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: 140
31
<< 137  138  139    141  142  143 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 14 2006 @ 08:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird

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.


TJW, I would have appreciated a chance to say whether I was there or whether it was hearsay, rather than you stating it the way you did. It makes me sound like I was indiscriminatly stating things that were untrue, which isn't the case at all.

But, the damage is pretty much nonexistent, because I really should have stated that I wasn't there, and the whole story did come to me from a very excited teenage little sister, and I think we all know what that usually entails. The only thing I know for sure, though, is they did lock the school down, people did show up, the cops were there, and the kids were not allowed home. The tasering thing though, i've only heard that from people who were there, which adds some weight to it, but its still hearsay, at least once I pass it on.

Anyway, heres a link Schools locked down, and closed due to manhunt.

I think she exaggerated a little on when they let the students go home though. Maybe she was covering up for staying out after her curfew?


[edit on 14-11-2006 by modese7en]




posted on Nov, 14 2006 @ 09:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
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

Here it is where your blatant ignorance shows so dramatically. Or perhaps I should say your desperate and pathetic attempt to mislead the reader? You can trust me on this one, you naughty agonist, the pictures are from the WACO scene.

Picture 1 shows a BATF sniper at the WACO scene, “disguising” himself with full mask and tape covering his badge, so he can not be identified. This was done in remembrance of the fallen ATF agents.
Picture 2 shows a wounded Bill Buford of the New Orleans team and his fellow agents. Four bullets raced past his head, including one that cut the bridge of his nose.
Picture 3 shows ATF’s at the WACO scene, here kneeling out in the open.
Picture 4, taken from the public broadcasting service website, shows ATF agents at the WACO scene.
www.pbs.org...


Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
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.

You probably will never learn, do you? Let’s share the real truth with the reader thatsjustweird.

The real question that was asked to Titor was posted by Matt Hagemeier on 02-08-2001 10:52 AM! And that question was exactly:
“How does the U.S media cover the civil war? Is it unibased [unbiased]or does it favor one side?”

Then Titor answered on 02-08-2001 01:18 PM! And Titor’s answer was exactly:
“I don’t remember a great deal about media coverage during the civil conflicts. I would probably characterize it the same way you see coverage of Waco, Ruby Ridge and Elian Gonzalez.”

As one can see, the question is most definitely related to the second US civil war and if media coverage would be biased or not. So this little game of yours is simply over thatsjustweird.



posted on Nov, 14 2006 @ 11:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Roth Joint
Here it is where your blatant ignorance shows so dramatically. Or perhaps I should say your desperate and pathetic attempt to mislead the reader? You can trust me on this one, you naughty agonist, the pictures are from the WACO scene.

WTF!
Are you serious??
CAN YOU NOT READ!?!?!?!?

Wow Roth, I knew you had a reading comprehension problem but wow...I didn't think you'd make it that blatent.

I ASKED if those pictures were from Waco or not! Did you not read that part!?
How is that being ignorant you (rhymes with noron)!?
Where in my statement did I do anything to mislead anyone!? HOW can my statement mislead anyone? I asked a f'in question! lol
You're not too high on the IQ scale are you Roth?




Anyway, thank you for posting pictures of Waco, because that's what me and Titor are talking about.
Now that you've done that, please show pictures currently from around the country where incidents like that are occuring.




As one can see, the question is most definitely related to the second US civil war and if media coverage would be biased or not. So this little game of yours is simply over thatsjustweird.

AGAIN
You have a serious reading comprehension problem.
THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I SAID!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I said it didn't decribe the war itself it describe the media coverage during the war. Your quote from Titor confirms that.
Please find my quote where I said it wasn't related to the civil war. I challange you to find that quote.

(here's a hint: you won't find it, BECAUSE I NEVER SAID THAT YOU [rhymes with vidiot]!!!!!!! LOL You're on a roll Roth!)

Here's my direct quote:

He was in NO WAY talking about the war itself. He was talking solely on media coverage.

Now a normal person would see that, then see what context it was in and realize what I was saying. It's extremely self explanatory if you read everything that was written before that. And that quote is 100% accurate. He's not talking about the war itself, he's talking about the media coverage of the war. But no, you're not normal Roth. You see that and don't even bother with the context. That's what you've been doing this whole thread, taking things out of context...It's a shame really.

Take your time and actually read my posts before posting Roth, it'd do us a lot of good



posted on Nov, 15 2006 @ 02:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeirdNOT 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.


Like I said, it's relatively obvious your definition of war is different. You refuse to see civil "conflicts" as of now, that may grow into "outright open fighting" by 2011.

Titor: What I feel is not anger, it is sadness that you cannot see what I see.


Originally posted by ThatsJustWeirdPerfect 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.


You think I'm willing to lie.........
I have nothing to gain by defending Titor.
Poor excuse on your part TJW. Why don't you post the WHOLE quote yourself? It seems your intent to deceive by your own beliefs is coming to light.




Originally posted by ThatsJustWeirdWTF!
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!!!????


What do you gain by conveying a false impression of me?

It's true, no matter how much abuse of federal power or paramilitary policing anyone puts in this thread, you will refuse to see it as groups maneuvering and steadily getting worse.

Your reaction is WTF




Originally posted by ThatsJustWeirdStraight 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.


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?


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.......................



So your media pipeline is youtube?

You see, I have already answered you on this one lol... What Titor is saying, federal forces can learn from their past. They "can hide that stuff from the media."




Originally posted by ThatsJustWeirdwtf 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.



Now I'm really concerned of your well being. MLK doesn't ring a bell? Certain events are emphasized while others are neglected by the media.



Originally posted by ThatsJustWeirdNo, 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.



"sigh" Im sticking to my guns, You expect it to be strictly like Waco.


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


You seem to skip over the words characterize and civil conflicts. I don't think you understand time traveler linguistic behavior.


Originally posted by ThatsJustWeirdIs 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.


You want me to give you a monthly update lol........ lets see, I gave you one last month or possibly 2..... Why don't you find some yourself, it's takes a little work to do. We are still in the developing stages of events right?


Here, I wrote a script in Autoit for you TJW. Actually I'm just learning to script in it. so........



HotKeySet("[ESC]","Terminate"); Year is 2015 nuclear strike
run ("notepad.exe")
WinWaitActive("Untitled - Notepad")

While WinExists("Untitled - Notepad")
While WinActive("Untitled - Notepad")
Sleep(100)
Send("ThatsJustWeird: Time travel isn't possible. ")
Sleep(100)
Send("[ENTER]")
Send("XPhiles: Time travel is possible. ")
Sleep(100)
Send("[ENTER]")
WEnd
WEnd
Func Terminate();Boom
Exit
EndFunc


lol..... it loops over and over until you hit the hotkey.


It's a text flooder, much like TJW posts.

screenshot:



Hey! I wonder if Titor was hinting of 911, has anyone debated this before? Maybe I need to check a few hundred pages back


Titor:
02-09-2001 02:02 PM
Waco, Ruby Ridge and Elian exist in your news archives. Telling you about impending plane crashes or other disasters (provided I could give you exact dates and times) may save lives at one point but cause cascading changes that take others at a later point.


Why doesn't Titor just say, Telling you about a impending plane crash? or just say, impending disasters.

In 2012 there must be another impending disaster.

Titor:
in 2012, it was not something I was able to think about. When the time comes, I'm
sure people will find the signs they are looking for that leads them to the end of
time.


Titor:
Yes, there are unusual events in 2012
but they do not cause the world to end. Unfortunately, I have decided not to
discuss events that you or I can do anything about. It is important that they be a
surprise. Perhaps you are familiar with the story of the Red Sea and the
Egyptians?




[edit on 15-11-2006 by XPhiles]

[edit on 15-11-2006 by XPhiles]



posted on Nov, 15 2006 @ 03:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Roth Joint

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....


Ah.... no worry though, it only shows when I download the page to my disk. Though, you do have the "Roth Joint" anagram of "John Titor" going on. lol.

[edit on 15-11-2006 by XPhiles]

hmm maybe somethig in your avatar lol....



[edit on 15-11-2006 by XPhiles]



posted on Nov, 15 2006 @ 06:23 AM
link   
Thatsjustweird, your personal attacks are not even funny. Your pathetic twists, denials and vile language in your last post makes me feel deep embarrassment for you. Nobody likes a lousy loser, you know. Shame on you


At least the reader is now well informed about your behaviour.



posted on Nov, 15 2006 @ 01:20 PM
link   
Yeah Roth, I didn't think you'd address my post.

btw, in everything I said to you, you have yet to show anything different, so how exactly was it a "personal attack".
If I call a duck a duck, is that a personal attack?
Is not calling me a liar and "Here it is where your blatant ignorance shows so dramatically" not personal attacks (especially since my statements were 100% accurate)?
How do you spell hypocrite Roth?



Originally posted by XPhiles
Like I said, it's relatively obvious your definition of war is different. You refuse to see civil "conflicts" as of now

Ok, then, what's my definition of war. Since you know everything. I stated my definition of war, but since you know more about me than me, then please tell me what my definition of war is....


I'm not refusing to see anything btw. I asked you a simple question. Where are these civil conflicts happening right now? You have yet to answer the question! Instead you keep changing the subject. Just answer the question! Please....


that may grow into "outright open fighting" by 2011.

According to you, not Titor.


You think I'm willing to lie.........
I have nothing to gain by defending Titor.

Then why are you doing it so much?
By misleading people, yes you're willing to lie because that's exactly what you're doing....


Poor excuse on your part TJW. Why don't you post the WHOLE quote yourself? It seems your intent to deceive by your own beliefs is coming to light.

I did! (Or rather Roth did) I paraphrased it with the next sentence! Did you not read that part??





It's true, no matter how much abuse of federal power or paramilitary policing anyone puts in this thread, you will refuse to see it as groups maneuvering and steadily getting worse.

Newsflash! No one's done that yet!


Your reaction is WTF

Yes because you're surprising and scaring me right now....
I'm a staunch believer that humans are intelligent beings capable of rational thought. This thread is making me question my beliefs....





So your media pipeline is youtube?

See, you're scaring me big time.
Did you not read my statement? Is that all you all do in this thread? Take one or two words from a sentence then run wild with those one or two words, completely forgetting about the rest of the sentence?
I'm debating on whether or not to correct you, I believe an intelligent person would see what I wrote and know what I'm talking about.

www.msnbc.msn.com...
www.breitbart.com...




Now I'm really concerned of your well being. MLK doesn't ring a bell?

Again, did you not read what I said!?
My goodness....
What's so hard about reading the WHOLE paragraph or sentence!?!?!
I don't get it. Why can't you do that?

I'm post what I said again. I stated that after MLK was shot and killed Civil Unrest (as the world defines civil unrest - I asked you repeatedly to show your definition but you refuse to do so) broke out across the U.S.
That is a fact.
Now tell me, how is that "Using people of notoriety and political significance?"



"sigh" Im sticking to my guns, You expect it to be strictly like Waco.

Why should I expect it to be different? Titor is the one that said it would be like Waco and worse, not me.


[You seem to skip over the words characterize and civil conflicts. I don't think you understand time traveler linguistic behavior.

What?

Titor's only quote about civil conflicts in this context was that "I don't remember a great deal about media coverage during the civil conflicts."

And when he said characterize, he was talking about the media coverage


I don't remember a great deal about media coverage during the civil conflicts. I would probably characterize it the same way you see coverage of Waco, Ruby Ridge and Elian Gonzalez.


What does this have to do with what we're talking about? We're talking about the war, not the media covering the war.



You want me to give you a monthly update lol........ lets see, I gave you one last month or possibly 2..... Why don't you find some yourself, it's takes a little work to do. We are still in the developing stages of events right?

No according to Titor we're two years into it.
Like I said this should be easy for you. Just 34 events.
I tried finding them for myself and couldn't find one. That's why I'm asking you since you know these events already.



posted on Nov, 15 2006 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
Yeah Roth, I didn't think you'd address my post.

btw, in everything I said to you, you have yet to show anything different, so how exactly was it a "personal attack".
If I call a duck a duck, is that a personal attack?
Is not calling me a liar and "Here it is where your blatant ignorance shows so dramatically" not personal attacks (especially since my statements were 100% accurate)?
How do you spell hypocrite Roth?

I really hurt you this time, didn’t I thatsjustweird? Good for you. At least we agree now that the WACO pictures I have posted are indeed from the WACO scene. And at least we also agree now that Titor was talking about media coverage of the US civil war and not solely about media coverage during the US civil war.

That wasn’t so clear in your earlier posts when you said:

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
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.

Now let’s take it apart what you said and have a closer look:

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
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?"

This is not correct, thatsjustweird. This was not the question that was asked to Titor. However, the exact question that was asked to Titor was:
“How does the U.S media cover the civil war? Is it unibased [unbiased] or does it favor one side?”

Now let’s take a closer look at your next answer:

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
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.

This doesn’t sound very much like a clear answer, doesn't it thatsjustweird? It’s a mess. One could think you meant that Titor was solely talking about media coverage during the US civil war and not about media coverage OF the US civil war. Fortunately you have put that straight in one of your later post. Good for you! You are making progress.



posted on Nov, 15 2006 @ 04:11 PM
link   
are you the kinda guys who can debate about a color blind man seeing a certain color?



NO he can see RED!!!

NO NO he can see BLUE!!!

onward thruout time untill your 68 years old an theres about 1,000 hot pocket wrappers around an yer nina flimore mp3 on loop has been corupted then you will be like

OMG its their opinons to say those things, an i still have my opinon about it an omg there different an like i need to stop being weird about arguing about a dumb nut like - Titor or even his workings. cuz 156 pages of this is funny.... or is it 177 oh well prolly 1000000000000000 by the time you guys stop arguing huh?

argue over my typos if anything.., they are horrid....

just saying the war didnt happen. theres civil war in iraq. but not america. maybe he meant turf wars in city gangs ?

[edit on 15-11-2006 by Tranceopticalinclined]



posted on Nov, 15 2006 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird

Originally posted by XPhiles
Like I said, it's relatively obvious your definition of war is different. You refuse to see civil "conflicts" as of now

Ok, then, what's my definition of war. Since you know everything. I stated my definition of war, but since you know more about me than me, then please tell me what my definition of war is....


I'm not refusing to see anything btw. I asked you a simple question. Where are these civil conflicts happening right now? You have yet to answer the question! Instead you keep changing the subject. Just answer the question! Please....

That answer has been given time and time again thatsjustweird. You simply refuse to see it and you are making silly loops over and over again. But that’s what you do, not reading properly, denying, twisting and deceiving. Could it be that our friend the Robot “syrinx high priest” has some bad influence on you? You should start turning off your repeat function and read what is said long ago. Let me refresh your memory a little bit:


Originally posted by Roth Joint
www.abovetopsecret.com...
posted on 17-8-2005 at 06:22 AM Post Number: 1618577 (post id: 1640470)
First:

Titor specifically mentioned the civil war starting out as “WACO-type events” firstly happening every month. That doesn't sound like a sudden full blown civil war does it? Titor meant it would grow into a full blown US Civil War. And that conflict would “flare up and down for 10 years.” JT: “I would describe it as having a Waco type event every month that steadily gets worse.

These monthly “WACO-type events” steadily getting worse can be recognized by observing the same methods being used by law enforcement officers upon American civilians in the WACO massacre. Innocent and defenseless parents with their children died a horrible death in presence of their own officers of the law. They died whilst their own law enforcement officers should have avoided their cruel death.

Was Titor referring to WACO because of the great fire or because in his viewpoint the law enforcement officers were responsible for the death of innocent/defenceless people? Why don’t we let Titor say it himself:

“Have you see the documentary on Waco? Just for argument's sake, what do you think would happen if information were discovered that confirmed the worst accusations made against the law enforcement officers there? Would you hope nothing?”
"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."


The ”groups engaged in maneuver and armed conflict" would develop later on as a result of the “WACO-type events/methods” being used by officers of the law against US citizens. It doesn't make any sense if these "organized groups" would "engage in maneuver and armed conflict" without any particular reason to do so or without any particular enemy to fight with wouldn't you agree? That would be totally absurd ofcourse.

John Titor
Q: Does the civil war start in such a way that those willing will have time to remove themselves to safer locations?
"Yes. You will be forced to ask yourself how many civil rights you will give up to feel safe."
Q: Will you readily be able to identify the enemy?
"They will be the ones arresting and holding people without due process."
“I would describe it as having a Waco type event every month that steadily gets worse.
"By 2008, I would say the civil conflict is pretty much at everyone's doorstep."
"On my world line 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. I served with the "Fighting Diamondbacks" for about 4 years. "
"I would define it as a conflict where organized groups engage in maneuver and armed conflict."
”The conflict will consume everyone in the US by 2012…”


Now "Syrinx High Priest," back to the part of your question regarding the “urban” vs “rural” groups. Also this has been discussed and explained on this thread long ago.

Lets see what kind of definitions there are for "civil war?"


- Recent civil wars in Central America have been uprisings of poor, rural people who are the majority against a small ruling class made up of the wealthy elite and the military.

- Some civil wars are also categorized as revolutions when major societal restructuring is a possible outcome of the conflict.

Exactly the type of civil war as described by John Titor:

1. Titor never stated that American civilians in the cities were his enemies. Even Titor himself ones lived in the city. However, the oppressing Government isolated the cities from the country to gain more control over the people. From thereon the division between the "cities" and the "country" was well defined.” When Titor was asked if it was a stalemate with the resistance/militia hiding out until the cities are wiped out allowing them to surface, he answered:

“The cities were not isolated because of them [ the Militia ]; they were isolated because of us.” [ the US population
outside of the cities – the “country” ]

“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. Our home was searched once and the neighbor across the street was arrested for some unknown reason. That convinced my father to leave the city.”

“From the age of 8 to 12, [2006-2010] we lived away from the cities and spent most of our time in a farm community with other families avoiding conflict with the federal police and National Guard. 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.”

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


2. Titor didn't mean that American civilians would be killing eachother, though that might be a possibility around 2011 when "outright open fighting" becomes common by then. When Titor mentioned “us” (the country) vs “them” (the cities) he didn’t mean the cities themselves but he meant his enemy who was IN the cities:

”Also, please be aware that from my viewpoint, Russia attacked my enemy who was in the U.S. cities. Yes, the U.S. did counter attack.”

Q: Your enemy was in the cities. Was the President in 2005 also on the enemy side? was the President in 2009 on the enemy side? How did you feel personally about these Presidents?
”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. The President in 2009 was interested only in keeping his/her power base.”


3. Titor’s enemy was the “American Federal Empire”

”The US cities are destroyed along with the AFE (American Federal Empire)...thus we (in the country) won”.

4. John Titor and his fellow countrymen fought against the Military (apparently around 2011):

Q: You say you were in the militia fighting the US Army. I would think civilians would have no chance of successfully fighting the military.
“You must realize that why people are fighting is more important that what they are fighting with. The conflict was not about taking and holding ground it was about order and rights. They were betting that people wanted security instead of freedom and they were wrong.”

“Outright open fighting was common by then and I joined a shotgun infantry unit in 2011. I served with the "Fighting Diamondbacks" for about 4 years. (Hearing in my right ear isn't as good as I would like it).”

Q: Will soldiers be asked to kill their countrymen?
“I'm not positive but don't they sign a small piece of paper now asking them if they would have a problem with that?”


There’s no doubt whatsoever as to what John Titor meant with a “US civil war.”
It wasn’t about American civilians against eachother. It was about American civilians against the oppressing forces of the Government they were living under. Titor clearly mentioned the two opposing sides of the US Civil War. Two enemies opposed to eachother:

One side of the US Civil War – Titor’s and his fellow countrymen’s enemy:
"The “enemy” that was attacked by Russia in the U.S. was the forces of the government you live under right now."
"Also, please be aware that from my viewpoint, Russia attacked my enemy who was in the U.S. cities.


The other side of the US Civil War – The forces of the Government’s enemy:
”I'm not aware of any "mind control" devices being used on you now. However, there are a great many "non lethal" weapon systems in development that turn out to be quite lethal.
Sometimes I watch your television programs that show SWAT teams using new non-lethal weapons. They usually start out with, “In the future, the army and police will fight its enemies with new weapons systems.” When they use the word “enemy”, they’re talking about YOU! You don’t really think the Marines are going to jump out of helicopters overseas with sticky goop, pepper spray and seizure lights, do you?
Q: Will soldiers be asked to kill their countrymen?
“I'm not positive but don't they sign a small piece of paper now asking them if they would have a problem with that?”


It is interesting to observe Titor's viewpoint regarding the intentions of his enemy -the American Federal Empire- and the true causes behind their rapid implementation of their "NWO-type" of measures.

Who would have thought in 2000 our freedoms would be at stake in 2005 because of a "new" enemy opposed to the Anglo-American imperium? But indeed, that time period has arrived. For any power that was waiting for the right moment to implement it's new limiting rules in a democratic country, this is the perfect time to do so.

John Titor
"You must realize that why people are fighting is more important that what they are fighting with. The conflict was not about taking and holding ground it was about order and rights. They were betting that people wanted security instead of freedom and they were wrong."

It is clear Titor is pointing to something greater then just a country tightening up it's security measures for the sake of it's citizens. They (Titor's enemy) apparently calculated the people would be willing to give up their freedoms in change for the new "security" offered by their Government.

That's why Titor said "they were betting." Apparently this "bet" was perceived by them as an easy one to win. And ofcourse, as sociology and marketing proves us time and time again, people's behaviors are quite predictable. However according to Titor, they will proven to be wrong and find themselves on the wrong side of that "bet."


AND


Originally posted by Roth Joint
www.abovetopsecret.com...
posted on 2-9-2005 at 06:25 AM Post Number: 1655179 (post id: 1677072)
Don’t worry Syrinx, it isn’t a full blown US civil war yet, but we are definitely speeding up in that direction. As you’ve been shown many times over, the “WACO-type events” are already happening. They are represented by the many civilian deaths by the hand of their own law enforcement officers using their purported 'non-lethal' taser weapons upon them. Opposition, anger and hatred against the use of 'non-lethal' taser weapons by police is growing rapidly.

The ”groups engaged in maneuver and armed conflict" would develop later on as a result of the “WACO-type events/methods” being used by officers of the law against US citizens. It doesn't make any sense if these "organized groups" would "engage in maneuver and armed conflict" without any particular reason to do so, or without any particular enemy to fight with, or without any particular reason to organize against that enemy wouldn't you agree? That would be totally absurd ofcourse. Helloooooooooooooooo..... knock knock..... anybody home?

Titor specifically mentioned the civil war starting out as “WACO-type events” firstly happening every month. That doesn't sound like a sudden full blown civil war does it? Titor meant it would grow into a full blown US Civil War. And that conflict would “flare up and down for 10 years.” JT: “I would describe it as having a Waco type event every month that steadily gets worse.

And it most definitely is getting worse.

Remember:
WACO=
- Innocent/defenseless people dying cruelly & unnecessary
- by the hand of their own officers of the law
- while their deaths should have been avoided
- while their voices and pleas haven't been listened to
- while the law enforcement officers responsible for their
death are cleared without any prosecution for "wrongful death."
- authorities spreading disinformation regarding the incident to the mass media

For a further detailed explanation I refer to my previous posts at:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

With regards to the type of civil war as defined by John Titor, let’s have a look again at these two interesting definitions of civil war:

1. Recent civil wars in Central America have been uprisings of poor, rural people who are the majority against a small ruling class made up of the wealthy elite and the military.

2. Some civil wars are also categorized as revolutions when major societal restructuring is a possible outcome of the conflict.

Exactly the type of civil war as described by John Titor. Titor never said it would be a war between urban US citizens vs rural US civilians. It would be a war between the Government and its people. American civilians against the oppressing forces of the Government they were living under.

1. Titor never stated that American civilians would be killing eachother. When Titor mentioned “us” (the country) vs “them” (the cities) he didn’t mean the cities themselves but he meant his enemy who was IN the cities:

”Also, please be aware that from my viewpoint, Russia attacked my enemy who was in the U.S. cities. Yes, the U.S. did counter attack.”

Q: Your enemy was in the cities. Was the President in 2005 also on the enemy side? was the President in 2009 on the enemy side? How did you feel personally about these Presidents?
”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. The President in 2009 was interested only in keeping his/her power base.”


2. Titor’s enemy was the “American Federal Empire” the forces of the Government we live under right now:

”The US cities are destroyed along with the AFE (American Federal Empire)...thus we (in the country) won”.
"The “enemy” that was attacked by Russia in the U.S. was the forces of the government you live under right now."
"Also, please be aware that from my viewpoint, Russia attacked my enemy who was in the U.S. cities.


3. The US Military soldiers were killing their countrymen (apparently around 2011 when "outright open fighting was common by then"):

Q: Will soldiers be asked to kill their countrymen?
“I'm not positive but don't they sign a small piece of paper now asking them if they would have a problem with that?”


4. John Titor and his fellow countrymen fought against the Military (apparently around 2011 when "outright open fighting was common by then"):

Q: You say you were in the militia fighting the US Army. I would think civilians would have no chance of successfully fighting the military.
JT: “You must realize that why people are fighting is more important that what they are fighting with. The conflict was not about taking and holding ground it was about order and rights. They were betting that people wanted security instead of freedom and they were wrong.”

“Outright open fighting was common by then and I joined a shotgun infantry unit in 2011. I served with the "Fighting Diamondbacks" for about 4 years. (Hearing in my right ear isn't as good as I would like it).”


5. Titor never stated that American civilians in the cities were his enemies. Even Titor himself ones lived in the city. So it wasn't about urban US citizens vs rural US civilians. Titor meant that the division between "cities" and "country" was well defined by the oppressing Government isolating the cities from the country to gain more control. When Titor was asked if it was a stalemate with the resistance/militia hiding out until the cities are wiped out allowing them to surface, he answered:

“The cities were not isolated because of them [ the Militia ]; they were isolated because of us.” [ the US population outside of the cities – the “country” ]

“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. Our home was searched once and the neighbor across the street was arrested for some unknown reason. That convinced my father to leave the city.”

“From the age of 8 to 12, [2006-2010] we lived away from the cities and spent most of our time in a farm community with other families avoiding conflict with the federal police and National Guard. 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.”

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


As you can see there’s no doubt whatsoever as to what John Titor meant with a “US civil war.”

Again, it wasn’t about American civilians against eachother. It was about American civilians against the oppressing forces of the Government they were living under.


Have a nice day!



[edit on 15-11-2006 by Roth Joint]



posted on Nov, 15 2006 @ 11:24 PM
link   
You didn't answer my question Roth.
But forget all that, I'll ask (again) a simple straight question that either you or X can answer.

Now with this question just pretend this thread is new and this is the first post - do not post anything written by either me or you or anyone else previously in this thread. Let's start over from the begining:

Where, in the United States of America, are civil conflicts in which the American people are fighting Federal agents as described by John Titor and civil unrest, as defined by Titor and the world, occuring right now?

This is a simple question that requires a simple answer. If it's occuring in Kansas, then just simply say Kansas. That's all you have to do, and we'll move on to the next question.



posted on Nov, 15 2006 @ 11:46 PM
link   
I'm not aware of any, yet. With the Defense Authorization 2007, the bill greases the skids for armed confrontation and abolishes posse comitatus, allowing Bush to mobilize the military against the American people during civil unrest.

Waco? You want Waco, you'll have Waco events soon enough. I say we'll see at least 1 waco event that you won't be able to deny, TJW, in 2007. We'll see.



posted on Nov, 16 2006 @ 03:41 AM
link   
Great post Roth............


ThatsJustWeird I have posted how someone may see civiI unrest like Titor, but I can not find how the "world defines civil unrest" www.google.com...

Your search - "world defines civil unrest" - did not match any documents.

Where in the world did you come up with "world defines civil unrest" ?


You expect it to be strictly like Waco,
"Waco type event" has more figurative meaning to me, when I read the overall story of JT, it's not literally like Waco. I think you should read Roth last post and browse back a few pages.



[edit on 16-11-2006 by XPhiles]



posted on Nov, 16 2006 @ 09:45 AM
link   



posted on Nov, 16 2006 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vitchilo
I'm not aware of any, yet.

Thank you for being the only one to give a straight answer....


Waco? You want Waco, you'll have Waco events soon enough. I say we'll see at least 1 waco event that you won't be able to deny, TJW, in 2007. We'll see.

Question 1b:
Why in 2007? Titor said that we would start to see them in 2004.
Could it be that Titor was *shocker* wrong!?




Question 2:
Do you honestly believe that in a few years after a nuclear war, which was preceeded by 10 years of civil war, which was followed by at least 5 more years of killing (Titor said they continued to kill people until 2020 - which we'll get to in another question)...do you believe after all that and our country, economy, everything we've worked to hard to build has been destroyed that somehow a few people will defy every natural law known to man and create time machines even though there's not even enough clean water (which is essential to life) to go around?



posted on Nov, 16 2006 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by XPhiles
You expect it to be strictly like Waco,

no no no no no
Maybe the first few events would be like Waco, but by now they should be much WORSE than what happened at Waco.

What happened at Waco?
Civilians fought against who? The government. The government fought back.
That's a waco event. That's two groups engaged in armed conflict. Titor never said anything otherwise. Again, if Titor meant something else, then why did he say that?




"Waco type event" has more figurative meaning to me, when I read the overall story of JT, it's not literally like Waco. I think you should read Roth last post and browse back a few pages.

Why would I read what Roth wrote? Roth's posts are irrelevant, it's Titor's post that count.
If you read Roth's post you would see that the way he posted Titor's quotes were to fit HIS views, not Titor's. All he did was mismatch Titor's quotes in order to mislead people like you.
My suggestion to you is to read Titor's posts for yourself (in the correct context) and stop relying on Roth. You're going to be horribly decieved if you keep doing that. Roth is just posting his own views then twisting Titor's words to try and fit his views...



posted on Nov, 16 2006 @ 06:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
Question 1:
Why in 2007? Titor said that we would start to see them in 2004.
Could it be that Titor was *shocker* wrong!?

Titor never said that. He only gave his definition of how he remembered that war....


Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
Question 2:
Do you honestly believe that in a few years after a nuclear war, which was preceeded by 10 years of civil war, which was followed by at least 5 more years of killing (Titor said they continued to kill people until 2020 - which we'll get to in another question)...do you believe after all that and our country, economy, everything we've worked to hard to build has been destroyed that somehow a few people will defy every natural law known to man and create time machines even though there's not even enough clean water (which is essential to life) to go around?

Why not? Many worlds have been build AND destroyed, starting with the use of someone's imagination.....



posted on Nov, 16 2006 @ 06:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
Why would I read what Roth wrote? Roth's posts are irrelevant, it's Titor's post that count.
If you read Roth's post you would see that the way he posted Titor's quotes were to fit HIS views, not Titor's. All he did was mismatch Titor's quotes in order to mislead people like you.
My suggestion to you is to read Titor's posts for yourself (in the correct context) and stop relying on Roth. You're going to be horribly decieved if you keep doing that. Roth is just posting his own views then twisting Titor's words to try and fit his views...

Tssk, tssk, now that's not very nice of you thatsjustweird... fortunately the reader is intelligent enough to decide that for him/herself.... I can back up everything using all of Titor's quotes and their meanings in their context.... the only thing you do is antagonizing....



posted on Nov, 16 2006 @ 06:48 PM
link   

Question 1b:
Why in 2007? Titor said that we would start to see them in 2004.
Could it be that Titor was *shocker* wrong!?

Like I said, there's ``little`` waco events happening, but we don't necessarly see them, the big ones will begin in 2007, and be very apparent in 2008, just like Titor said.



Question 2:
Do you honestly believe that in a few years after a nuclear war, which was preceeded by 10 years of civil war, which was followed by at least 5 more years of killing (Titor said they continued to kill people until 2020 - which we'll get to in another question)...do you believe after all that and our country, economy, everything we've worked to hard to build has been destroyed that somehow a few people will defy every natural law known to man and create time machines even though there's not even enough clean water (which is essential to life) to go around?


As JT said, big progress were made before the war, surely it was almost completed, the big part was already made and also as Titor said, all big research center and university are not in big cities, cities that were hit.

And I'm pretty convinced we'll see a big economic crash in the next months, and that will just accelerate the process, this, and more laws, maybe war with Iran... also, the law asking Homeland security to leave the country after january 14,2007...

[edit on 16-11-2006 by Vitchilo]



posted on Nov, 16 2006 @ 11:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vitchilo
Like I said, there's ``little`` waco events happening, but we don't necessarly see them


There's no such thing as a "little" waco event. Titor never said that.


the big ones will begin in 2007, and be very apparent in 2008, just like Titor said.

Titor never said this either. He said by 2008 the war will be affecting everyone. Wars don't just pop up. Especially civil wars. Especially civil wars in 1st world countries where there's currently no reason to start killing each other.



As JT said, big progress were made before the war

Got a quote??



surely it was almost completed, the big part was already made and also as Titor said, all big research center and university are not in big cities, cities that were hit.

You must not know about nuclear war and/or you don't believe there was a 10 year civil war.


And I'm pretty convinced we'll see a big economic crash in the next months

No, that's what you WANT to see. Too bad for you.
Catch the news today? Of course you didn't, you're in Canada and US news is irrelevant to you.
Well, inflation is in check, the dollar is rising, and oil prices dropped. All this with the holiday season coming up means the economy will continue to grow at a steady clip. Especially since consumer confidence is at it's highest level since 2002, which will make up for any slowing of the housing market. We already talked about how the unemployment rate continues to fall (just a side note - in New York City, the unemployment rate hit a 30 year low).

Yeah, you WANT an crash to happen. That's the only reason I can think of that would make you keep saying that....



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 137  138  139    141  142  143 >>

log in

join