It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
1.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
2.The year 2008 was a general date by which time everyone will realize the world they thought they were living in was over.
3.By 2008, I would say the civil conflict is pretty much at everyone's doorstep.
4.From the age of 8 to 12(EDIT: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.
5.Outright open fighting was common by then and I joined a shotgun infantry unit in 2011.
1. A war between factions or regions of the same country.
2. A state of hostility or conflict between elements within an organization: “The broadcaster is in the midst of a civil war that has brought it to the brink of a complete management overhaul” (Bill Powell).
1.a. A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties.
b. The period of such conflict.
c. The techniques and procedures of war; military science.
2.a. A condition of active antagonism or contention: a war of words; a price war.
b. A concerted effort or campaign to combat or put an end to something considered injurious: the war against acid rain.
Originally posted by Glyph_D
in the year 2008 incriminating information will be revealed to the public, and will anger millions of citizens, resulting in open fighting(2008OF?). the information that is released (most likely occur during another smearing campaign in the elections of 2008) will reveal to the public that the world they live in is total bullsh*t. the information will also detail when the lies started causing major problem to the common citizen(2004).
Originally posted by XPhiles
How long will the American people procrastinate?
Originally posted by Glyph_D......
yeah thats what i said, by that time the fighting is already common, ill quote my self
he said that between the time his family leaves thier house-and the time he joins the infantry, is the time frame open militia fighting starts to occur(2006-2011).
this quote does not in any way say fighting starts in 2011(one of many points you fail to realise)but its the only dates he gives toward open fighting, so ive compiled them just for you.
your dictionary BS needs to stop im right your wrong, ive proven im right period.
or is it just me, plz any one come to my aid becuase this guy has lost his grip. if you havent been following , basically this dousche bag is saying that even tho its in the dictionary its not really a definition, becuase its not the first reference.
seriously Roth, Xphiles, Vitchilo, TigerKing, and a few others(sorry for the lack of reffrence if your one) have been doing just that, and i refuse to quote what weve already stated many times over. you need to go back and read our claims. and quit saying we havent showed any, becuase its the reason most have posted(showing claims).
ive mentioned my age once before, but i quess you just skimmed over my post as ive come to expect. im not 15 nor 16.......I WANT YOUR AGE NOW either your 15 or your 93 and have lost your damn mind.
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.
THis is becomming an ever more realistic scenario.
A third party pops up on the scene in 2008, and reveals the truth about how the majority of the public are being lied to by highly organized secret societies which are keeping the american public in the dark so that they can be easily controlled and manipulated.
Take this scenario for instance, in the run-up to the 2008 election, a CIA and/or White House Senator reveal documents and proof that implicate Bush Jnr and Senior. and all the Neo-Con hawks, plus members of the Israeli parliament as having organised and funding the events of 911 as a shock and awe to the public so they may get their support in the illegal wars of Afghanistan and Iraq.
2005 – Start of rejection European Constitutional Treaty - “They [ Arabs & Jews ] are not directly involved [ in the US civil war ] but political situations are dependant on Western stability, which collapses in 2005.”
The useless name calling seems to make the thread less attractive, however that could be one of his intentions.
according to Titor, from 2006 to 2010 the federal police and National Guard will become pretty active in this country.....and by 2010 the division between the "cities" and the "country" was well defined.........
It's very possible for all those decisions that we make could lag our worldline from Titor's.
Who said it's a lag?
If opposite teams could win, then who's to say a civil war will happen?
Originally posted by Melbourne_Militia
does anyone else think this is possible? Yeah, its a big ask for a government whistleblower to risk their life to air accusations and evidence publicly like this but it is not in the realms of impossibility.
Originally posted by Vekar
I think the point right now is: WHAT or WHO would kick off a civil war or revolution in the USA? Martial law? Police state gung-ho's into the open more than ever? All the leaders of peace organizations start to dissapear? What?
Then: HOW LONG BEFORE PEOPLE RETALIATE?......
Civil war breaks out, who is our allies and who is our enemies? That is the question.
Originally posted by SAGEX89
ok so John Titor described the world as we know it as a tree. Maybe a civil war didnt happen because 9-11 did.
The clash at Hampton Court is a symptom of the crisis gripping Europe.
The economic integration of the Continent's 450 million consumers into a prosperous single market—the EU's raison d'etre since its creation after World War II—has come to a virtual standstill. At the same time, growing numbers of Europeans have awakened to the threat of globalization, with little agreement on how to cope.
On one side are the core economies of the continent: Germany, Italy and France, all stagnating yet determined to preserve their vision of a "social Europe" that protects citizens from too much change. On the other side: Britain and the Scandinavians, who want to meet the challenges of globalization by staying competitive, flexible and attuned to the fast-changing demands of the market.
Concern as UK debt crisis 'spirals out of control'
Published: 22/12/2006 - 10:42:34 AM
Concern that the UK's "debt crisis" was spiralling out of control increased in 2006 with a record number of people failing to keep their heads above water. The personal debt mountain is now more than £1.3 trillion whilst for the first time the amount of people going insolvent during the year will top 100,000. And the picture could get worse in 2007 as consumers continue to pay the price of chronic overspending in the first half of this decade, experts predict. Consumers in the UK are now responsible for a third of all unsecured debt in Western Europe, with the typical Brit now owing more than £3,000 - almost double that of his continental cousin.
"People will still continue to overspend. County Court Judgements will continue to rise, bankruptcies and IVAs will continue to rise, repossessions will continue to rise. We will still have increasing number of people in debt even if nothing nasty happens. "If something nasty does happen, all bets are off." A housing crash, a flurry of interest rate rises or an economic slump could spark a deepening of the crisis. "This year the problem became more visible. The problem is out in the open and people are talking about it more. It is almost like an alcoholic admitting he has a problem - part of the solution is admitting you have a problem."
Germany's EU Presidency Dominated by the Constitutional Crisis
High expectations at a time of deep uncertainty and lack of direction.
The German Presidency of the Council of the European Union comes at a difficult time. With the EU in deep crisis, the continent's expectations of Germany are running high. Angela Merkel's government has adopted a broad-based work programme for its EU Presidency. Ultimately, however, the benchmark of its success is whether it will manage to revive the EU's stalled constitutional process.
It was the failure of the constitutional referenda in France and the Netherlands last year which plunged the EU into crisis – but this was merely the symptom, not the cause, of Europe's current malaise. The fact is that the EU is suffering from profound uncertainty and lack of direction, and is seeking to justify its existence and determine its limits. Europe's economic problems, the recent and most ambitious round of enlargement and, not least, the debate about Turkey's accession are major concerns for many EU citizens. They feel increasingly divorced from the European project – a good indication that the integration policy consensus of previous decades is no longer holding up.
On the contrary, Europe faces a massive crisis of confidence and purpose. Of course, the German Presidency cannot overcome this crisis within just six months – but the European public is expecting Berlin, at the very least, to chart a way out of Europe's depression.
Italy in Crisis
Publication Date: December 18, 2006
Italy’s economy is among the most sluggish in Europe. Spain, formerly a poor nation on Europe’s Southern periphery, is set to surpass Italy’s GDP per capita by 2009 at the latest. As early as 2004, Martin Larch noted that “Within the EU, Italy ranks second last in terms of average real GDP growth [from 1992 through 2003] outperforming only Germany.”
Italy’s average rate of growth during that period was 1.4%, compared to more than 3% for the U.S. and more than 2% for the EU as a whole. Since 2004, things have not gotten better. Unemployment currently stands at around 7% [L’Espresso--Italian text], and this year’s deficit stands at 4.8 percent of GDP, much higher than the 3 percent permitted by the EU’s Stability Pact. Moreover, Italy’s national debt now stands at a remarkably high 108% of GDP, even as labor unions continue to veto proposals that could lead to more economic vitality. To put it plainly, Italy is in trouble.
Catherine Field: French high life is heading for a fall
Thursday December 28, 2006
France is running a record trade deficit of around $5 billion each month, and one in 12 of the French workforce has no job. Within a quarter century, the economy could be bankrupted by a pensions crisis. Today, its welfare system costs a record $2 billion every month more than it receives in contributions. Any trip to the doctor results in a prescription for at least three or four drugs - "anything less and you get accused by the patient of not doing enough," says a physician. But even the slightest attempts at health-service reform, such as the introduction of generic drugs rather than brands or scaling back subsidies for treatment at spa resorts, meet with howls of dismay.
National competitiveness in key sectors is melting like icecream in the sun, driven by low investment, the high exchange rate of the euro and sky-high employment charges. Hardly a week goes by without news of a company that is shifting its textile base to China, its car-parts production to Eastern Europe, its call service to Morocco. "Made in France" is becoming such a rarity that Finance Minister Thierry Breton has proposed a new label, "Designed in France," which at least would reflect French input in a product. So what will happen? France's traditional flaw is that it resolves its problems through clash and crisis rather than forethought and consensus, and this time is unlikely to be any different. So, for next year at least, the status quo will remain. At some point, though, the gravy train will hit the buffers - and the sight will not be pleasant.
Is the E.U. America's Friend or Foe?
December 22, 2006
It was taken for granted that the emerging European Union would share America's core values. The reality is quite different. As this hugely ambitious but flawed project has taken shape, policy differences between Europe and the U.S. have both multiplied and deepened. Recent differences between the E.U. and the U.S. include those over Iraq, Palestine, Iran, ballistic missile defense, the international criminal court, genetically modified crops, the Kyoto accords, farm support, China, Taiwan, Cuba, the death penalty, as well as a whole raft of trade issues. Indeed, we have now reached the point where E.U. policy gives every impression of having been defined in opposition to U.S. policy and where it is abundantly clear that the European aspiration is to be a rival, not a partner. The political nature of the E.U.—which was sold to the British public as a strictly limited commercial undertaking—raises important questions about the long-term stability of this new political entity, as well as about the future relations between the E.U. and the U.S. In its top-down way Europe may have created many of the attributes of a state, but there is, of course, no such thing as a European people or European nation.
There is consequently no such thing as European public opinion or a European public space, or a European demos. And if people do not feel common bonds of allegiance and obligation, and if this problem is compounded by the lack of a common language in which political discourse can take place, there is the ever-present danger that they will not accept majority decisions.It is perhaps too soon to make a final judgment about whether the introduction of the euro has failed in its central aim of creating political unity, or whether it has led to heightened tensions as members blame one another for the eurozone's dismal performance. The record to date, however, strongly suggests the latter. For example, for several years articles blaming Germany for holding back any economic recovery were a staple ingredient of the newspapers in all of the 12 eurozone members, while German economic commentators customarily attributed their country's prolonged economic stagnation to loss of control over interest rates to the European Central Bank, a view which is shared by, among others, Professor Milton Friedman. Among the research staffs of international banks and think tanks there is now regular discussion about whether Italy or Spain will the first to quit the euro in order to retain control of a key economic variable as the first step in overcoming deeply rooted economic problems.
Not surprisingly, while the U.S. economy dragged the world economy out of recession, the eurozone tugged in the other direction. Such are the huge disparities in economic, technological, and military power that the ambition to create a unitary European state as a countervailing force to the United States is doomed to abject failure. Nevertheless, its pursuit continues—to the detriment of the economic and security interests of both North Americans and Europeans. The attempt to create an independent and integrated European defense capability—or what the French refer to as Defense Europe—has some extremely serious implications for the United States. Defense procurement is more and more coming under that 2004 creation, the European Defense Agency.
Its objective is not to open up an E.U.-wide market in procurement but rather to provide another building block in the creation of a unitary European state. The result can only be to destroy the special relationship that exists between Britain and the U.S. While America begins to ponder the wisdom of its support for the E.U., the choices facing Britain are more urgent and acute. For decades it was possible for many to believe that, as long as the country positioned itself more or less mid-way between Europe and America in terms of public philosophy and economic outlook, minor adjustments could be made according to circumstance and all would be well. It is now obvious that the innately anti-American and anti-democratic character of the E.U. mean that, in as far as it was ever viable, that option is no longer available. For Britain, therefore, the lesson ought to be clear. The more it is absorbed into the European project, the more it will distance itself not only from its most powerful and most constant ally, the United States, but also from self-government and the economic successes for which it is qualified by history and culture.
Europe’s VAT crisis
Published: December 13 2006 21:24 | Last updated: December 13 2006 21:24
Value added tax has been one of Europe's most successful inventions, spreading to more than 130 countries over the last 50 years. So it is all the more galling that Europe's own VAT system has descended to a state of crisis.
Fraud and other VAT abuses are now robbing European governments of one euro out of every ten.EU governments are under particular attack from scams that exploit the absence of borders controls and the tax-free status of cross-border trade. This fraud – known as “missing trader” or “carousel” fraud – is responsible for the theft of billions of euros ever year.
Europe is losing faith in its most successful policy
Published: December 12 2006 18:59 | Last updated: December 12 2006 18:59
The debate will raise questions about what it means to be European and whether the EU can carry on growing without grinding to a halt or further alienating its citizens. The outcome and tone of the talks will have hard-edged consequences: is it going to become even tougher for candidates to join the club? Senior EU officials say this is a dangerous moment. A Eurobarometer poll this year found that only 45 per cent of EU citizens want to see other countries join, a proportion that falls to less than one in three in France, Germany, Luxembourg and Austria.Concerns about the pace of enlargement were cited by both French and Dutch voters as reasons for their rejection of the EU’s proposed constitutional treaty in 2005.
Turkey’s prospects for EU membership have been acknowledged since 1963, in spite of the vast majority of its land mass being in Asia. Cyprus was admitted in 2004, in spite of its being only 150 miles from Syria and 500 miles from the European continent. That position is seen as “ironic” in Brussels, where officials argue it was French President Jacques Chirac himself who put the process on autopilot when he insisted that Bulgaria and Romania should be guaranteed entry by 2008 at the latest, regardless of whether they were ready, so that the two, both linguistic affiliates, could inject a dose of Francophonie into the latest expansion.Dutch officials meanwhile say that although Europe has a strategic interest in extending membership into unstable regions, that has to be balanced against the risk of enlargement creating instability inside the Union. That could take the form of a breakdown in integration or the rise of xenophobic political parties in the west.