

Please, o please stop trying to insult my intelligence and the intelligence of the reader thatsjustweird…. But even more important, please, o please stop making a fool of yourself.

People are much, much smarter than that. They are very able to distinguish reliable information by their observations and information that is not, regardless of the source. I really do not understand you couldn’t figure that out all by yourself….

But, to make it even more easier to consume, as you seem to fit the criteria of the typical ‘sheep’ Titor spoke about, I will show you a few links below that are… well…. very, very hard to deny…. or perhaps Senator Leahy can spell it out to you as well….

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird

Originally posted by Roth Joint
How much is too much?…. Can you remember how John Titor was ridiculed for mentioning the ‘National Guard?’

No. No one remembers that because it never happened.

Well, at least one person did…. Hmmm, what was his name again… let me see…..oh yeah, there he is!:

www.abovetopsecret.com...
posted on 17-4-2005 at 07:58 (post id: 1349580)

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird

Originally posted by Roth Joint
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

Modese7en your posts are simply brilliant!

leahy.senate.gov...
Sen. Kit Bond (R-Mo.) and Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) – the co-chairs of the Senate’s National Guard Caucus – said the conference agreement is expected to include a provision making it easier for the President to declare martial law, stripping state governors of part of their authority over state National Guard units in domestic emergencies. The provision is opposed by the National Governors Association and by key leaders in both the House and Senate. The conference report is also expected to drop a Senate-adopted provision authored by Bond and Leahy to elevate the status of the National Guard within the Pentagon.

leahy.senate.gov...
Mr. President, I rise to express my grave reservations about certain provisions of the Fiscal Year 2007 Defense Authorization Bill Conference Report. This legislation poorly handles key provisions related to the National Guard, which — as the events since September 11th have highlighted — is critical to our Nations’ defense.

The final conference report drops the reforms known as the National Guard Empowerment Act, a bill that would have given the National Guard more bureaucratic muscle inside the Pentagon. It would have cleared away some of these administrative cobwebs and given the Guard the seat at the decision-making table that it needs and deserves. It also should concern us all that the Conference agreement includes language that subverts solid, longstanding posse comitatus statutes that limit the military’s involvement in law enforcement, thereby making it easier for the President to declare martial law.

There is good reason for the constructive friction in existing law when it comes to martial law declarations.

Combined, these moves amount to a double punch against the National Guard.The National Guard has done so much to protect the security and safety of our country. Yet the Authorization Bill sends the signal that we are not interested in truly supporting them. This conference report says we do not want to address glaring problems that have surfaced during their increasingly frequent deployments. And, incredibly enough, it says to the Guard that other military forces are better to carry out tasks here at home. In short, this bill goes in the wrong direction.

See also: Congressional Research Service Report for Congress, "The Use of Federal Troops for Disaster Assistance: Legal Issues," by Jennifer K. Elsea, Legislative Attorney, August 14, 2006

[edit on 6-11-2006 by Roth Joint]

And in fact TJW, supporting an open martial law is quite impossible if everyone is against it...

But a kind of martial law, with all the laws they passed is easily putted in place, people don't even recognize it. On wikipedia, they say that if the Habeas Corpus is suspended, this is a kind of martial law...

Also, it's much easier to maintain martial law if you already have all the surveillance, strategies, informants, workforce already in place in the cities, and that the majority of the people don't care about being ``good`` citizens that love their government and see anyone against Bush a traitor and that also believe that all those law protects them from ``terrorists``, Ben Laden and illegal immigrants.

I have also the impression that a lot of americans don't care about their rights, there's no protests, and they just want to continue to buy, playing video games and watching american idol. You know, there's a lot of social engineer that help Bush Co gaining power and make people accepting a new form of martial law, a martial law that is transparent...


Also, if this law is passed, beginning on January 17, you'll need a clearance to leave or enter the USA... LAW

Don't you think that people will be angry about that? It looks like URSS when you needed a clearance to leave the country...

[edit on 6-11-2006 by Vitchilo]