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: 139
31
<< 136  137  138    140  141  142 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 11 2006 @ 01:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
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


It may have already started TJW. Your not aware of it just yet, not until it's at your doorstep.


Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
then at least half the country should be engaged in a civil war right now....


I'm disappointed in you TJW, I believe Titor mentions the middle part of the civil war is in 2011...... Titor even warns his mother of this as well. So for half the country to be involved, it may will be the middle part of the civil war right?



Titor:
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.





Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
quote: 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.



Paramilitary tactics from SWAT raids is less concerning outside the cities.....so there is many places.
Then top that with National Guard, meaning anytime between now and 2008 something major is going to happen.

But lol......

The temporal divergence between our worldline and Titor's has grown since he left, if we go by years from when Titor arrived, there is a 9 or 10 percent chance that nothing happens in 2008, though it can still happen later on.



Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
quote: 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.


simple they dont see it coming until 2008, middle of a civil war is in 2011....... I think you know what Roth means.

Think TJW, the past few years the government has curtailed certain things. From a observation point of view, those years could be the birth of civil war.

But hey.... Titor said, "I've also noticed little things like news events that happen at different times"

Because of the divergence between worldlines, to sit here and argue dates may be pointless. But at least we have a generalization of events.




posted on Nov, 11 2006 @ 02:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
Tell me Roth...what exactly have I twisted? I patiently await your answer....

Here’s a recent one:

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird

Originally posted by Vitchilo
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...

This is just one example of how you are trying to twist Vitchilo’s answer regarding…well…me! Your answer to Vitchilo is a good example of how you are trying to twist the truth and to make it look like Vitchilo isn’t giving the correct information about me.


Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
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....

This is where you are making a thinking error. You focus on just one Titor quote but you fail to take all of his statements in perspective. One of those other statements is:


Question: Does the civil war start in such a way that those willing will have time to remove themselves to safer locations.
John Titor: “Yes. You will be forced to ask yourself how many civil rights you will give up to feel safe.”

Btw, it doesn’t take 8 years from 2004 to 2008….



Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird

Originally posted by Roth Joint
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.

Wrong. The reason for them to leave the city was that their “home was searched once and the neighbor across the street was arrested for some unknown reason.”
So I guess the federal “ICE” agents (www.ice.gov) were banging on their doors as well! It must have made some impression on them….

Furthermore, Titor said: “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.”
So when they decided to live away from the cities after their close encounter, starting from 2006, just tell me when do you think it was pretty clear to Titor’s family that they were not going back to what they had? 2007? 2008? 2009? You guessed it…. by 2010! Why else would Titor say “From the age of 8 to 12 (READ: FROM 2006 TO 2010)? So when Titor said “By that time” he meant that after 4 years living in the country it was pretty clear that by 2010 they were not going back to what they had!


Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird

Originally posted by Roth Joint
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.

According to Titor this will happen between now (2006) and 2010.


Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird

Originally posted by Roth Joint
"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.

Tssk, tssk, you are trying to twist again. Again, 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…..


Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird

Originally posted by Roth Joint
“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.

It’s only you who’s twisting here. Here’s the full text before the quote:


”From the age of 8 to 12, we lived away from the cities and spent most of our time in a farm community with other families avoiding conflict with the federal police and National Guard. By that time, it was pretty clear that we were not going back to what we had and the division between the "cities" and the "country" was well defined. My father made a living by putting together 12-volt electrical systems and sailing "commodities" up and down the coast of Florida. I spent most of my time helping him.
Outright open fighting was common by then and I joined a shotgun infantry unit in 2011.”

Now tell me, what was your problem again thatsjustweird? Indeed, outright open fighting was common by the time Titor’s family realized they were not going back to what they had when the division between the "cities" and the "country" was (finally) well defined! So that’s somewhere around 2010/2011.


Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird

Originally posted by Roth Joint
"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?

Titor made it very clear that the US would grow into a second civil war, but that the conflict would flare up and down as well. At the moment there’s no fighting (yet)…. However, there are a lot of deadly Taser events…..and, as stated in my previous posts, all the stages are now ready to ‘secure’ the homeland beyond everyone’s expectations (you may read through the lines)……


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



posted on Nov, 11 2006 @ 02:40 AM
link   
lmao!!!


This is actually fun in an insane twisted way.

Have you guys actually stopped and thought about what you're doing here? You're defending some guy who claimed to be a time traveller. He said certain stuff would happen at a certain time and it didn't yet you continue to insanely defend him.

WHY? lmao!!

I'm dissapointed you all have yet to address my post where I directly quoted Titor.
I'm going to do that again.

One quote at a time though so they'll be no more excuses.

Quote 1:
Hey John Titor, when will the war actually start. You keep saying 2004 but then you slipped a 2005 in there, what gives?? Oh and some (namecalling is bad so I'm told) thinks war means tasers lol. Yeah I don't know where he or she got that from, what do you say?

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.


Ahhh ok. I'll wait for Vit or Roth or X to prove you're own quote is wrong....



posted on Nov, 11 2006 @ 09:45 AM
link   
Thought this was worth a look; profile.myspace.com...

What ever next???!!!



posted on Nov, 11 2006 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
One quote at a time though so they'll be no more excuses.

Quote 1:
Hey John Titor, when will the war actually start. You keep saying 2004 but then you slipped a 2005 in there, what gives?? Oh and some (namecalling is bad so I'm told) thinks war means tasers lol. Yeah I don't know where he or she got that from, what do you say?

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.


Ahhh ok. I'll wait for Vit or Roth or X to prove you're own quote is wrong....


Let's first start with some Titor quotes:

Originally posted by John Titor
“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 and end in 2015 with a very short WWIII.”
”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. The first U.S. civil war lasted 4 years and the English civil war lasted 6. How long is too long?”
“There is a civil war in the United States that starts in 2005. That conflict flares up and down for 10 years.”
“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?”

So is there a contradiction? Not if you are aware that an overwhelming increase of taser-related deaths since 2004 and first reports of these deaths in 2004 and 2005 in the media have made these events a national issue!

Only recently in 2004 a number of human and civil rights organizations began documenting deaths related to the use of Tasers including the American Civil Liberties Union, Amnesty International, and the Canadian Police Research Center in Ottawa. Talking about research….

2004: Southern Christian Leadership Conference
Starting April 2004, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference hosted a monumental press briefing discussing the disturbing occurrence of in-custody deaths across the country. As the SCLC continued to monitor such deaths, they discovered that over the past five years there has been a stark increase in the number of Taser-involved deaths across the country.
Recently January 2005, the SCLC released a special report “86 and Counting: America’s Taser Gun Crisis” documenting 86 deaths (including the death of one fetus) that involve the use of a Taser gun from 1999-2005. The report is drawn from a review of newspaper articles, websites, Internet searches, and in-depth reports by the Arizona Republic, American Civil Liberties Union, Amnesty International and others since April 2004. The report documents deaths involving the use of the device as well as incidents where SCLC believes officers abused the use of the device. The report indicates that Taser involved deaths grew from 1 in 1999 to 44 in 2004 which represents an increase of 4000%.

2004: American Civil Liberties Union
Starting September of 2004, the American Civil Liberties Union released a report that documented 71 reported cases of deaths following taser use since 1999 and a warning of rapidly increasing numbers of taser related deaths as more police departments authorize use of the weapon.

2004: Amnesty International
Starting November 2004, Amnesty International released a comprehensive report that documented 70 Taser involved deaths in the United States and Canada.

2004: Department of Justice
Starting December of 2004, the Department of Justice also announced that it would begin to study whether or not the Taser device was as safe as is supporters argue.

2005: Arizona Republic
Recently May 2005, The Arizona Republic, using computer searches, autopsy reports, police reports, media reports and Taser's own records, has identified at least 153 cases in the United States and Canada of death following a police Taser strike since September 1999.

As these organisations continue their research they discover more and more “hidden” cases of Taser involved deaths.

2005: Amnesty International USA
In April 2005 Amnesty International USA announced in that Taser-related deaths in the United States and Canada have hit triple digits growing from 74 in November 2004 to 103. The new number covers June 2001 to March 2005. In the first three months of 2005, there were a reported twice as many Taser-related deaths (13) as there were during the same period in 2004 (6), and as many as there were all year in 2002 (13).

2005: American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California
In October 2005 the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California discovered that Tasers were involved in at least 77 deaths around the country during 2004, 15 of them in northern and central California.

The number of taser related deaths is growing and growing. No other “non-lethal” weapon has proven to be as lethal to the common US civilian as the new tasers being used by our own officers of the law, exactly as John Titor “predicted” it would happen.

Though the deadly taser events are covered by the media, John Titor could not specifically tell us if these civil conflicts would be covered by the mass media. Words as “don’t remember a great deal” and “probably” leave us only to speculate, however one can safely assume that this will happen as the US Civil War (or civil conflicts) grows in its intensity.



posted on Nov, 11 2006 @ 09:51 PM
link   
You always do this Roth, trying to change the subject. But, no! Not this time

I'm going to quote Titor again and await your answer proving his own post wrong.


When does the WAR start Titor?

It's 2004 blah blah blah


What's YOUR definition of WAR Titor?

Perhaps our definition of war is different. I would define it as a conflict where organized groups engage in maneuver and armed conflict.



To Roth and gang:
Please show me wher TITOR'S definition of war is happening. That's all I ask. I want a simple straight answer, because it's a simple straight request.
All you have to do is say the name and then that's it, we'll move on to the next quote.



posted on Nov, 12 2006 @ 12:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
To Roth and gang:
Please show me wher TITOR'S definition of war is happening. That's all I ask. I want a simple straight answer, because it's a simple straight request.
All you have to do is say the name and then that's it, we'll move on to the next quote.


LMAO.... TJW I would have to say our definition of war is different as well. It's already been covered a few pages back.

You refuse to see it like a Waco event..........You refuse to see it as civil unrest..........You refuse to see blah blah blah..........

And though the picture below shows organized groups, you would probably deny that as well.

It's so simple TJW, the answer is right in front of you.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

groups engage in maneuver and armed conflict.


No need to play your quote game..... already done that.



posted on Nov, 12 2006 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by XPhiles
LMAO.... TJW I would have to say our definition of war is different as well.

?
I posted Titor's definition of war, not mine.


You refuse to see it like a Waco event..........You refuse to see it as civil unrest..........You refuse to see blah blah blah..........

And though the picture below shows organized groups, you would probably deny that as well.

It's so simple TJW, the answer is right in front of you.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

groups engage in maneuver and armed conflict.

LMAO!!!!!!

There's a logical reason why that's not considered a Waco event or Civil Unrest by ANYONE IN THE WORLD, that's because it wasn't! lmao
If you can find just one sane person who thinks that was civil unrest or a waco event then lol, please show this person. He should be put on display and marvelled at



Serious question:
Do you honestly think police looking for a murderer is an act of war?


Edit:
I should add Titor said the monthly events would steadily get worse. If you consider that a waco event (which I hope you don't, since no one in their right mind would even compare that to Waco). Where are the other 34 other events?

[edit on 12-11-2006 by ThatsJustWeird]



posted on Nov, 13 2006 @ 12:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
I posted Titor's definition of war, not mine.


I know lol.... but I'm sure yours is different from Titor's as well, it's relatively obvious.



Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
If you can find just one sane person who thinks that was civil unrest or a waco event then lol, please show this person. He should be put on display and marvelled at


On this page here www.abovetopsecret.com... Did you not read modese7en post? He said some people where tasered in this event. There is definite civil unrest that took place.

It's not a Waco event TJW, No one said it was a Waco event? but hey! it looks like a Waco event


Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
Serious question:
Do you honestly think police looking for a murderer is an act of war?


No.... Your not paying attention are you lol.


Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
Edit:
I should add Titor said the monthly events would steadily get worse.

[edit on 12-11-2006 by ThatsJustWeird]


TJW.... monthly events would steadily get worse beginning when? Give me a time frame of these Waco like events. I have a feeling we read it different lol.

To sit here and argue dates and events may be pointless or it could be entertaining lol. I rather go for the entertainment value, Titor dates and events are still open to happen or not. Most, if not all are on Titor's world-line.

but..........

[edit on 13-11-2006 by XPhiles]



posted on Nov, 13 2006 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
You always do this Roth, trying to change the subject. But, no! Not this time

I'm going to quote Titor again and await your answer proving his own post wrong.


When does the WAR start Titor?

It's 2004 blah blah blah


What's YOUR definition of WAR Titor?

Perhaps our definition of war is different. I would define it as a conflict where organized groups engage in maneuver and armed conflict.



To Roth and gang:
Please show me wher TITOR'S definition of war is happening. That's all I ask. I want a simple straight answer, because it's a simple straight request.
All you have to do is say the name and then that's it, we'll move on to the next quote.

Yes, that’s true. It all started in 2004. Just as the Second World War really started in 1937 (with the Japanese invasion of China on 7 July 1937 - remember Pearl Harbour as well - but don’t worry …China will put the record straight in the very near future!…) and NOT in 1940! So let’s wait until 2008…. I can see clear signs of an impending second US civil war starting from the second Bush term in 2004! Back then it was ‘slavery’…. Shall we say now it can be “immigration and security?”…..but not starting in 2004 as “organized groups [that will] engage in manoeuvre and armed conflict”….otherwise they would be here already wouldn’t they?

There’s no doubt about Titor’s ‘predictions’ coming into our reality as well, BUT, as XPhiles already pointed out, there might be a slim chance our worldline is different enough from Titor’s worldline…. but I believe the answer tot that lies in the year 2008 and the 2008 “his/her” (read: Al Gore) elections! Don’t forget it’s the ‘country folks’ you better don’t want to ‘piss off’….they carry [a whole lot of] guns you know….JT:”If you push a farmer too far, they stop growing food and have nothing to do but hide in the woods and shoot back.”

Furthermore, it’s interesting how Titor could foresee that Bush would serve 2 terms (remember: “It is a mistake to give anyone your unwavering belief...but you will find that out yourself in 2005.” + “The President or "leader" in 2005 I believe tried desperately to be the next Lincoln and hold the country together but many of their policies drove a larger wedge into the Bill of Rights.”)…. Yes he did thatsjustweird, but you’ll have to be able to ‘read between the lines’…..

And you may ask, how do ‘Taser deaths’ fit into all of this?…. Well…..


www.thephoenix.com...
More taser madness
You heard it here first: sooner, rather than later, a famous athlete is going to die in a Taser incident, and the mother of all lawsuits is going to follow. Taser-happy police have flown under the radar in the past few years, but Amnesty International claims that more than 150 Americans have been killed in Taser attacks since 2001. The Louisville Courier-Journal this year reported that Louisville metro police have Tasered some 70 mentally ill people in the last two years, zapped 15 people already in handcuffs, shot a 15-year-old in the penis, and even zonked a brain-damaged paraplegic who had fallen out of his wheelchair.

AND more important:


www.greens.org.nz...
Minister ducks her taser critics
“Ms King’s approach stands in stark contrast to the approach taken by the Bush administration, which has just launched a federal investigation into the 184 deaths that have occurred following police use of stun weapons. Clearly, the White House is not taking Ms King’s approach. The Bush administration is not treating the taser as simply an internal operational matter for the police.

“It is disturbing to see the Bush administration being more accountable about these weapons than the New Zealand Government
,” Mr Locke says.


[edit on 13-11-2006 by Roth Joint]

[edit on 13-11-2006 by Roth Joint]

[edit on 13-11-2006 by Roth Joint]

[edit on 13-11-2006 by Roth Joint]



posted on Nov, 13 2006 @ 12:53 PM
link   
Also... Bush is now happy that the democrats have won because within his own party, there is real conservatives, not globalists like him and his corporate friends. Why is he happy? Because now, with the democrats, he will be able to bring the amnesty to mexicans and push for North American Union.

I think this is a big factor that could drive people engaging into armed conflict. Those who are against the government for immigration, those against mexicans, those for the rights of mexicans... ect... then people will see that the problem is not mexicans, but the government.



posted on Nov, 13 2006 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by XPhiles
I know lol.... but I'm sure yours is different from Titor's as well, it's relatively obvious.


You're completely clueless aren't you. My definition of war is EXACTLY like Titor's. Where in the world are you getting that it's different??

Titor's definition is groups manuvering and engaging in armed conflict. That's my definition as well.
I asked a simple question. Where is this going on right now? Since it's now 2006, this should be easy for you to answer.



On this page here www.abovetopsecret.com... Did you not read modese7en post? He said some people where tasered in this event. There is definite civil unrest that took place.

mod posted a bunch of unverified hearsay....
Even if there wasn't someone tasered, that's still not by ANYONE'S definition civil unrest.
If you want to know how the rest of the world defines civil unrest, the US only has a few examples. One example was after MLK was killed in the 60s and the riots that followed. More localized civil unrest occured in Los Angeles in 1992.



It's not a Waco event TJW, No one said it was a Waco event? but hey! it looks like a Waco event

No, this looks like a Waco event

Hey, what do you know. Groups in armed conflict!




TJW.... monthly events would steadily get worse beginning when? Give me a time frame of these Waco like events. I have a feeling we read it different lol.

How are you reading it different?
Titor's quote is plain and simple:


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.


What's so difficult to understand? (oh and he didn't say these events would just "look" like Waco, I'm not sure where you got that from)

If it's going to be on everyone's doorstep by 2008 then it would HAVE to start in 2004 or earlier.



posted on Nov, 13 2006 @ 01:49 PM
link   


No, this looks like a Waco event


Do you really think they stupid enough to do this kind of waco-event again after all the scandal that made? Seriously? They are now doing other kinds of waco events and if you wait for a sect to be killed by the government, you'll wait for a long time. Now, they get the IRS to do it for them, even if the IRS is illegal.


Also... haven’t you noticed how increasingly divided and polarized the USA has become politically? The ABC program “20/20”, 'A Country Divided':


George Stephanopoulos on the State of Our Union on a Special Edition, June 30, 2006 —“ Members of Congress may not come to the floor armed with pistols as they did in the days leading up to the Civil War, but their words are as toxic as any time since then. And we are(USA) — in many ways — a more divided nation than any time since then.(the civil war) In interviews with political leaders, media analysts, and people in communities around the country, ABC News found what appears to be a new phenomenon: the polarization is feeding on itself. It's not just politicians, business or religious leaders, liberals or conservatives — or the media: It's each of us. And it's alarming.”


Also, the North American Union will erase the middle-class, and a lot of people will be VERY ANGRY, in the USA and Canada.

[edit on 13-11-2006 by Vitchilo]



posted on Nov, 14 2006 @ 01:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeirdYou're completely clueless aren't you. My definition of war is EXACTLY like Titor's. Where in the world are you getting that it's different?


I get it from your transparent posts. It's quite apparent where you are going with this, it has been repeated several times


Originally posted by ThatsJustWeirdTitor's definition is groups manuvering and engaging in armed conflict. That's my definition as well.
I asked a simple question. Where is this going on right now? Since it's now 2006, this should be easy for you to answer.


I seem to recall answering this several times lol....
Titor said "same way you see coverage of Waco, Ruby Ridge and Elian Gonzalez."
No matter how much abuse of federal power or paramilitary policing anyone puts in this thread, you will refuse to see it as groups manuvering and steadily getting worse.

TJW, do you not know what Waco, Ruby Ridge and Elian Gonzalez is all about? " Where is this going on right now?" It's probably happening in all kinds of places, maybe even near your neighbor hood. It's a world of deception NOW, you probably want see it in the media.

John Titor: I don't remember a great deal about media coverage during the civil conflicts.

John Titor: If the federal forces learned anything from WACO it was to install more reliable
suppressors on their automatic weapons and don't use flash grenades that leave
shell casings after the fire.


You already have my answer.......................



Originally posted by ThatsJustWeirdmod posted a bunch of unverified hearsay....
Even if there wasn't someone tasered, that's still not by ANYONE'S definition civil unrest.
If you want to know how the rest of the world defines civil unrest, the US only has a few examples. One example was after MLK was killed in the 60s and the riots that followed. More localized civil unrest occured in Los Angeles in 1992.


"The US only has a few examples" lol your so wrong, yeah a few they are willing to show you.

Your using media coverage of civil unrest, certain events are emphasized while others are neglected by a significant portion of the media. My guess is, you are the clueless one
Using people of notoriety and political significance..... shame on you.


Originally posted by ThatsJustWeirdHey, what do you know. Groups in armed conflict!


You see, that is what I'm talking about right there, you expext it to be strictly like Waco.... shame on you again.



Originally posted by ThatsJustWeirdHow are you reading it different?
Titor's quote is plain and simple:
quote: 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.

What's so difficult to understand? (oh and he didn't say these events would just "look" like Waco, I'm not sure where you got that from)


Titor: I would probably characterize it the same way you see coverage of....... Titor descibes it with distinctive features we see, the "look"


Originally posted by ThatsJustWeirdIf it's going to be on everyone's doorstep by 2008 then it would HAVE to start in 2004 or earlier.


Good for you, you are learning lmao.........



posted on Nov, 14 2006 @ 02:09 AM
link   
Roth, something I have been wanting to ask for awhile..... Why is your text different from everyones? Are you a foreigner or Time Traveler with a IBM 5100 lol.....

Maybe it's nothing, but it's been bugging me.


ah! maybe it's my font or yours?


Roth Joint
And you may ask, how do ‘Taser deaths’ fit into all of this?…. Well…..




[edit on 14-11-2006 by XPhiles]



posted on Nov, 14 2006 @ 03:51 AM
link   
Why are you so obsessed with fire thatsjustweird? Ofcourse it is horrible enough that it happened to all of these innocent children, but let's not focus on the fire, but let's focus on the real WACO event compared to the recent picture that XPhiles provided us. Here's XPhiles presented WACO type event picture:



And here are some real WACO event pictures:






Most definitely looks like a 'WACO type event' to me....



posted on Nov, 14 2006 @ 04:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by XPhiles
Roth, something I have been wanting to ask for awhile..... Why is your text different from everyones? Are you a foreigner or Time Traveler with a IBM 5100 lol.....

Maybe it's nothing, but it's been bugging me.


ah! maybe it's my font or yours?


Roth Joint
And you may ask, how do ‘Taser deaths’ fit into all of this?…. Well…..

XPhiles, this is what you sometimes get when you use good ole Word for Windows to edit some text.... but I really like the idea of being a foreign Time Traveler with a IBM 5100....



posted on Nov, 14 2006 @ 12:40 PM
link   
Nuclear Japan would cause huge damage warns russia


The United States has ensured Japan's security since the end of World War II, when the country was stripped of the right to maintain its own military.


So the US protect Japan... if the US economy collapse, who will protect Japan? The US army leaved a lot of their troops there not long ago. With an economy krash, they would probably leave Japan, and China, to expand and counter a possible nuclear Japan could invade them for revenge of the WW2. Japan don't have a big army... only for defense purpose and they don't have the same mentality as in the 40s, they now are technology freaks, not soldiers.

[edit on 14-11-2006 by Vitchilo]



posted on Nov, 14 2006 @ 03:57 PM
link   
Why are you all lying to yourselves like this? Think about what you're doing? You believe so strongly in someone claiming to be a time traveler that your willing to suspend belief and twist words around so that it can fit your belief. Why? Why would you do that?
Why can't you just look at thing straight? Facts only. Is that too hard? Does not believing in someone claiming to be a time traveller hurt you in some way? Are you that desperate to see the US fall?
What is it?



Originally posted by XPhiles
I get it from your transparent posts. It's quite apparent where you are going with this, it has been repeated several times

Again, you're completely clueless. Where am I going with this since you know?

NOT ONE of my posts even comes close to suggesting my definition of war is different. I'm in COMPLETE agreement with Titor on that, and since you all believe war is something different, I asked a simple question.


I seem to recall answering this several times lol....
Titor said "same way you see coverage of Waco, Ruby Ridge and Elian Gonzalez."

Perfect example of what I'm talking about.
Why don't you post the WHOLE quote?
Because it doesn't fit your beliefs.
This is exactly what I'm talking about, you're willing to lie and take things out of context just to defend Titor. Why?? It's not that serious if he's not real. It's ok to admit that.

For those of you who don't know, when Titor said that the question was to the effect of
"What's the media coverage like during the war?"
That's when he answered that it was like the coverage of Waco, Ruby Ridge, etc...
He was in NO WAY talking about the war itself. He was talking solely on media coverage.

I still await your real answer.




No matter how much abuse of federal power or paramilitary policing anyone puts in this thread, you will refuse to see it as groups manuvering and steadily getting worse.

WTF!
PUT IT IN THE THREAD if it's there!
And show how it's steadily gotten worse over the past 30 months! That's all I'm asking!! You have yet to do that so how in the world are you going to tell me how I'll react!!!????


TJW, do you not know what Waco, Ruby Ridge and Elian Gonzalez is all about? " Where is this going on right now?" It's probably happening in all kinds of places, maybe even near your neighbor hood. It's a world of deception NOW, you probably want see it in the media.

Straight BS
There's no possible way you can hide that stuff from the media. Not with the internet so widely available and places like youtube, etc.


John Titor: I don't remember a great deal about media coverage during the civil conflicts.

HE WAS A LITTLE KID!!!


Anyway, he did say he remember it like how they covered Waco, etc. as stated earlier. What was the media like then? Wall to wall coverage, 24 hours 7 days a week type coverage. That's not hiding it. Titor never once suggested the media would hide it, he said it would dominate the news (since Waco, Ruby Ridge, and Elian dominated the news and he said it'd be like that).


John Titor: If the federal forces learned anything from WACO it was to install more reliable suppressors on their automatic weapons and don't use flash grenades that leave shell casings after the fire.

You already have my answer.......................

Oh wow, and incomplete statement. Yeah thanks! We're going to learn alot from that statement!

Why don't you post the whole thing so everyone can see what he was talking about?



"The US only has a few examples" lol your so wrong, yeah a few they are willing to show you.

Your using media coverage of civil unrest, certain events are emphasized while others are neglected by a significant portion of the media. My guess is, you are the clueless one
Using people of notoriety and political significance..... shame on you.

wtf are you talking about?
Using people of notoriety and political significance??? Seriously, what are you talking about? Where did I do that at? Certainly not in this thread. That doesn't even make sense.
Anyway, you can't hide civil unrest from the media. Using the world's definition of civil unrest. Since you don't use the world's definition, please tell us what's your definition and where did you get it from.


You see, that is what I'm talking about right there, you expext it to be strictly like Waco.... shame on you again.

No, I'm going by what Titor said.
"I would describe it as having a Waco type event every month that steadily gets worse"

If it was another type of event, then he would have used a different discription. That's common sense. Since he used Waco, then the events are to be like Waco and WORSE.
Anything other than Waco events every month won't cause a civil war.
If you have any evidence suggesting otherwise then please present it. I seriously doubt that you do.



Titor: I would probably characterize it the same way you see coverage of....... Titor descibes it with distinctive features we see, the "look"

lmao!
Again, he was talking about media coverage not the war itself. Why do you think the word "coverage" is there? Just for fun?


Again, post the whole thing in context and you would see this for yourself.



Originally posted by ThatsJustWeirdIf it's going to be on everyone's doorstep by 2008 then it would HAVE to start in 2004 or earlier.


Good for you, you are learning lmao.........

Is that your answer?
Why hasn't it started then? Again, please list the 34 waco type events and show how they have steadily gotten worse.
Simple request. Since you're so sure it's started this should be easy.


Vit, I'm not ignoring you....it's just.....I'm embarrased for you and don't want to embarass you further.....

Roth:
What x is doing with quotes, you're doing with pictures. In what context are those pictures? Are those pictures from Waco??

If they aren't then.....posting pictures of the ATF doesn't make anything a Waco type event buddy

If I posted a picture of Michael Jordan, does that make me a basketball player? lol



posted on Nov, 14 2006 @ 04:06 PM
link   
Thanks for the cheer TJW...


PETA a terrorist organisation?

Now with this new bill on the president desk, PETA is a terrorist organisation and all his members are terrorists. Another wound to the patriots. Another sign that when you disagree with the overlords of this country, you're a terrorist.

Also, a little example of the police brutality on another thread by Unit541:


Hmm, In '02 in Portland I felt the same way until I took a club to the face and watched my 5 year old daughter (at the time) take a blast of pepper spray directly (and intentionally) to the face. "Shut dad up by macing his little girl". Yeah, democracy hard at work.


Explication to another poster who said:

You took a 5 years old to a protest?


Answer:

Yeah, well I wouldn't now. But then, just like a few hundred other parents who had their children with them, I was under the impression that we had the right to "peacefully protest without fear of reprisal". Now that I know this right doesn't exist, I would not consider bringing anyone to a "peaceful protest" who isn't in the mood to be beaten, pepper sprayed, and pelted with rubber bullets and pepper balls.

I suppose I should apologize for my ignorance back then in thinking that we, the people of the United States of America had a constitutional right to think differently than our leaders. And FYI, my daughter wasn't the youngest to be deliberately targeted by those who took an oath to "protect and serve".

It's just too bad I didn't realize how things really worked as early as my daughter has.


Yeah, like he said, democracy at work!

www.azcentral.com... icles/1112us-separatists1112.html" target="_blank" class="postlink"> The First North American Secessionist Convention, the first national gathering of secessionists since the Civil War

And I also know that there's is regular meeting like this in Vermont, South Carolina and some others states.

And with Hilary probably winning in 2008, with their history of gun-grabbing, we'll probably start to see big waco events, not little ones like Roth and XPhiles described, even before that because now democrats are in control of both house and senate... so they could push laws for guns and neo-cons are not against that, they are globalists. Steadily getting worse... republicans in majority, spitting on civil liberties and abusing their power, democrats take the house and senate and start to take weapons... waco events happening... then in 2008 the civil war and global resistance against the government is undeniable.

[edit on 14-11-2006 by Vitchilo]



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 136  137  138    140  141  142 >>

log in

join