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: 138
31
<< 135  136  137    139  140  141 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 01:48 PM
link   
I apologize. I should have know what level of education and gullibility I would encounter in a thread like this.
I promise to keep things more simple from now on.



Originally posted by modese7en
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.

lol
This is why I tell people to research for themselves.
People may see that link and think Hey, those cities are gaining in population. That's not the case, they're moving within the city.
Since I live in MD, I'll use Baltimore as an example. The population of Baltimore has been decreasing at a steady rate since the 70s. That has not changed. But people who already live in Baltimore are moving closer to what that link considers the down town area.
Nice way to confuse these already confused people mode.

(btw what's your obsession with NY lol. You think NY represents the average America city?? lol Hardly. Places like NY, DC are special because of their importance in world affairs)


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.

I asked you to give examples.
Should I just take your word for 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.

You may just want to look up the definition of Martial law.
Since I know you won't, I'll do it...


1. the law temporarily imposed upon an area by state or national military forces when civil authority has broken down or during wartime military operations.
2. the law imposed upon a defeated country or occupied territory by the military forces of the occupying power.

Unless we're being nuked to kingdom come or invaded or something crazy like that, I challange you to find one person who would want it outside of some disaster.


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.

We're talking about Martial Law here.
Which is easier to control. A city with a population of 500,000 or a city and metro area with a population of 5,000,000. Do you honestly think they'll care about the suburbs. No. Cities are far more important. City centers actually. Should martial law be declared on a large city, some of the city probably won't even be affected, let alone the metro area.
You're trying to distort my words but they are very clear.


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.

This is irrelevant as I'm not sure why you're even mentioning this....



*edit* BTW, I missed that little snark about the "level of saneness" in what I'm saying.

Read what I said again, as it was very clear.
In regards to martial law and controlling it I stated:

Even thinking about controlling an area that large - not only population wise, but geographically as well - is well below the level of saneness.

Now tell me. How can you dispute that?
Again, there's not an army large enough to do that, so anyone even thinking about trying that is...well....stupid.

Your silly attempts to distort my words and make them look like an attack on your have failed. Sorry.


Roth:
You didn't address anything I said and your quote of me had no relevance to the current discussion.
Why did you even post that? I didn't ridicule Titor. I was talking to you.
Titor didn't even mention National Guard in his posts (you did) so how in the world can I ridicule him for mentioning them??

Vit: at least you're attempting to do research. I'm proud of you! Teach Roth to do the same.

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...

From Wiki:

In many countries martial law imposes particular rules, one of which is curfew. Often, under this system, the administration of justice is left to a military tribunal, called a court-martial. The suspension of the writ of habeas corpus is likely to occur.

What it's saying is that during martial law, the suspension of Habeas Corpus is one of the rules that take effect.


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.

lol, what America is this? Certainly not the current one. No one likes Bush or the government. Certainly not enough people to control millions of people.


I have also the impression that a lot of americans don't care about their rights, there's no protests

You'd be surprised.
Also, no protests?? Where did you get that from? There are protests all the time. (working in DC I can tell you this as fact)


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...

Since it won't affect many people, then no I don't think people would be angry. As far as entering this country, having some sort of clearance has always been in affect. That's the same with every country. As far as leaving people will think it's pointless because currently you have to go through customs anyway...




posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 02:08 PM
link   

No one likes Bush or the government.
We'll see in the next election, tomorrow.


Certainly not enough people to control millions of people.
Not now, but they will try to confiscate guns first, because if not, it will be as stupid as invading Iraq... wait, they invaded Iraq!



You'd be surprised.
Also, no protests?? Where did you get that from? There are protests all the time. (working in DC I can tell you this as fact)
Protests of how many people? And about what? Because even nazis make protests... so if 500 people protest, it doesn't mean much... And people have big time to protest, there's a lot of unemployment.



Since it won't affect many people, then no I don't think people would be angry.
Not affect many people? All those who work outside, who want to flee this country, ect... there's millions of people travelling everyday in-out of the USA.

Also, I don't think you understood what is it about... it's not a no-fly list, it's everyone who want to travel need a clearance from the homeland security. Even you. Maybe they plan something before January 14...so that they plan to keep everyone inside their borders.

Also, it wouldn't impress me that Bush Co. try to implement martial law, they were know as `The Crazies`` in the White House circles. Even Bilderberg member are angry how The Bush Co are conducting their operation because they go too fast so people notice.

[edit on 6-11-2006 by Vitchilo]



posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
Roth:
You didn't address anything I said and your quote of me had no relevance to the current discussion.
Why did you even post that? I didn't ridicule Titor. I was talking to you.
Titor didn't even mention National Guard in his posts (you did) so how in the world can I ridicule him for mentioning them??

You are really not making any sense anymore thatsjustweird, but all the more amusing. Yes, you did ridicule Titor for mentioning the National Guard (as shown) and perhaps you could also start doing some research before you spout your typical nonsense. It could make you look better too you know.... but I wouldn’t count on that too much..


John Titor: “From the age of 8 to 12, we lived away from the cities and spent most of our time in a farm community with other families avoiding conflict with the federal police and National Guard. By that time, it was pretty clear that we were not going back to what we had and the division between the "cities" and the "country" was well defined.”



posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 07:35 PM
link   
TJW, I just read through your post and realized that you actually agree with me on everything other than the semantics of what constitutes the city, so I thank you for your support


Thats not true, but take the time to laugh and calm down. I don't like being called uneducated anymore than you like being called... whatever.

How did we get from this


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


to this:


Do you honestly think they'll care about the suburbs. No. Cities are far more important. City centers actually. Should martial law be declared on a large city, some of the city probably won't even be affected, let alone the metro area.
You're trying to distort my words but they are very clear.


Yes, TJW, they are definately very clear.

Martial Law doesn't require the entire population being up in arms over it. What it does require, is a state of emergency, which can be real, or engineered. Which ever case it is, people want to be safe, and want things to be as normal as possible. In that situation, its very easy to control large areas with few troops, because the people are pacified. Its no more difficult than the police keeping things under control, only this way you have the federal government in direct control.

And since we like to use wikipedia around here, let me add this to the conversation.


This has now changed. Public Law 109-364, or the "John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007" (H.R.5122), was signed by President Bush on October 17th, 2006, and allows the President to declare a "public emergency" and station troops anywhere in America and take control of state-based National Guard units without the consent of the governor or local authorities.


Taking control of the National Guard out of the hands of the state? That doesn't sound too indicitive of a government that believes they can't get away with, nor want to, instate martial law.

I never once said that the city population is going up. Go ahead and paste a quote of me saying that. I said that people are moving to the city core in droves.

I never once said that we had been under martial law, just damn close to it. Again, I challenge you to find where I said we were.

I did give examples of instances, in the recent past, where people not only lived with a near (thats a key word there, near, make sure you note it) martial law situation, but applauded it.


Unless we're being nuked to kingdom come or invaded or something crazy like that, I challange you to find one person who would want it outside of some disaster.


Fear is the most powerful emotion in the human psyche. Scare someone enough, and they'll will want anything that makes them feel safe and that everything is normal. Let another large scale terrorist attack happen, and then ask people if they're willing to allow those fine boys in the service to take over and settle things down.

The thing you have to ask yourself is, is the government willing to let that attack happen? I personally don't think so, and if I prayed, I would pray that no attack would take place. But, we don't live in a perfect world, and to ignore the power that fear has on people is just plain naive.

Of course, the whole argument is moot as long as all our forces are otherwise engaged in other places.

In the end though, I do like you TJW. Don't feel obligated to be defensive with me, I'm just trying to add to the conversation. I apologize for using the words disingenuous and anything else you too exception to, if you even did.

I'm your classical moderate, and usually think to myself, why the hell do I even go to ATS? I guess I just like the conversation.



posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 09:50 PM
link   
So what is it thatsjustweird: is there a point in locking down the major cities and city centers or not? Are suburbs more important or not? It seems to me you speak double tongued
It certainly doesn’t give the reader a very reliable impression…. but don’t worry, we get used to it….

Ofcourse the question should not be whether/when it would or would not be possible/recommendable/necessary to declare Martial Law on America’s major cities, city centers, suburbs and/or metro areas…..however the right question should be: do we want our President to have so much (read: too much) centralized power?



posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 09:57 PM
link   
I don't buy his predictions, because I would assume just him talking to us would put on an alternate path of time.



posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 10:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vitchilo
Not now, but they will try to confiscate guns first

How do you come up with this stuff? Seriously. Where are you getting your info and how can you possibly claim that this is not fear mongering?


Protests of how many people? And about what? Because even nazis make protests... so if 500 people protest, it doesn't mean much...

Where have you been? Some of the biggest protests this country has seen have happened in the past 5 years. From everything about the Iraq war to immigration.


And people have big time to protest, there's a lot of unemployment.

What?
The unemployment rate is the lowest it's been in five years and has been steadily declining.


Not affect many people? All those who work outside, who want to flee this country, ect... there's millions of people travelling everyday in-out of the USA.

Also, I don't think you understood what is it about... it's not a no-fly list, it's everyone who want to travel need a clearance from the homeland security. Even you. Maybe they plan something before January 14...so that they plan to keep everyone inside their borders.

I aplogize.
It's completely my fault for not reading and researching this.

Otherwise, I would have told you before.....it's BS! lol
Do a search on it and find a site that has credible info on what you're talking about.


Also, it wouldn't impress me that Bush Co. try to implement martial law, they were know as `The Crazies`` in the White House circles. Even Bilderberg member are angry how The Bush Co are conducting their operation because they go too fast so people notice.


You got a link or source for this buddy? Again, why should I believe anything you write if you're just talking and not backing up your statements??

Roth:

Yes, you did ridicule Titor for mentioning the National Guard (as shown)

Where!?
Show me where I ridiculed Titor. That's all I ask.

I post my quote you posted earlier:

Because no where in America is there a situation where people are afraid of the Federal Police and National Guard. The national guard aren't even called out anywhere!

Please tell the world how in the world is this ridiculing anyone???

Seriously Roth. You have issues... lol
A patiently await your answer on this, though I seriously doubt you'll give a straight answer. If anyone else can answer for Roth, the please be my guess because I admit he has me stumped. lol I don't even mention Titor in that whole statement or in anything surrounding that statement....


mod:
Again, I slow it down a bit for it to be easier to understand.
If the purpose of the martial law is to control the population, locking down major cities would be pointless.
If the purpose was to protect, then they wouldn't even bother with anything other than what's most important. Usually the most important people, documents, buildings, etc. are in city centers.
Understand now



Martial Law doesn't require the entire population being up in arms over it. What it does require, is a state of emergency, which can be real, or engineered.

In order for that martial law to be effective, that emergency would have to be a nation wide emergency and a sustained one. Otherwise, it would never work.
For example if they had tried to impose and keep a state of Martial law in all of the US and not just Washington or NY after 9/11 it would have eventually been a disaster (this assuming millions of troops magically popped up and allowed this).


I said that people are moving to the city core in droves.

What exactly is your point with that anyway? This is a Titor thread. Titor stated the exact OPPOSITE is supposed to be happening.



I never once said that we had been under martial law, just damn close to it. Again, I challenge you to find where I said we were.

Here's the problem I guess.
What's your definition of martial law since apparently it's not equal to any current definitions?


I did give examples of instances, in the recent past, where people not only lived with a near (thats a key word there, near, make sure you note it) martial law situation, but applauded it.

I must have missed it (and am still missing it as I just went back and read your posts). Where did you do this at???



Fear is the most powerful emotion in the human psyche. Scare someone enough, and they'll will want anything that makes them feel safe and that everything is normal. Let another large scale terrorist attack happen, and then ask people if they're willing to allow those fine boys in the service to take over and settle things down.

Very true for the most part.
But, since we're talking about martial law, any attempt to implement and sustain anything like that is impossible. If some form of martial law was implemented on the city that was attacked, then yeah, people would allow it. Is the alternative (just letting chaos reign) better? Even then, it would only be sustainable for a certain amount of time.



posted on Nov, 7 2006 @ 01:02 AM
link   

mod:
Again, I slow it down a bit for it to be easier to understand.
If the purpose of the martial law is to control the population, locking down major cities would be pointless.
If the purpose was to protect, then they wouldn't even bother with anything other than what's most important. Usually the most important people, documents, buildings, etc. are in city centers.
Understand now?


Of course I understand, that's what I stated to begin with. You don't need to control every area of the US, just the cities.


In order for that martial law to be effective, that emergency would have to be a nation wide emergency and a sustained one. Otherwise, it would never work.
For example if they had tried to impose and keep a state of Martial law in all of the US and not just Washington or NY after 9/11 it would have eventually been a disaster (this assuming millions of troops magically popped up and allowed this).


I agree with this. But 9/11 was 5 years ago, and things have definately changed in this country. I dont think the people would object as much if another attack were to happen in the future. But, thats pure speculation on my part.


What exactly is your point with that anyway? This is a Titor thread. Titor stated the exact OPPOSITE is supposed to be happening.


I've long argued that the Titor story was flawed on this account, along with the political loyalties of the urban population. Nothing new here from me.


Here's the problem I guess.
What's your definition of martial law since apparently it's not equal to any current definitions?


I think there are differing degrees of martial law. First and foremost, its the absolution of civil authority in exchange for a military one. You know, military officers as governors, military law, curfew, rights taken away.

But in the US, it can definately take on different forms, such as the suspension of Habeas Corpus or the Posse Comitatus act. The scary thing is, certain bills have been passed into law lately that essentially blur the lines when it comes to those laws. The National Guard and its role, in particular, have been warped by the fed. The president is not supposed to have control over the National Guard without the consent of the state governor. We've essentially had our right to a well regulated militia taken from us. Thats how I see it atleast, and that thought can lead to a completely different argument all together.

I'm suprised you never asked me if I believe that martial law would actually be instated, instead of arguing the point of whether it would work or not with me. Thats the funny thing. Too many things would have to happen to allow it, but definately, someone in the gov't is chipping away at those things one by one. Wait, its not really all the funny...

Its really late now, and I haven't been feeling well lately, so I apologize if I missed anything or something isn't as clear as it should be. Have a good night if you're still up.



posted on Nov, 8 2006 @ 08:20 AM
link   

How do you come up with this stuff? Seriously. Where are you getting your info and how can you possibly claim that this is not fear mongering?
Because there's hints. One example, it's the NRA giving a better note to someone who voted for anti-guns laws than another congressman who have a perfect record on pro-guns laws. So if the NRA is turning against his own members, it doesn't look well about what the government will do.


Where have you been? Some of the biggest protests this country has seen have happened in the past 5 years. From everything about the Iraq war to immigration.
Agree... sorry.


What?
The unemployment rate is the lowest it's been in five years and has been steadily declining.
Look at the thread, the real unemployment rate is like 14%.


I aplogize.
It's completely my fault for not reading and researching this.

Otherwise, I would have told you before.....it's BS! lol
Do a search on it and find a site that has credible info on what you're talking about.
You're right but we'll see on january 14...



You got a link or source for this buddy? Again, why should I believe anything you write if you're just talking and not backing up your statements??
It is well know that Bush Co are know as ``The Crazies``... anyway. And at Bilderberg this year, I was there, so I know what info got out of there, and yes they were shouting at each other because the neo-cons were going too fast.



posted on Nov, 8 2006 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by modese7en

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird

Originally posted by modese7en
I said that people are moving to the city core in droves.

What exactly is your point with that anyway? This is a Titor thread. Titor stated the exact OPPOSITE is supposed to be happening.


I've long argued that the Titor story was flawed on this account, along with the political loyalties of the urban population. Nothing new here from me.

Not entirely correct. Titor mentioned people, deciding to leave the cities, just as much as people deciding to stay in the cities.
John Titor: “However, I submit to you that when the moment comes it will be absolutely plain as day that you are unsafe in the cities. The millions people that stay will choose to stay. That's what comes as a surprise.” + “When the civil "conflict" started and got worse, people generally decided to either stay in the cities and lose most of their civil rights under the guise of security or leave the cities for more isolated and rural areas.”

I think we all agree that moving from a suburb to the city centre hardly makes any difference in terms of living in or around the city. I would tend to think that’s quite different from the so called “rural areas.”

So I believe what’s more important to focus on, is the time signal for certain things that will be put in motion, as Titor made that clear. John Titor: “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. By that time, it was pretty clear that we were not going back to what we had and the division between the "cities" and the "country" was well defined.”



posted on Nov, 8 2006 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vitchilo
Look at the thread, the real unemployment rate is like 14%.

What thread?
And who cares what a thread says.

Fact remains that unemployment is nearing record lows....
If you can find ANY credible source disputing the numbers then please present it as I really want to see it.



And at Bilderberg this year, I was there, so I know what info got out of there, and yes they were shouting at each other because the neo-cons were going too fast.

lmao!!
Were you the janitor or something? lol

Just because you may have been in the area at the time doesn't mean you were there buddy. How would you know this anyway? Nothing that happens in the meetings are discussed. If you were there then you would be currently breaking the rules and the fact that you haven't.....disappeared yet tells me you weren't there.
Nice try.


Roth:
Thank you for agreeing with us that Titor's claims are nonsense! You finally get it.


So I believe what’s more important to focus on, is the time signal for certain things that will be put in motion, as Titor made that clear. John Titor: “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. By that time, it was pretty clear that we were not going back to what we had and the division between the "cities" and the "country" was well defined.”

1. What "country" that is left is disappearing fast. The lines that seperate rural from urban are becoming a blur
2. The people who are moving to the "country" are moving because the inner suburbs are becoming to crowded not because they're scared. Most people who are moving further out, lived outside of cities already.
3. In Titor's "time" fighting began in 2004 which has steadily got worse (according to Titor). So in his time, by 2006 fighting was pretty common as he stated. Absolutely no where is this happening. There is no division between city and country. There are no National Guard or federal police fighting with anyone!! Far from it! (in the NW, they may be called to HELP people in those floods)



posted on Nov, 8 2006 @ 08:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
Roth:
Thank you for agreeing with us that Titor's claims are nonsense! You finally get it.


So I believe what’s more important to focus on, is the time signal for certain things that will be put in motion, as Titor made that clear. John Titor: “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. By that time, it was pretty clear that we were not going back to what we had and the division between the "cities" and the "country" was well defined.”

1. What "country" that is left is disappearing fast. The lines that seperate rural from urban are becoming a blur
2. The people who are moving to the "country" are moving because the inner suburbs are becoming to crowded not because they're scared. Most people who are moving further out, lived outside of cities already.
3. In Titor's "time" fighting began in 2004 which has steadily got worse (according to Titor). So in his time, by 2006 fighting was pretty common as he stated. Absolutely no where is this happening. There is no division between city and country. There are no National Guard or federal police fighting with anyone!! Far from it! (in the NW, they may be called to HELP people in those floods)

Oh thatsjustweird, you must have misunderstood me. John Titor’s ‘claims’ make very much sense to me. But ofcourse you could have known and you should have known, knowing me…. J

1. That fast? Since 2000? Since Titor ‘predicted’ it?
Now that’s what I call BS. Come on tjw, you can do a lot better than that.
2. See my answer below.
3. Here it gets interesting. Exactly in this year 2006, the base is laid out for the President to:
* quickly send out the National Guard in Federal Service (think: 2007's Defense Authorization Act) AND TO
* quickly make divisions in the sense of ‘virtual fences’ (think: Secure Border Initiative Network).

So there it is, exactly as Titor ‘predicted’ it would happen in the time period from 2006 to 2010! Things have only just begun. Remember Titor said: “From the age of 8 to 12” which means from 2006 to 2010. And by that time “the division between the “cities” and the “country” was well defined” which means that the things that were put in motion from 2006 will have been accomplished in 2010! Titor gave us a clear time signal here. That’s why he said “from….8 TO 12….. (from….2006 TO 2010…..)

Furthermore, Titor never said the actual fighting would start in 2004, but he provided a definition of how the second US civil war starting in 2004 would be remembered! And that war will probably be remembered because of the infamous ‘Waco type events.’ So let’s say exact copies of Waco type events would start on a monthly base somewhere in 2008….. we would remember them as part of the second US civil war… the most significant part…. but looking back... we could trace the initial spark of that conflict to 2004…just as historians do not all agree on which event signified the start of World War 2…..



posted on Nov, 9 2006 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Roth Joint
1. That fast? Since 2000? Since Titor ‘predicted’ it?
Now that’s what I call BS. Come on tjw, you can do a lot better than that.

wtf are you talking about?
The "country" has been disappearing at and increasing rate since the '50s after WW2...



3. Here it gets interesting. Exactly in this year 2006, the base is laid out for the President to:
* quickly send out the National Guard in Federal Service (think: 2007's Defense Authorization Act) AND TO
* quickly make divisions in the sense of ‘virtual fences’ (think: Secure Border Initiative Network).

So there it is, exactly as Titor ‘predicted’ it would happen in the time period from 2006 to 2010! Things have only just begun.

Again, what are you talking about?
Are you that desperate for Titor to be right that you have to WILDLY distort his claims to fit YOUR agenda?
Titor never once mentioned any of that stuff. He said in 2006 people would still be in the process of leaving the cities avoiding conflicts with the National Guard and Federal Police.
Let's stop right there for a second.
Now tell me, since the war is 2 years old.
Where is this currently taking place?
You keep cutting off Titor's quote he also states that:

Outright open fighting was common by then

I want a simple plain answer Roth. This is what Titor said. I don't care about your wild interpretations, I'm going straight to the source. Now tell us, where is this currently happening?



Remember Titor said: “From the age of 8 to 12” which means from 2006 to 2010. And by that time “the division between the “cities” and the “country” was well defined”

Again this is where Titor messed up because the line between city and country is becoming a blur. With the expansion of suburbs, where does the city begin and end?


Furthermore, Titor never said the actual fighting would start in 2004, but he provided a definition of how the second US civil war starting in 2004 would be remembered!

He clearly stated that the Civil WAR would begin in 2004. The very NEXT SENTENCE he described his definition of WAR as actual FIGHTING.

JT:

It's 2004. I apologize for a missed key (very observant - we all need good critics). Perhaps our definition of war is different. I would define it as a conflict where organized groups engage in maneuver and armed conflict.



And that war will probably be remembered because of the infamous ‘Waco type events.’ So let’s say exact copies of Waco type events would start on a monthly base somewhere in 2008….

Why would we do that?
Titor stated that these Waco Type events would start in 2004
YOU'RE the only one saying they would start in 2008. Pushing back the date to fit YOUR agenda.
JT:

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.



posted on Nov, 9 2006 @ 01:49 PM
link   


What thread?
And who cares what a thread says.

Fact remains that unemployment is nearing record lows....
If you can find ANY credible source disputing the numbers then please present it as I really want to see it.

This thread and as you said, facts are facts, and facts show that the real unemployment rate is NOT 4.4%.



lmao!!
Were you the janitor or something? lol

Just because you may have been in the area at the time doesn't mean you were there buddy. How would you know this anyway? Nothing that happens in the meetings are discussed. If you were there then you would be currently breaking the rules and the fact that you haven't.....disappeared yet tells me you weren't there.
Nice try.
I was around the hotel, I was ``arrested`` 3 times by secret services, and I was aware and I searched all the informations that got out of this conference, I presume I know more informations about Bilderberg than you know, because there's always information that come out. And this year, they were fighting for the first time. You'll have to take my word and look yourself for info on Bilderberg. If you don't believe me, I can understand, anyway.



Outright open fighting was common by then and I joined a shotgun infantry unit in 2011.
In 2011, so let's say he waited 3 years after the outright open fighting started, in 2008. Because you can't see an outright open fighting until a lot of people are very angry, like the 2008 event that he say that open eyes of a lot of people. So I don't think that we wouldn't see an outright open fighting before 2008.

Also, Roth never changed what he said, he always said that the civil war began in 2004, by little waco events, like tasers and some other stuff we probably will know later.

Also, relations between Russia and USA will worsen
10-Year Old Disciplined for Visiting 9/11 Website
A guy was tasered because he refused to remove a hat
Nancy Pelosi want to reconcile with Bush, so no repeal of any fascists laws
Democrats good for amnesty program
The democrats also want to put more troops in Iraq... so another proof that either democrats or republicans, they are all traitors.

We'll see what happen now that Bush will be in minority and if he'll use his dictator powers. I'm still thinking that when the economic crash will happen, it will embrase the situation, maybe it's the thing JT said would open people eyes... everyone think the economy is going well and they can keep their american way of life, when the economic crash will occur, the american way of life is finish for a very long time, if not forever.

[edit on 9-11-2006 by Vitchilo]



posted on Nov, 9 2006 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vitchilo
and as you said, facts are facts, and facts show that the real unemployment rate is NOT 4.4%.

What are you talking about?
Nothing in that thread accurately disputes the numbers....

And certainly nothing in that thread indicates it's anywhere close to the numbers you put up.



I was around the hotel, I was ``arrested`` 3 times by secret services, and I was aware and I searched all the informations that got out of this conference, I presume I know more informations about Bilderberg than you know, because there's always information that come out. And this year, they were fighting for the first time. You'll have to take my word and look yourself for info on Bilderberg. If you don't believe me, I can understand, anyway.

Of course I don't believe you as you're clearly lying and being caught in your lies.
Where did you "search"?
And who told you that information?
Seems you yourself need to look for info about Bilderberg since you obviously have no clue.
From wiki

The location of their annual meeting is not secret, and the agenda and list of participants are openly available to the public, but the topics of the meetings are kept secret and attendees pledge not to divulge what was discussed.

Now, what you're source for this information?



In 2011, so let's say he waited 3 years after the outright open fighting started, in 2008. Because you can't see an outright open fighting until a lot of people are very angry, like the 2008 event that he say that open eyes of a lot of people. So I don't think that we wouldn't see an outright open fighting before 2008.

What are you talking about? He was a little kid. He said he joined the shotgun infatry in 2011 at age 13.
Of course he wasn't going to join before! But he CLEARLY states that outright fighting happens before then.


Also, Roth never changed what he said, he always said that the civil war began in 2004, by little waco events, like tasers and some other stuff we probably will know later.

Then you haven't read Roth's posts...


The democrats also want to put more troops in Iraq... so another proof that either democrats or republicans, they are all traitors.

You're completely clueless about American politics.
The democrats won based on the fact that many of them said they'll bring the troops home soon.


We'll see what happen now that Bush will be in minority and if he'll use his dictator powers.

He never had any dictator powers to begin with and now that the democrats are in control, he's just there. He can't really do anything now.

Stick with Canada as you're clearly clueless about America. And don't even say you're American. Since you just said you were arrested 3 times at the Bilderberg meeting, that means you're obviously Canadian. Or did everyone just magically bend the rules just for you



posted on Nov, 9 2006 @ 05:57 PM
link   

What are you talking about?
Nothing in that thread accurately disputes the numbers....

And certainly nothing in that thread indicates it's anywhere close to the numbers you put up.
Anyway, if you don't want to see the real state of the economy, it's gonna be your problem. It's not all about unemployement, it's about salaries and kind of jobs, personnal debts, ect... there's many factors.


Of course I don't believe you as you're clearly lying and being caught in your lies.
Where did you "search"?
And who told you that information?
Seems you yourself need to look for info about Bilderberg since you obviously have no clue.
From wiki

The location of their annual meeting is not secret, and the agenda and list of participants are openly available to the public, but the topics of the meetings are kept secret and attendees pledge not to divulge what was discussed.

Now, what you're source for this information?
Clearly lying? What did I lied about? I wasn't there? Were you there? I don't think so. I was there. Anyway, I know that nothing is supposed to get out, but info get out of course. Why would I lie about something like that? To prove a point? I don't think so.


What are you talking about? He was a little kid. He said he joined the shotgun infatry in 2011 at age 13.
Of course he wasn't going to join before! But he CLEARLY states that outright fighting happens before then.
Like from 2008 to 2015. Anyway, we'll see, and if nothing happens after an economic crash, I'll apologize.


Then you haven't read Roth's posts...
So it's his errors if he changed of course of action.


You're completely clueless about American politics.
The democrats won based on the fact that many of them said they'll bring the troops home soon.
Yeah, they said. But that's not what I heard they'll do. We'll see what they can do.


He never had any dictator powers to begin with and now that the democrats are in control, he's just there. He can't really do anything now.
I consider the military comission act, patriot act 1&2 and the defense budget of 2007 as dictator's power, but you obviously not.


Stick with Canada as you're clearly clueless about America. And don't even say you're American. Since you just said you were arrested 3 times at the Bilderberg meeting, that means you're obviously Canadian. Or did everyone just magically bend the rules just for you
I'm not american, i'm canadian, and i'm not that clueless about america... i think that a president should respect his citizens and his constitution, and yours obviously don't do that... So please explain me what i'm clueless about... so i'll try to not be as clueless as you pretend i am.



posted on Nov, 10 2006 @ 09:41 AM
link   
Don’t worry Vitchillo, the only thing that thatsjustweird hopes for is the new readers to believe his twists. But indeed, as you say, one only has to read my previous posts to know that I have never changed course!

And to refresh everyone’s memory I would like to refer to one of these previous posts:



www.abovetopsecret.com...
posted on 19-11-2005 at 05:48 AM Post Number: 1815350 (post id: 1837243)

Originally posted by Roth Joint

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
so how is the american civil war in 2004 as predicted by john titor going ? since its 11/19, I'd have to think there would be some sort of, well, evidence it is happening ? organized groups engaged in combat ?


Yes it is true that John Titor said:

“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."

[think deadly Taser events]

And Titor said: " The conflict will consume everyone in the US by 2012 and end in 2015 with a very short WWIII.”

AND Titor said: "I would define it as a conflict where organized groups engage in maneuver and armed conflict"

[did Titor say the organized groups would start in 2004? No he did not!]

AND on the question if the civil war would START in such a way that those willing will HAVE TIME to remove themselves to safer locations Titor answered: “Yes. You will be forced to ask yourself how many civil rights you will give up to feel safe.”



So there’s no doubt about it. John Titor made it very clear that we would GROW into a second US civil war!

”I would describe it as having a Waco type event every month that steadily gets worse.”
Now, that DOES NOT sound like a full blown civil war in 2004 does it?


Now let’s see what happens next:

”By 2008, I would say the civil conflict is pretty much at everyone’s doorstep.”

There you go, it GROWS! SO by 2008 it is pretty much on EVERYONES doorstep, meaning it WAS NOT on everyone’s doorstep in 2004/2005!

Now let’s see what happens next:

" The conflict will consume everyone in the US by 2012 and end in 2015 with a very short WWIII.”

Oh boy oh boy oh boy! It GROWS even bigger! So by 2012 we can safely assume that it has GROWN to such an amount that it will FINALLY consume EVERYONE in the US in 2012!



Now here comes the other interesting Titor part:

John Titor: ”From the age of 8 to 12 (READ: FROM 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. By that time (READ: BY 2010), it was pretty clear that we were not going back to what we had and the division between the "cities" and the "country" was well defined.”

Again, exactly in this year 2006, the base is laid out for the President to:
* quickly send out the National Guard in Federal Service (think: 2007's Defense Authorization Act) AND TO
* quickly make divisions in the sense of ‘virtual fences’ (think: Secure Border Initiative Network).

Exactly as Titor ‘predicted’ it would happen in the time period from 2006 to 2010! Things have only just begun.
Remember Titor said: “From the age of 8 to 12” which means from 2006 to 2010. And by that time “the division between the “cities” and the “country” was well defined” which means that the things that were put in motion from 2006 will have been accomplished in 2010! Titor gave us a clear time signal here! That’s why he said “from….8 TO 12….. (from….2006 TO 2010…..)



posted on Nov, 10 2006 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vitchilo

Outright open fighting was common by then and I joined a shotgun infantry unit in 2011.

In 2011, so let's say he waited 3 years after the outright open fighting started, in 2008. Because you can't see an outright open fighting until a lot of people are very angry, like the 2008 event that he say that open eyes of a lot of people. So I don't think that we wouldn't see an outright open fighting before 2008.

Also, Roth never changed what he said, he always said that the civil war began in 2004, by little waco events, like tasers and some other stuff we probably will know later.

Greatly answered Vitchilo!
Keep going.

And again, John Titor made it very clear that the US would grow into a civil war flaring up and down for 10 years. By 2008 it would be pretty much on everyone's doorstep. Outright open fighting would be common around 2011. By 2012 it will consume everyone in the US....

John Titor:
"The year 2008 was a general date by which time everyone will realize the world they thought they were living in was over."
"By 2008, I would say the civil conflict is pretty much at everyone's doorstep."
“On my worldline in 2011, the United States is in the middle of a civil war that has dramatic effects on most of the other Western governments.”
“Outright open fighting was common by then and I joined a shotgun infantry unit in 2011.”
"The conflict will consume everyone in the US by 2012 and end in 2015 with a very short WWIII."
"That conflict flares up and down for 10 years."

[edit on 10-11-2006 by Roth Joint]



posted on Nov, 10 2006 @ 10:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Roth Joint
Don’t worry Vitchillo, the only thing that thatsjustweird hopes for is the new readers to believe his twists.

Tell me Roth...what exactly have I twisted? I patiently await your answer....
All I have done was quote EXACTLY word for word what Titor said.
If you can show where I have done more than that, then please show us.


And to refresh everyone’s memory I would like to refer to one of these previous posts:


bla blah blah

Now, that DOES NOT sound like a full blown civil war in 2004 does it?

Now let’s see what happens next:

”By 2008, I would say the civil conflict is pretty much at everyone’s doorstep.”

There you go, it GROWS! SO by 2008 it is pretty much on EVERYONES doorstep, meaning it WAS NOT on everyone’s doorstep in 2004/2005!

No one said it would be a full blown civil war in 2004. But it was supposed to start there. He said it would progressively get worse until it's on everyone's doorstep in 2008.
It's 2006 now and it hasn't even started! lol
Again, he said it would steadily get worse, he not once said that it would just suddenly blow up. If it takes 8 years (2004-2008) to get to everyone's doorstep, then at least half the country should be engaged in a civil war right now....


Now here comes the other interesting Titor part:

John Titor: ”From the age of 8 to 12 (READ: FROM 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. By that time (READ: BY 2010)

BS
When he says by that time, he's talking about that whole time period 2006-2010. Why are you changing his words??
He didn't just leave in 2006 for nothing. Which means conflict is going on in 2006.


the division between the "cities" and the "country" was well defined.”

I'm glad you highlighted this. Name one place in the US where this is clear.

The rest of your post is just ridiculous. It's clearly your own twisted interpretation and no where near what Titor actually stated....
Sorry Roth. Try again.

See my posts above to see what Titor really said. In the EXACT context.

Your last post is a perfect example of you taking things out of context:


John Titor:
"The year 2008 was a general date by which time everyone will realize the world they thought they were living in was over."
"By 2008, I would say the civil conflict is pretty much at everyone's doorstep."

Why is that? Why do people realize that?
It's because they're in a civil war that has progressively gotten worse in the past four years!!!
Not once does he EVER say that the war starts in 2008 as you're trying to suggest.


“Outright open fighting was common by then and I joined a shotgun infantry unit in 2011.”

Why did you cut off the first part of this quote? lmao!!
See this is exactly what I'm talking about. You're trying to manipulate the people here but fortunately....hopefully the people here are smarter than that and know better.


"That conflict flares up and down for 10 years."

This is part of when he mistakenly said 2005 instead of 2004. 2005-2015 is ten years buddy. Why did you even quote this?



posted on Nov, 11 2006 @ 12:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vitchilo

We'll see what happen now that Bush will be in minority and if he'll use his dictator powers.


bush will not be in the minority until Jan. when the new Congress is seated.

Until then, it looks like he intends to latch onto as much power as he can.

Bipartisanship on Hold

Without missing a beat, Mr. Bush made it clear that, for now, his idea of how to "put the elections behind us" is to use the Republicans' last two months in control of Congress to try to push through one of the worst ideas his administration and its Republican allies on Capitol Hill have come up with: a bill that would legalize his illegal wiretapping program and gut the law that limits a president's ability to abuse his power in this way.


And just a bit farther down in the same article was this little tidbit...

And he wants immediate approval of his administration's deal to sell civilian nuclear technology to India despite that nation's refusal to sign or abide by the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.


Talk about fanning the flames.
.



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 135  136  137    139  140  141 >>

log in

join