The American Civil War of 2005 as predicted by John Titor

I wonder, @ what point does it go from "terrorists" acts and become a civil war?

Also, who is it that would make the official declaration anyway?

Originally posted by noosnomrm
I wonder, @ what point does it go from "terrorists" acts and become a civil war?

Also, who is it that would make the official declaration anyway?

I'm not sure if anyone declare's it (maybe the citizens do..) I just honestly can't picture Bush getting up and saying "F*** you US, now we're at war."

I think it's more of a gradual escalation of violence

Originally posted by Legend
That is the army. The army isn't planning to go out onto the streets and start shooting at American citizens. That quote that keeps coming up, "When they say 'their enemies,' they're talking about YOU." Can you see the army marching down the street and start zapping kids who are littering?

Not yet Legend, not yet in the US. Will the Army disobey the Governments orders when that moment comes? Not very likely....

Originally posted by Legend
I agree, that will be fascinating, and I know this announcement is bound to be released sometime soon. The thing is, I don't think that it could be considered a valid prediction, because, like I said, this experiment was being worked on for the past 70 years. The scientists at CERN know that they could accidentally create a microsingularity, which is why they're so careful with it.

You do realize what that means when that moment comes?

hey could it be possible that someone could misspell his name from titor to teetor???

American civil war coming soon...

...at least in video game form. It's not a rich vs. poor game, but consists of America shattered into six pieces which you must re-unite:

Shattered Union

Story:
Following a great increase in terrorism, internal strife, and ultimately, the nuclear destruction of Washington, D.C., the United States shatters into a half-dozen nation-states that descend into war. Take the helm of one of these newfound sovereignties (or the "peacekeeping" European Expeditionary Force) and struggle to reunify America...by any means necessary!

Features:

Modern 3D tactical war game viewed from a "bird's-eye" overhead camera.
Non-linear mission progression with changes based on player-made decisions.
Real-time resolution of turned-based moves. Take your time while you decide your move, but once you have selected your action, see the results all play out in full animation models, exploding vehicles, and burning cities and forests!
Fully destructible terrain/environment. As the battle proceeds, everything from explosions and destroyed buildings permanently mark the terrain. Moving tanks will leave tread marks that stay for the duration of the mission. At the end, very little will look the same.
Fight your way across the United States! Had enough of the windy city? Then go ahead and bomb Chicago! Invade across the Rockies into California, capture the tank factories in Ohio, and lay siege to New York City! You decide - the fate of the nation is in your hands!
Choose to play as one of seven different factions: California Commonwealth, Pacifica, Republic of Texas, Great Plains Federation, The Confederacy, New England Alliance and the European Union.
Call up National Guard forces equipped with M1 Abrams battle tanks, Apache helicopters and stealth bombers. Or make a deal with the Russians and equip your boys with MiG fighters and T-95 Heavy Tanks.
Online and offline multiplayer on all platforms.

external image

Ooh...strange game ... "European Union" ... sounds familiar ...

Originally posted by smallpeeps
American civil war coming soon...

...at least in video game form. It's not a rich vs. poor game, but consists of America shattered into six pieces which you must re-unite

Dear god, please don't spam the thread.

THIS IS A CRY FOR HELP. PEOPLE OF ATS, I NEED YOUR HELP

I need some real, reliable proof which prooves or disprooves JT's story. Just one thread of evidence. No taser attacks, no LiveJournal posts, no Babylon books, no laser picture. Please, this is getting real old, real fast.

-Chris

Originally posted by Legend

Originally posted by smallpeeps
American civil war coming soon...

...at least in video game form. It's not a rich vs. poor game, but consists of America shattered into six pieces which you must re-unite

Dear god, please don't spam the thread.

THIS IS A CRY FOR HELP. PEOPLE OF ATS, I NEED YOUR HELP

I need some real, reliable proof which prooves or disprooves JT's story. Just one thread of evidence. No taser attacks, no LiveJournal posts, no Babylon books, no laser picture. Please, this is getting real old, real fast.

-Chris

Chris, apparently you haven't yet recognized the "energies" that were working here. I have and I am sure you will too, eventually. "The people who understand what they are seeing are not aggressive."

Right now we are at this stage:

John Titor
"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."

July, 2005: G.W Bush nominates/appoints Judge John G. Roberts to the US Supreme Court in a desperate attempt to hold the country together, however one area where Judge Roberts disregards for the Constitution & the Bill of Rights is evident is the protection of Property Rights.

Regarding the WACO-type events gradually getting worse:

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

I am sure you will be able to find lots of these WACO-type incidents in the media that started out on a monthly base but are now steadily growing worse...

And to give you a little hint:

"All those arrested are presumed innocent until found guilty in a court of law".....

Let's hope Titor's worldline ultimately appears to be different enough from ours, either perceived as "hoax" or not. Let's hope October 2005 comes and goes without any significant events.

Meanwhile, it never hurts to Prepare yourself Mentally to instantly let go of any achieved comforts and securities, to instantly let go of old Accepted realities or illusions when they no longer serve you.

John Titor:
…..”perhaps its more interesting to consider what I won't be doing to try and stop that war.”

“The goal is to have a place to go other than your house and to be able to trust someone with your life. Foster those relationships now."

“Find 5 people within 100 miles that you trust with your life and stay in contact with them.”

”Get a copy of the US Constitution and read it.”

I wish all of you all the best for the future.

isnt today the 14th?...lets see if the war has started becuase today was supposed to be the day the war will officially start right? if it doesnt start today, then im going to never read another John Titor post again.lol

Roth Joint - Roberts is nothing more than the perfect candidate. He has never had to make a controversial issue in his life, has a record of 2 years on a court as a judge, and the only arguements arising about him are: abortion, some lame duck federalist group, and further lame duck arguements over his faith. All the arguements against him are weak.

Please give some info as to where Roberts dissents from the constitution involving the issue of property rights.

Bush did not appoint him to 'save the country'. Bush sooner or later would have to appoint someone, Roberts was just the perfect candidate.

Originally posted by BirDMan_X
isnt today the 14th?...lets see if the war has started becuase today was supposed to be the day the war will officially start right? if it doesnt start today, then im going to never read another John Titor post again.lol

Where did you get that information from? John Titor has never mentioned a specific date...

-Chris

One more time...

John Titor
"However, there are a great many "non lethal" weapon systems in development that turn out to be quite lethal."
"I would describe it as having a Waco type event every month that steadily gets worse."

3rdcontinentalcongress.org...

When Non-Lethal Weapons Aren't
by MG William A. Flatt

Late last year, increasing concern over the lethality of Taser stun guns and similar devices began to be reported in the independent media. Only now in mid-February does the mainstream media report on the apparent facts surrounding the potential lethality of so-called "non-lethal" weapons. At issue is Taser International's claim that their products, used by thousands of police departments nationwide, will absolutely 'not cause harm'. They even say it's OK to use tasers on kids! [1]

Of course, most concerned patriots remember how CS 'tear gas', a powder banned for use in warfare, was used on the Branch Davidians at Waco in 1993 - and how the manner in which this so-called "non-lethal" weapon was used to immolate more than 80 innocent men, women and children.

I have long asserted to people I know that non-lethal weapons can be made lethal by deliberate misuse. When these weapons get misused, the perpetrator generally is shielded from the consequences of their crime while acting under the color of law, because such weapons are deliberately misconstrued by their manufacturers and some government officials as "safe".

(see link for full article)

*trimmed large quote*

[edit on 16-8-2005 by dbates]

www.atsnn.com...
Posted by: djohnsto77
On: Mon August, 15 2005 @ 00:28 GMT
Anti-war protestor Cindy Sheehan called for the immediate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, Israeli withdrawal from Palestine, and the impeachment of the President and has vowed to not pay her Federal income taxes. Sheehan's son was a soldier in the U.S. military and was killed in the line of duty in Iraq. She and other protestors have been protesting outside President Bush's Texas ranch for days.


original news source:

www.drudgereport.com
Anti-war protestor Cindy Sheehan, whose soldier son Casey was killed in Iraq, is calling for Bush's "impeachment," and for Israel to get out of Palestine!

"You get America out of Iraq and Israel out of Palestine and you'll stop the terrorism," Sheehan declares.

Sheehan, who is asking for a second meeting with President Bush, says defiantly: "My son was killed in 2004. I am not paying my taxes for 2004. You killed my son, George Bush, and I don't owe you a penny...you give my son back and I'll pay my taxes. Come after me (for back taxes) and we'll put this war on trial."

"And now I'm going to use another 'I' word - impeachment - because we cannot have these people pardoned. They need to be tried on war crimes and go to jail."


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


This woman has gone off the deep end. Calling for the withdrawal of Israel from all of Palestine means the total destruction of Israel. At least by not paying her taxes she can end up where she belongs -- in Federal prison.


[edit on 8/15/2005 by djohnsto77]




Posted by: Illuminated_1
On: Mon August, 15 2005 @ 08:32 GMT
I am not taking sides here, but I can not help but think of this:
07 November 2000 21:23
pamela: 6.what started the war? and who fought in it? who won?what countries were destroyed and what survived?
timetravel_0: Wow...that's a big question. There is a civil war in the United States that starts in 2005. That conflict flares up and down for 10 years. In 2015, Russia launches a nuclear strike against the major cities in the United States (which is the "other side" of the civil war from my perspective), China and Europe . The United States counter attacks. The US cities are destroyed along with the AFE (American Federal Empire)...thus we (in the country) won. The European Union and China were also destroyed. Russia is now our largest trading partner and the Capitol of the US was moved to Omaha Nebraska

I wonder if there are ony of you that has thought of this in the last few days???

Originally posted by Frosty
Roth Joint - Roberts is nothing more than the perfect candidate. He has never had to make a controversial issue in his life, has a record of 2 years on a court as a judge, and the only arguements arising about him are: abortion, some lame duck federalist group, and further lame duck arguements over his faith. All the arguements against him are weak.

Please give some info as to where Roberts dissents from the constitution involving the issue of property rights.

Bush did not appoint him to 'save the country'. Bush sooner or later would have to appoint someone, Roberts was just the perfect candidate.

Ofcourse there's always more...

John Titor
"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."

www.washingtonpost.com...
GOP Allies Say Bush Is Close to Court Pick
Choice May Be Announced This Week
July 18, 2005

"This country is really divided right now on the war," she said. "The president, as the leader, should, I think, have an overwhelming feeling to appoint someone that the Senate can agree on to keep the country together, fighting these battles."

www.theconservativevoice.com...
Property Rights: Bush breaks promise to nominate a Thomas or Scalia
July 22, 2005

After an initial review of his record, the America First Party has deep concerns regarding the nomination of Judge John G. Roberts, Jr. to the US Supreme Court. Judge Roberts' record on property rights contradicts the President's repeated campaign promise to nominate judges in the mold of Justices Scalia and Thomas. Mr. Charles continued, "One area where Judge Roberts' disregard for the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is evident is the protection of property rights. Judge Roberts has repeatedly defended expanded state authority over private property and court ordered confiscation of income and property. This is not a man in the mold of Justices Scalia or Thomas."

www.civilrights.org...
To gauge the scope of that difference, the Committee needs to spotlight the extent to which Roberts could help create a 21st century Supreme Court bent on rolling back the great social reforms of the last two-thirds of the 20th century - like the anti-government Court of the first third of that century. Roberts criticized that "era of judicial activism" during the hearings preceding his confirmation to the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals. His performance record on these issues to date is scant and mixed:

A somewhat troubling omen is a 2003 dissenting opinion, filed during his current two- year tenure on the D.C. Circuit Court. In that case, Judge Roberts contended that Congress lacks power to bar real estate developers - who concededly operate within interstate commerce - from damaging the habitat of endangered species which themselves are not part of interstate commerce. Potentially, Judge Roberts' reasoning might imperil the great civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination against older Americans or other citizens.

www.philly.com...
WASHINGTON - As one of Washington's top appellate lawyers, Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr. represented big business against employee claims, coal companies against polluted communities, and contractors seeking an end to government race-preference programs.

But Roberts also defended a town's right to prevent development on private property, fought for indigenous people's rights to self-determination, and - for free - helped welfare recipients who feared losing their benefits.

Viewed through a political prism, Roberts' record seems to lack any particular ideological bent. So what, if anything, are Americans likely to infer from Roberts' legal career about his views, in advance of hearings on his nomination to the Supreme Court?
---
He represented the American General Contractors, writing briefs for the organization that pushed for an end to affirmative-action programs in two cases involving the Department of Transportation and Department of Defense. Roberts represented coal companies fighting to avoid paying retirement benefits to employees and seeking to avoid expensive reclamation projects in communities where they mine.

He represented Toyota Motor Manufacturing when it sought to deny that the Americans With Disabilities Act required it to accommodate a worker who had developed carpal tunnel syndrome.

But he also took cases that required him to advocate positions inconsistent with conservative views of the Constitution.

In 2000, he represented a native Hawaiian group before the Supreme Court seeking to exclude other ethnic groups from voting for trustees of an agency that oversees programs for those of Hawaiian ancestry. On the other side were conservative legal icon Robert Bork and Theodore Olsen, who would go on to serve as George W. Bush's chief legal advocate at the high court.

The court ruled against Roberts' clients, with the liberal bloc of justices dissenting.

In a 2002 case that decided whether a planning agency in the Lake Tahoe Basin could prevent development on private land without it being considered a property "taking" for constitutional purposes, Roberts represented the side that conservatives opposed. He convinced the court to side with him - while conservative Justices Scalia and Clarence Thomas and Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist dissented.

"A strong appellate attorney has to understand the interconnectedness of things, and appreciate the deep, sometimes divisive policy issues that go into deciding how a set of facts lead to an outcome," said Norm Ankers, who went to Harvard Law School with Roberts and now heads the trial division of the Honigman, Miller law firm in Detroit. "That's also what a good appellate judge will do."

Roberts as a Judge

John G. Roberts Jr. has written 40 majority opinions as a U.S. appeals judge and has not been reversed; only two of his opinions have drawn a dissent. Roberts has dissented just twice.

Some positions he has taken as a judge:

• Environment: He was sympathetic to developers' arguments that wildlife regulations were unconstitutional as applied to a California construction project. The government feared that the project would hurt arroyo toads.

• Military tribunals:He was part of a 3-0 decision Friday that put the Bush administration's plan to use tribunals to try terrorist suspects back on track.

• Criminal law: Roberts ruled in favor of

a man who challenged his fraud sentence; said police did not violate the rights of a girl, 12, who was arrested for eating a french fry inside a train station; and joined a ruling that upheld police trunk searches, even if officers do not say they are seeking evidence of a crime.

quote.bloomberg.com...

July 22 (Bloomberg) -- Despite his mild manner and Midwestern charm, the nomination of John G. Roberts Jr. to the Supreme Court is a seismic event that threatens to deepen the nation's red-blue divide.

What we already know from Roberts's record is cause for concern. His legal career is studded with activities unfriendly to civil rights, abortion rights, and the environment.

Last year, for example, he wrote an opinion rejecting the civil rights claims of 12-year-old Ansche Hedgepeth, who was arrested, searched, handcuffed, booked, and detained by police for eating a single french fry in a subway station in violation of D.C. law. Although an adult committing the same infraction would have received only a citation under D.C. law, Roberts said the police's treatment of Hedgepeth served the ``goal of promoting parental awareness and involvement with children who commit delinquent acts.''

(visit link for full article)

*trimmed long quote*

[edit on 16-8-2005 by dbates]

Another week has passed an we are now that much closer to the civil war.

This Gaza Pull out is going to be something to watch on Wednesday.

The "Western Instability" that leads to the ultimate self-destruction of Isreal is about to begin.

Sheehan has supporters, and also is taking support away from the War further destabilizing the region.

Talk about Destabilizing... how about that Constitution that the IRAQ'is can't seem to agree on.

Iran calls us the GREAT SATAN and wants to destroy us, and now they said, "screw you, america" we are going to build the bomb anyway. And if you attack us, then we will attack you back.

Folks, this whole Region is one spark away from throwing us into WW3.

Without OIL, the worlds economy will crumble crumble.

Originally posted by Frosty
Please give some info as to where Roberts dissents from the constitution involving the issue of property rights.

And ofcourse there's always more...

www.enterstageright.com...
John Roberts: A supreme property rights disaster in the making
August 15, 2005

The battle over property rights is not a conservative versus liberal thing. It's more a struggle between those who believe in the power of the state to dictate how we get to use our land and homes versus those of us who believe that the state has no business destroying our right to make reasonable use of our property.

But if an 87 year old Connecticut widow can have her property rights destroyed, how about dozens of elderly landowners, many of them widows and widowers, near Lake Tahoe?

That is where Judge Roberts comes in.

In a notorious case in 2002, John Roberts, then a private attorney, argued that several dozen mostly elderly and middle class landowners should not receive a penny in compensation even after a local land use agency had prohibited all use of their property near Lake Tahoe for nearly 30 years.

In a nutshell, Roberts argued that impacts to property owners must be balanced against the utility of the regulation–in a way that tilts almost every time in the government's favor. Unfortunately for the landowners, the Court agreed with him.

Read more at:
www.enterstageright.com...

[edit on 16-8-2005 by Roth Joint]

I'm like an addict, I just can't stop myself......



direct quote from titor from his own website "There is a civil war in the United States that starts in 2005."&"Perhaps our definition of war is different. I would define it as a conflict where organized groups engage in maneuver and armed conflict."


I madeythis my sig hoping to get it out on these boards as much as possible....



in titors own words.......one at a time


"There is a civil war in the United States that starts in 2005"
time is running out. Any americans out there want to blow my brains out just because we are both americans ? Sounds ridiculous, but thats what a civil war is.

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

can anyone out there show me organized groups engaging in maneuvers and armed conflict ?


didn't think so


let it go already

I saw a show on CNN that said there were thousands of MS-13 gang members in most of our cities. That its the largest gang the government has ever faced.

Our Government has calling in OTHER COUNTRIES to help us crack down on them over the next few months.

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
I'm like an addict, I just can't stop myself.....

Yes you are. The rest is old news. You keep on repeating quotes from John Titor that have long gone been discussed and explained on this thread. I say the roots of the second US Civil War have indeed firmly grown deep into the ground. It all started in 2004... in this year 2005 we observe the seeds growing until it's indisputable around 2008 or as Titor said: " ....pretty much on everyone's doorstep...." and "....gradually getting worse..." and "...outright open fighting common around 2011..."
It indeed won't be long until "organized groups engage in manoeuvre and armed conflict." With whom? I'll give you a hint. Who are legitimately using their 'non-lethal' and apparently very lethal torture weapons upon their own people?

The way things are going, that means the Civil War should be visibly upon us when this thread nears 200 pages.