The American Civil War of 2005 as predicted by John Titor

Here is some fodder for the Titorites looking for Waco events. Police burn down house for no valid reason, Kill a dog, and crash a tank into cars.

Have at it.

Originally posted by Glyph_D
i disagree, i think the civil unrest is so common thats it hard to recognize.

Sad....
Just more proof you're off in your own little dream world and not reality. There are people out there that can help you glyph....

....but unrest is here by the plenty.

Where?

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird

Originally posted by Glyph_D
....but unrest is here by the plenty.

Where?

how about the presidents huge approval rating for starters. the list is actually pretty big when you get down to it.

Ron Paul has a good sized list; granted he doesnt have the absolute solution, but he does have a good place to start when it come to making things better.

you guys take the term unrest to an extreme, so extreme that it would be more suitable to use a different term; like rebellious, revolutionary, ect.. what i mean by unrest is that people are dissatisfied about the current situation.

the majority of the people dont like whats going on with this country. if you want to say something like "people have always been like that". well then, thats why ive said its pretty damn common so its unrecognizable.

in my dreamworld the people(not all, just the informed ones) are upset with their govt. subconsciously they are waiting for an event(with undeniable evidence) to give them the justification to fight back.



to Terapin you say youve seen civilwars and "actual" unrest. can i ask you> what event took place(the catalyst) to start the aggressive action?

im going to assume your answer(if im wrong ill correct myself) and state this> thats the very thing the people are waiting/dreading to take place. it would be essentially "the point of no return" for the people.

I'll just clarify by stating that civil unrest, as it relates to a pending civil War, is not simply people unhappy with what is going on. You speak about public dissatisfaction, and not about unrest, which is direct action in the form of Civil disobedience,  massive protests, riots, sabotage, and escalating "criminal" activity.

  As you mentioned, people have always had times of dissatisfaction, but direct action against the Status Quo is an entirely different matter. Unhappy people does not mean a pending civil war by any means, as if it did, we would have a war every few years.

The US State Department describes civil unrest as violence. Think car bombing in Ireland/Britain as an example. When troops wade into crowds, clubs swinging, and tear gas makes your eyes burn, that is a hallmark of civil unrest. Not Bubba and Joe complaining over a beer, about how they don't like what the government is doing.

Originally posted by Terapin
The US State Department describes civil unrest as violence. Think car bombing in Ireland/Britain as an example. When troops wade into crowds, clubs swinging, and tear gas makes your eyes burn, that is a hallmark of civil unrest.

unfortunately for you this claim didnt come from the US state dept, it came from a supposed timetraveller.

and as for your hallmarks thats way past civil unrest thats moved into the territory of riots/war. what you describe are the repercussions/consequences of civil unrest. the catalyst i spoke of is what evolved the situation past unrest(for all of your examples, even the ones you didnt mention). to say there is no civil unrest is to say that the US population is completely satisfied/peaceful.

that being said; it can be argued that "to claim" civil unrest as a comin condition, is a bogus claim. not because its wrong , but becuase its too vague of a term.

unrest:An uneasy or nervous state

nervous state well we clearly have that going on in spades. war on terror, Al Qaeda, 9-11, WMDs, Iran, muslim extremists, ect....

we have a bunch of cowards on capital hill, to afraid to voice thier opinions of the current administration. for fear of losing their jobs at some point we wont want them representing us any more, and we will take back what has be taken from us.



*i think its funny how you(not just you) will bend technicalities to suit your perspective, and deny others from that same privileged.

Glyph, I'm telling you man, you gotta come join us in the real world. Much better here....

What you are saying is not by any way shape or form how those in the real world describe Civil Unrest. That is no one's definition except yours and yours alone. I challenge you show us 1 person who agrees with your definition of civil unrest.

The president's approval rating low classified as civil unrest?
What a joke. No it's not civil unrest. No one on earth would claim that. It's simply means no one likes him. Does anyone die because no one likes the president? No
But according to Titor even before the nuke war millions die. How does that happen if all we're doing is not liking the president?

reply to post by ThatsJustWeird


Revolutions and civil wars are never about single issues although such actions need a central battle cry around which to rally. Clusters of issues generally catalyse the destabilsation of a nations, so one would need to look at the particular issues in the USA.

A complete collapse of the US dollar would push the USA over the edge -- not into anarchy -- but into the birthpangs of what comes next; and that looks a great deal like civil warfare.

It may be that a large enough group in the USA believing that the next terror event in the USA will be false flag would then convert into civil unrest and civil war. Also, a shocking police action by a major police force in the USA could awaken the wrath of the people when they realise that the police have gone from being public servants who preserve the peace into being "an army" under federal control and who exist simply to support the authority of whosoever is 'top dog' at the time.

....you guys are arguing over the meaning of a term?? ok think about this the longer the iraq war lasts the larger the rift is growing between supporters and non-supporters weve gone from simple bring the troops home ((leftwing)) and they dont understand the situation ((right wing)) to WARMONGERERING *&!$$# ((left wing)) and unpatriotic cut and runners ((rightwing)) imean we need to wake up and see that CNN fox news all major outlets are turning us against each other from immigration reform to the war to every aspect of everything but too many are convinced there living in the real world and noone else knows what there talking about ((this goes for everyone not singling anyone out sorry if it comes across like that)) soon we will reach a point of no return and we propably wont be fighting the government well propably be fighting each other at first anyway

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
Does anyone die because no one likes the president? No

But according to Titor even before the nuke war millions die. How does that happen if all we're doing is not liking the president?

well im just goin to free think here>>

the truckers union has a big beef with the president and his policies. lets say the truckers union starts refusing to ship goods because of the Mexican truckers union being formed. lets say the strike has no major effect becuase there are more than enough mexicans to pick up the slack.

now with that being the situation lets go further.

the truckers(american) realize that they have to go bigger to get the attention of the govt. so they start talking politics with farmers/industries, an alliance begins to form. and they start to take steps to obtain some leverage with/against the amnesty truckers union.

lets say ultimately no progress is achieved, and so the trump card is thrown down. the farmers and industries stop making/shipping goods, then major problems start to develop across the nation. shortages start to become a serious issue, so rationing becomes a reality.

lets say the govt bribes some farmers/industries to stay in the market, well this is going to have the same effect as the truckers strike had. more problems.

now things are getting elevated to the point of "aggressive" outbursts(perhaps some "resistance" has already taken place by this point).


people starving everywhere, and dieing from that starvation.


and a throw back to one of my previous posts.

so people start taking matters into their own hands, stealing, pirating, and so on.

because this backlash is a direct response to the short commings of our govt, they(govt) issue orders to be lenient with offender because they are just trying to survive. so non-lethals become a standard in police work, unfortunately people start dieing while being arrests for attempting to survive. then the people start carrying protection out of fear of being killed while trying to provide for their families.

soon people start forming raid parties((like pack hunters) look outs and what not) and start becomeing very successful in what they are doing. word gets out and more and more groups are being formed(possibly making names for themselves[?]). soon the problem become to much of a problem for local police force to handle so the UN get called in to try to "keep the peace".

no doubt this action would offend the "rebel groups", seeing as all they are trying to do is get by. so major confrontation takes root, and with community lockdowns already being in effect, violators would be considered rebels and would be shot on sight.

all of this because we didnt like the "policies" of the president(in other words his low approval rating).


EDIT: forgot to mention that there are other variables that are going to be taking place while this "could" be happening. the depreciation of the dollar, the war on terror, 9-11(they will never let you forget this(not that you should, but they want you to remember it their way)).

[edit on 13/9/07 by Glyph_D]

Your scenario, where people take things into their own hands and defy the government. IS Civil Unrest. Direct action.

Equating a dictionary definition of unrest, to the meaning of Civil unrest, is inaccurate. Unrest, is not Civil Unrest which has a clearly associated definition around the globe. If we assume Titor to be real, for the sake of the discussion, then we must also agree that he uses real words, with real meaning that is in agreement with the standard meaning. The meaning of Civil Unrest has always meant direct action. Strikes, Marches, Protests and the escalation into more violent action such as riots. Civil Unrest has never meant an unhappy population. It is an unhappy population that takes matters into their own hands through direct action, often, but not exclusively, violent.

Type " Examples of Civil Unrest" into a search engine such as Google and take a look. You will see mention of riots, not people calling Bush the Devil while they quietly go about their lives. Chavez called Bush the Devil, and no one accused him of civil unrest for it.

Perhaps, since Titor is a fabricated individual, you wish to fabricate a new meaning for the term. That is fine, but don't expect anyone to agree with your new definition.

reply to post by Terapin


im not fabricating anything here. i guess you could say that im am the exception to your rule.

The meaning of Civil Unrest has always meant direct action. Strikes, Marches, Protests and the escalation into more violent action such as riots. Civil Unrest has never meant an unhappy population. It is an unhappy population that takes matters into their own hands through direct action, often, but not exclusively, violent.

hmmm you do realize marches and protests are taking place as we speak... right? granted it is getting no exposure and its numbers are low, but they are there and that enough(for now)...right?

it was wise of you to add that last sentence in the quote above.
thats my point, violent action is NOT necessary to claim civil unrest. beautifully this counters your whole point(i wonder if you realized you typed it?).

and to further my point, would you consider a complete change of power in the house of the senate by vote, the countless requests of impeachment apon the administration; being an act of protest?? if so it would be evidence of civil unrest.

EDIT: lets not forget the Ed Brown situation, he is taking direct action, and hes not alone. im most certain there are more points to add, but what i have given is more than sufficient to meet "your" criteria.


i never stated people talking politics at the water cooler during work equates to civil unrest, however i would never deny someone the right to claim it as so.




[edit on 13/9/07 by Glyph_D]

Originally posted by Glyph_D
hmmm

you do realize marches and protests are taking place as we speak... right? granted it is getting no exposure and its numbers are low, but they are there and that enough(for now)...right?

Marches and protests are just that....marches and protests.

thats my point, violent action is NOT necessary to claim civil unrest.

Umm...YES it is. Why do you think they have seperate words for "marches" "protests" "civil unrest"
There's also civil disobedience, which still isn't considered civil unrest (according to how the world -except you and you alone- defines things)
The 60s and 70s has very good examples of all of these things.

This is not to say that one can't lead to the other, but they are clearly serperate and NOT all lumped under "civil unrest."

and to further my point, would you consider a complete change of power in the house of the senate by vote, the countless requests of impeachment apon the administration; being an act of protest?? if so it would be evidence of civil unrest.

lol
No, that isn't anything except our political processes at work.
The House DID impeach Clinton. That was not considered by any one in the world to be considered civil unrest nor did it lead to civil unrest.

lets not forget the Ed Brown situation, he is taking direct action, and hes not alone. im most certain there are more points to add, but what i have given is more than sufficient to meet "your" criteria.

What he's doing would be considered at the harshest civil disobedience.

i never stated people talking politics at the water cooler during work equates to civil unrest, however i would never deny someone the right to claim it as so.

Which is why one day I'm hoping you join us here in the real world and not your fantasy land....

[edit on 14-9-2007 by ThatsJustWeird]

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
This is not to say that one can't lead to the other, but they are clearly serperate and NOT all lumped under "civil unrest."

why not? why cant the term be a superposition(exact term escapes me:/, but what i mean is it encompasses many ideas that are related)? i have never read a clear concise meaning to civil unrest. when i read the term "civil unrest" what i begin to ponder is the "why" instead of the what(the context is the point). no doubt you will reject this line of thought, but it seems far more appropriate.

and given that there is a great deal of context taking place right now that coincides with titors claims. well... id say hmmm maybe hes legit(maybe).

lets get to brass tacks> the real reason you refuse to accept civil unrest is in its grassroots stage is because that means the hoax might be real(scary huh?). and you cant have that, youve spent way to much of your time devoted to the slandering of a "fictional character"(as you put it).


but to be honest it doesnt matter if hes legit now(i dont think it every "really" mattered). we(the people) have some prioritizing to do before this is all said and done, be it peaceful or out right violent it will need to be done.


EDIT: now i just thought of something, you can be arrested for protest, you can be arrested for marches, you can be arrested for civil disobedience. but has anyone every been arrested for civil unrest???

what im trying to point out is these terms are separate(as youve stated) but only as legal terminology. the first three have there place in the legal system(judge, jury, executioner), however civil unrest does not. hopefully most will grasp what im failing to express here


[edit on 14/9/07 by Glyph_D]

civil unrest ? does anybody here remember 1968 ? If there wasn't a civil war then, there probably never will be another.


1968 - Orangeburg Massacre, S.C. State Univ., Feb. 8, Orangeburg, South Carolina
1968 - 1968 Washington, DC riots, April 4-8, Washington, D.C.
1968 - Baltimore Riot 1968, April 6-7, Baltimore, MD
1968 - Chicago riot 1968, West Side Riots, April 7-14, Chicago, Illinois
1968 - Salisbury riot, May 21, Salisbury, Maryland
1968 - Louisville riots of 1968, May 27, Louisville, Kentucky
1968 - Glenville Shootout, July 23-28, Cleveland, Ohio
1968 - 1968 Democratic National Convention riot, Aug. 1968, Chicago, Illinois

besides

titor told us of organized troops engaged in combat. these troops were urban citizens who left the cities due to their civil rights being taken away, and they were fighting the rural citizens.

this, of course, is not happening.

It was supposed to begin in 2004, along with monthly waco events that are covered by the mainstream media like elian gonzales that got progressively worse

this, of course, is not happening

Because the original thread was a hoax, just like hundresd of others we have all seen.


talk about welcome to the real world

if you want to go with the old "his timeline is different than ours", don't forget he left us with a 2% divergence calculation

2%

actually 2% from 1970 whatever. i believe he set foot there first. real significant divergence wouldn't occur until x event didn't happen. (x being the virable of the 2000 crash) so now what?

Originally posted by some_stupid_name
actually 2% from 1970 whatever. i believe he set foot there first. real significant divergence wouldn't occur until x event didn't happen. (x being the virable of the 2000 crash) so now what?

so the 2% is compounded ?

c'mon folks, its a hoax. its clever and entertaining, but its just alas babylon and hyperspace combined.

you can't have it both ways. you can't claim his predictions are relevant when you twist current events to match his predictions, then claim the divergence theory when they don't

its like saying you belive the bible is true, just not the noahs ark stuff

doesn't work that way

its either a hoax, or 100% true

reply to post by syrinx high priest


i dont understand you. i could understand if titors claims had absolutely no relation to "our" current events, but his claims are only off by a small margin(maybe 2%).

you want it to be a hoax? ...fine. i however am looking at the bigger picture here, i believe when titor spoke of the ramification of timetravel(there is no real truth) he was right(in theory at this point).

every one here at this site is seeking the truth, whether it be NWO , ETs, paranormal, ect... "IF" this reality is as frail as titor described, personally i say that pretty damn significant. so significant that i would believe its more important than any other form of information on could obtain.

so proving whether hes real or not, "can" be a big deal(should one feel so inclined to devote oneself to the truth).

no doubt TJW will come in saying im off my rocker, but this pursuit is meaningful(in some regards). and to come out and say hes a fraud/hoax without any evidence is denial at a defensive level, what do you gain by denying yourself intellectual freedom?


thats where my indevours lye, now that has no bearings to his other claims(war and what not).


actually we can have it both ways(as described by titor himself). IF hes real than what he spoke was the truth....right?

for the moment lets say hes legit. did he or did he not say he noticed sport games and scores haveing different turn outs? that right there is having it both ways(as you put it). the game still took place, but had a different date/outcome. from your logic that scenario is twisted is it not? but it was outline by titor, 7 years later we are finding ourselves in a similar "twisted" scenario.

Originally posted by Glyph_D
reply to post by syrinx high priest

 

i dont understand you. i could understand if titors claims had absolutely no relation to "our" current events, but his claims are only off by a small margin(maybe 2%

).

you want it to be a hoax? ...fine.

well, there's that little thing about 3 billion deaths. why would anyone fight so hard to make a story true that involves nuclear holocasut ?

there have been 44 months with no waco events covered by the mainstream media. how is that a 2% divergence ? really, lets just start with that one. 2% divergence means 42 events isntead of 44, not ZERO

how about the 2004 olympics ? how is that a 2% divergence ?

how about the polar ice caps melting ? how is that a 2% divergence ?

how about no civil war ? how is that a 2% divergence ?

what do you stake your claims on ? mad cow ? that was a story before titor brought it up, so that doesn't count.

Cerns announcement about black holes ? that info has proven to have been available on the net prior to timetraveller_0 posting, so that doesn't count.

I think you either like to argue the kewl side of the issue, or have an emotional attachment to the story, or you are just too stubborn to admit you are wrong

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
well, there's that little thing about 3 billion deaths. why would anyone fight so hard to make a story true that involves nuclear holocasut ?

im not fighting for this to happen, what i saying is.... well to be honest out side of saying that timetravel is as he states im not saying anything. i dont want a war, becuase im still waiting for some kick ass games to come out for my ps3.(me selfish )

there have been 44 months with no waco events covered by the mainstream media. how is that a 2% divergence ? really, lets just start with that one. 2% divergence means 42 events isntead of 44, not ZERO

hmmmm, why are you looking in the media?? are you suggesting that the 2% will allow media coverage?

during this day and age, you would rest your life in the hands of the media?? all they care about is keeping you tuned in(profits).

by the way your math is a little off.

I think you either like to argue the kewl side of the issue, or have an emotional attachment to the story, or you are just too stubborn to admit you are wrong

if im doing this just to be kewl im sorry(it dont seem like it tho).

you asked why/what i see.

i think(aside from the time issue) whats taking place right now is what gives credit to his story.
you guys say there is no civil unrest, but i believe that to be wrong.
russia is trying very hard to separate itself from western influence.
US has a very horrible international position as of right now.



i understand your point(well maybe), if your saying that all of this was clearly evident during 2000 and titor just tried to fill in some gaps using QM as a guidline; thats possible. im not going to rule that out, but im also not going to rule out the possibility of his legitimacy, no matter how ridiculous(timetraveller) it may sound.

we can not obtain any more info from titor, becuase he is either back in his timeline or laughing it up in his grandmothers basement.


i guess the reason for my stamina(so to speak)is a belief i have.

"even an idiot can have a spark of genius"

if hes real, ITS all real.

if hes fake, he may have gotten lucky.

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
civil unrest ? does anybody here remember 1968 ? If there wasn't a civil war then, there probably never will be another.

a civil war is not going to start without a banner/platform to stand apon. im not sure about all of them but most were racially guided(right?). im not saying fighting racism is a bad reason to fight, but its not on the same caliber as a governmental overthrow.

we are getting ALOT of issue that are going on right now that seemed to be unrelated at first but as more time passes they are being revealed to be connected, and some can be traced back to our very own govt. most of these connection are conspiracy topics, but that doesnt discredit them outright.