Jump to content
Curious Cosmos
Sign in to follow this  
JTTS

A Friendly Warning

Recommended Posts

I have seen many people dismissing what John Titor told you in his time here. I said before that a lot of what he told you was mis-information. But I must warn you not to dismiss everything he told you.

 

I have seen things that many of you have yet to see and they are things that I would not wish on my worst enenmy.

 

Use Titor's information however you see fit. But try and use it to change what is to happen. It may be that, in changing it, *I* may not even come into being. But the suffering that takes place within the next few years is something I now feel must be stopped.

 

Please take a look at recent news events. Such as the recent protests in Dublin, Ireland and the use of water cannons. And todays news that a group of Turkish men were arrested as they were planning to commit at terrorist attack at the upcoming NATO summit. These news items are related to some of what Titor told you and may help you prepare for what is to come, if you cannot prevent it.

 

Originally I was not to go into any detail on this forum, or anywhere else. Even though what I have written is but a pinch of salt in the grand scheme of things, I have said things that will cause considerable trouble for me.

 

Make of this what you will. Believe me, or choose not to. Believe Titor, or choose not to. But you cannot claim to not have had fair warning.

 

Thank you.

 

JTTS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Such as the recent protests in Dublin, Ireland and the use of water cannons.

 

 

A very short time ago that would have been dealt with with guns and nailbombs. I think the current situation in Ireland is much better than it's been for a long time.

 

Even though what I have written is but a pinch of salt[...]

 

 

That's certainly my thinking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But the suffering that takes place within the next few years is something I now feel must be stopped.

 

Originally I was not to go into any detail on this forum, or anywhere else.

 

 

Does that mean you are willing to go into more detail than this? Because the mention of two events that are within the scope of everyday experience in this time is not very helpful. What are we to make from those events?

 

Does the blurring of the seperation of church and state have anything to do with what you speak of? I ask because religious beliefs have often been used to justify intrusions into other people's lives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously, I'm not going to go about telling you the future. That could make matters worse.

 

But I will say that those two events are connected. A soon-to-happen terrorist attack is what really sparks the Goverment's prying into people's lifes. This terrorist attack sets off a chain reaction.

 

Religion really won't have anything to do with what is to come.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How can the two events be connected? You're looking at the most peaceful time in Ireland's recent history where "minor scuffles" (Cite: http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=2873296) were headline news in the rest of the UK. 10 years ago a major bomb attack which killed men, women and children wouldn't even make it into the back pages because it was so commonplace.

 

I see this as a major step forward. It's definately a big step forwards from a mere 32 years ago where entirely peacful protestors were shot dead by the troops, the perfunctory and biased investigation would whitewash the events, and the case would not be re-opened for another 27 years, despite constant campaigns and protests.

 

This connects to Ansar al-Islam somehow?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The protesters in Dublin are against the EU because they claim that it is stacked for the extremely wealthy to make lots of profits, with lack of accountability in the case of environmental damage or the use of "sweatshop" economies.

 

Increasing the gap between the very wealthy and working class people could be fertile ground for revolution? I never heard any mention of civil wars in Europe though.

 

Looking at the NATO summit, I didn't see anything noteworthy [other than that there are also protesters against NATO in Turkey] so I guess it was mentioned only to point out there are terror attempts being made, and that one will slip through?

 

Chronohistorian claims to be waiting for one against Big Ben, with martial law following..

 

:confused:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They already tried for the London Convention center, but Scotland Yard was ready for that one.

 

Wonder there will be a second attempt on Ben?

 

Something like a missile, like either a Kashtuka rocket, or a modified Shorts Blowpipe?

 

Place a modified high load in one of these warheads, and theoretically one could take out part of Ben.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Increasing the gap between the very wealthy and working class people could be fertile ground for revolution?

 

 

Well, it hasn't been in America.

 

I never heard any mention of civil wars in Europe though.

 

 

Yeah, Titor predicted civil war in America. If it were just a civil war somewhere in the world, it'd be a pretty safe bet. At the moment there's civil wars in Sudan, the Congo, Liberia, Burundi, Sierra Leone, Angola just for a start. And there are many more that are on the cusp.

 

America, though, may be polarised somewhat over who should lead them, but it's not on the brink of a 10 year civil war by any stretch of the imagination.

 

BTW, did Titor himself say that quite a lot of what he was saying was misinformation? Because that's a great cop-out. You make "rock-solid" predictions about the immediate future; far enough off so that most things seem plausible, and yet close enough so that you get people who believe you and are intrigued enough to follow the sory. Then, when what you've said doesn't happen, it's all good because you've said that most of what you've said isn't true in any case. So you've got a built-in fail-safe for having a poor hit-rate with your predictions.

 

Make enoguh vagueish predictions and it's not hard to get some sort of hit-rate, maybe between 5 and 10%. If you say that only a small proportion of what you're saying is true, then getting any right seems like confirmation and getting any wrong is also confirmation.

 

I bet SOLLOG wishes he'd thought of that one.

 

Looking at the NATO summit, I didn't see anything noteworthy [other than that there are also protesters against NATO in Turkey] so I guess it was mentioned only to point out there are terror attempts being made, and that one will slip through?

 

 

But how much of a prediction is that, really? Look at this: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-04-29-terrorism_x.htm

 

There were 190 acts of international terrorism last year, compared with 198 in 2002 and 346 in 2003.

 

[...]

 

The figures do not include attacks considered to be domestic terrorism in which foreigners weren't among the victims. For example, the report listed three people killed in international terrorism attacks last year in all of Latin America. A nightclub bombing in Bogota, Colombia, that killed 34 people wasn't included because it was considered domestic terrorism.

 

Bruce Hoffman, a terrorism analyst for the Rand Corp., said the annual report is considered the "gold standard" for measuring terrorism, "but it's only giving you part of the picture and it's a picture that's changing dramatically" with the growth in domestic terrorism.

 

"It's harder to draw meaningful inferences looking at just international terrorism," he said.

 

 

So with just international terrorism counting 190 hits in the last year, not including domestic terrorism (which would include Iraqi insurgency, the situation in Israel and Palestine and, presumably, the recent attacks in Spain), is it really a great prediction to say that at some indeterminate time in the future but within the next year and a half that there will be a terrorist attack somewhere by someone against someone? It's not like the international nature of al-Islam hasn't been known, and it's not like there haven't been terrorist attempts against NATO before. NATO, after all, does carry out anti-terrorism operations and, conversely, have been called terrorists themselves, by Milosevic for one.

 

Come on, it's not exactly an Earth-shattering revelation, is it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could this all have to do with corruption at the top?

 

We have the UN Oil for Food scandal where we have found that many countries were getting kick backs and voted against America.

 

Nato is a large organization of many countries - is there corruption there?

 

What about Dublin fighting against EU? Will we find that there is also corruption there?

 

If so, this could cause many countries to distrust one another and result in revolution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you also read the forums at Anomalies.net? There was this guy calling himself Steven claiming that John Titor's name was really Thomas Greyl, that he stumbled upon his car as he was going back in time and ended up stuck here. He claimed that most of what "John" said was disinformation but with some truths. The topic title is "My name is not Steven". Click on the Time Travel forum from this link: http://www.anomalies.net/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi . He didn't volunteer too much information and stopped posting. Does this guy sound for real to you?

 

As I was thinking upon this topic today, I was wondering if secret societies are involved? Conspiracy theorists have warned about them supposedly being in the background of world events. I had a thought about there being a long running debate in those societies whether they should be more prominent in world affairs or stay in the background.. where this attack you speak of gives more fuel to the fire of the hawks on that debate. Or this attack [as suggested by the disrupted attack on NATO] kills a lot of world leaders, many who are members of these societies?

 

I wouldn't necessarily assume that secret societies are bent on world domination or have everyone's worst interests at heart. But I can see them preferring events that favor the wealthy, and liking ideas that offer security at the cost of individual freedom, so that there is less risk to the holdings of the wealthy.

 

As for the topic of "What could we do to make the world better?".. there's an idea I've had for a while now.

 

You know how businesses trash the enviroment or use sweatshop economies? So it's all their fault, right? Not exactly. Those businesses that tried to care for the environment or pay their labor force fairly are out of business. Why? Because we preferred products from the businesses that trashed the environment and used sweatshop labor. Why?..... because THEIR PRODUCTS WERE CHEAPER!

 

Look at the consumer figuring out what to buy. Three items from three different businesses, all with different prices. With no other real information to go on, the underlying assumption then becomes, "The other two charging me more for this are just trying to cash in on their fancy name and are ripping me off!". How can the consumer know any better than this?

 

What we NEED is an independent review agency, something like Consumer Reports magazine. It must review all those businesses out there and rate them on how they treat their environment and their labor force, in addition to any other important information we should know. This information should be on all products like the nutritional labels we all have.

 

Now it's not as simple as saying, "Greedy corporations are all to blame for this!". Now, the power is shifted to the consumer. The question is, will we as consumers continue to buy the cheapest, or will we actually effect worldwide change by driving bad companies out of businesses and keeping the golden ones alive?

 

I strongly believe in taking personal responsibility for our lives..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I strongly believe in taking personal responsibility for our lives..

 

 

So do I. And when companies created artificial power outages here in CA (so they could drive prices up), some people complained, whined, and filed lawsuits. I took matters into my own hands and installed a solar power generation system. Now, I generate more power than I use, and Southern California Edision is PAYING ME!

 

So now we see gas prices soaring...no doubt caused by the same sheisters who manufactured the electricity "shortage". Once again, all we see people doing is whining and complaining. I suppose lawsuits will follow soon enough. I guess it is time for me to sell my SUV and buy a hybrid car (no way am I giving up my anniversary edition Vette! I'll just drive it less.)

 

You, the consumer, are not as powerless as you think. But you must first arm yourself with real knowledge of the options available to you. And incidentally, this means you should have a good grounding in real science....not the pseudoscience claptrap that some on this board are pushing.

 

RainmanTime

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So do I. And when companies created artificial power outages here in CA (so they could drive prices up), some people complained, whined, and filed lawsuits. I took matters into my own hands and installed a solar power generation system. Now, I generate more power than I use, and Southern California Edision is PAYING ME!

 

 

Way to look for a solution rather than laying blame! How are your costs these days setting up such a system and keeping it maintained? Solar hasn't been more popular in the past due to expense.

 

So now we see gas prices soaring...no doubt caused by the same sheisters who manufactured the electricity "shortage". Once again, all we see people doing is whining and complaining. I suppose lawsuits will follow soon enough. I guess it is time for me to sell my SUV and buy a hybrid car (no way am I giving up my anniversary edition Vette! I'll just drive it less.)

 

 

It's being said in the news that while our old refineries and higher crude prices are contributing to the prices, the biggest contributor to the rise is still increased demand. Our love of powerful engines and SUV's are having it's impact, and it looks like we won't stop until prices reach that breaking point. It's a war about who can hang onto their SUV's the longest, and it's not going to be pretty.

 

You, the consumer, are not as powerless as you think. But you must first arm yourself with real knowledge of the options available to you. And incidentally, this means you should have a good grounding in real science....not the pseudoscience claptrap that some on this board are pushing.

 

 

If we are going to arm ourselves with such knowledge, it is through community. What I have found so beautiful about this John Titor story is this incredible ARMY of people dissecting the whole story, chasing down leads, and debating it all. So much information has come out that I could never have hoped to find out on my own, which has been a tremendous help in being better informed about whatever "facts" anyone may be claiming. Each person is unique and brings something to the story..

 

I will most definitely always appreciate it if you speak up anytime there is psuedoscience claptrap spoken. Of course, there's no need to do so with those who've long established themselves as blithering idiots when it comes to history or science. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps the New World Order is closer than we think! COnspiracy Theorists for years have been saying this was inevitable, & I'm open minded enough to believe the current terrorism threat to the west will bring about massive changes by "them" to our basic freedoms. Thanx for the warning, dunno how I can get prepared thou. :confused:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I totally agree with you Cherry Ripe...so much for "Iraqi freedom" what about ours....? I believe we'll be getting less and less from now on....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd be interested in what sort of freedoms you are worried that we are going to lose.

 

Freedom to hoard explosives? Freedom to kill innocent people?

 

Seriously, I hear/read lots of soothsayers that claim we are going to lose freedoms very soon. Yet I hear very little specifics. Would you like to share your fears? I have seen no impact to my life, but then again I am a responsible, tax-paying citizen who can take care of himself. Maybe those who use government as a crutch might be losing some "freedoms"...such as freedom to nurse on the public teat? ;)

 

Kind Regards,

RainmanTime

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Basic liberties - the ability of being able to travel from one country to another without too many hassles, for example - now, to go to the States, (for a foreigner like me), you need to have a special barcoded passport - I know that somewhere in the States or the UK, they are doing trial tests for iris identification which will shortly be implemented- Travelling from one place to another will probably become stricter and stricter - we will all be increasingly coded and filed and followed - is this freedom? Isn't this what "they" wanted from the beginning? We didn't need to do this before did we? Is this the way to combat "terrorism" as they claim, or is it just and excuse so that they can have more control over us?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are setting up a world based on fear - with the excuse that they are there to help us - that it is all done for the sake of stopping terrorism!!! To make this a better world. A free world. Do you see it becoming so? I see us becoming more and more oppressed and controlled - maybe not so in the near future but they are laying the foundations for this to become reality?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, as it is all that has to happen is for the US government to use the word "terrorism" and you can be held indefinatly without charge, access to lawyers, human rights groups or trial. And I'm not just talking about those in Guantanamo Bay, the same situation is part of the brouhaha happening in Iraq at the momnet, and it's happend to US citizens like Jose Padilla.

 

Or there's the way that the US seems to feel that it can now send forigen citizens of allies countrys to places like Syria so that they can be tortured. Like Maher Arar.

 

Now, I'm not a conspiracy theorist. Far from it. And I'm not going to say that either of these men are necessarily innocent, nor that they are necessarily guilty. But the fact remains that these are clear violations of human rights and erosions of freedoms.

 

And it's easy to say "well, I don't do anything wrong, so they won't trouble me" but miscarriages of justice happen. Either through misunderstandings (there was a somewhat famous case in the 70s, IIRC, where a man was investigated as a spy for nearly a year because he had borrowed a pen from a stranger who happened to be under observation as a spy), or through deliberate misconduct (Birmingham 6, for example). The point is that these things happen in any case. Without the possibility of checks and balances being in place, if they do come for you and you're innocent, then there's nothing you can do about it.

 

Everybody should be entitled to due process and a fair trial.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a critical question we need to resolve about our government..

 

If the government passes a law that makes certain actions by citizens a criminal act punishable by violations of their body or property, and yet these actions by those citizens are NOT in violation of anybody else's body and property...

 

Who's sovereignity wins out?

 

Can the citizen call for protection because as evidenced, there is no injured body or property or responsibility for any injured body or property, therefore the government may not violate the sovereignity of this citizen?

 

Or is the government's sovereignity so high that it can overrule any such concerns by these citizens? If so, how is this government indistinguishable from the shackles of the sovereign King over his lowly subjects that we threw off several centuries ago? That we beg our rights from the government rather than affirming our individual sovereignity?

 

Please understand that this argument cannot be used to defend not paying for a parking meter in a city, because they would be in violation of the city's property. It would not defend terrorism or those giving material support to terrorists, because such actions make such a citizen as part of the RESPONSIBLE PARTY for the damage to property and injury/loss of life of others. A drug abuser in violation of anyone else's body or property will not be able to protect themselves from being held as the responsible party for this damage they have caused.

 

Governments will always pass bad laws.. we need to affirm the sovereign right of citizens to protect themselves from such bad laws. Maybe a constitutional amendment?

 

Edit added later:

 

In the case of dangerous items such as explosives, nuclear ordinance, and dangerous chemicals; the misuse [accidental or intentional] of such items have such a potential danger to the body and property of others that regulation of such items is a must.

 

I wasn't speaking about these circumstances as much as I was talking about your own personal life and your sovereignity over your body and property in the absence of harm to others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Basic liberties - the ability of being able to travel from one country to another without too many hassles, for example - now, to go to the States, (for a foreigner like me), you need to have a special barcoded passport

 

Fair enough. But now let me point out that you are really discussing how various liberties RELATE to one another and, yes, sometimes conflict with each other. Any one liberty does not exist all by itself.

 

To illustrate using your example: Do you think it is a "basic freedom" that you should be able to travel wherever you want, without restriction? If so, one can easily see that this can impact other people's basic freedoms to have private, restricted places, not to mention the basic freedom to feel secure. As a voting American, I am not about to vote AGAINST more stringent security measures. Do you really think all of this terrorism is a "conspiracy theory" cooked up by the government to gain control? Good God, Sarah....there ARE terrorists and they ARE killing innocent people.

 

The US is one of the most open societies the world has ever seen, and now you want to cry "foul" because we want to feel more secure? Without improved security, we can see what our future will look like by examining what is going on in both Israel, and now Iraq. Would you like a return to the IRA days of blowing-up innocent English citizens? Some of us Americans keep a keen eye on what has been going on in Israel, and we are determined that such terror will NOT happen on our soil. That is because Americans DO things...and I am not tooting a nationalistic horn here. Our culture has "grown up" by doing things that many people thought difficult. It is part of the fabric of who we are. Twice we intervened in European-based world wars because we saw the potential threats to ourselves. We DID something about it. The French couldn't handle completing the Panama Canal... so the Americans stepped-up to the challenge. A great American president said "We choose to do these things not because they are easy, but because they are hard." After that speech Americans went to the Moon. And now we are being scoffed at for wanting to send man to Mars.

 

The world, including a formerly complacent America, was not DOING anything about terrorism. We can thank the terrorists themselves for 9/11, because that changed everything. When no one else in the world is willing to step up to the plate and DO something, America will take the lead. We don't really care if no one else wants to follow, and we don't care if people don't like it. SOMEONE has to do something, and we enjoy making things happen.

 

The one thing I fear about American society, after the threat of terrorism, is that our populace stops being DOERS and instead goes the way of other countries, who simply CRITICIZE those who do. I am not afraid to say that this is how most Americans feel about the French. Always quick to criticize, but so slow to DO SOMETHING THEMSELVES.

 

Liberties and freedoms must be protected, but they must also be balanced, for the reality is that many basic freedoms conflict. Us Americans might not "do it right" or "do it to everyone's satisfaction", but we are doing something which is a lot more than can be said for some countries.

 

Sorry to go off on a rant... but my main point, stated as a question, is: How do we rank our "basic freedoms", and do you ever think everyone will agree to any one ranking? Sticky wicket, eh?

 

Kind Regards,

RainmanTime

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Us Americans might not "do it right" or "do it to everyone's satisfaction", but we are doing something which is a lot more than can be said for some countries.

 

 

This is the important thing. You're right in that it admirable to be doing something about terrorism. But the question is whether the right things are being done. Doing the wrong thing is worse than doing nothing.

 

The invasion of Iraq has set a dangerous precedent for pre-emptive strikes, a precedent that India and North Korea have both threatened to follow with nuclear action and one that Israel is using increasingly frequently. If you also take into account the illegal status of the war and the US's unilateral approach to the actions, it's subsequent illegal privatisation of Iraq's industries (making 80% of the Iraqi workforce redundant, and selling the contracts off to US contractors, while ensureing that any new Iraqi government will have no power to countermand these actions), the recent revelations and allegations of the torture of Iraqi prisoners, as well as the inaccessability and arbitrary detaination without charge of Iraqi citizens, the recent worst PR move made by anyone anywhere ever with regards to the bombing of a Mosque during evening prayers, as well as the reality of the post-invasion situation in Afgahnistan of the US-instilled government being little better than the Taliban, and the recent resurge and gain of power of the Taliban itself, the failure of the US to condemn actions by Israel, but their haste to condemn Palestinian actions, their alliances with states that sponsor and forge terrorism (why is Saudi Arabia an ally again?)...take all of that into account, as well as the numerous things that I haven't even mentioned for the sake of space aned not wanting to type for 6 hours straight and you have to question exactly how productive these anti-terrorism moves actually are.

 

You do not fight terrorists whose main rallying cry is that you hate their religion, have no respect for them and are brutal murderers by bombing a mosque full of civilians in the middle of evening prayers. You fight terrorism by altering the environment in which people live so that it does not have room to fester and grow. People believe what bin Laden says because they are brought up uneducated and unable to read. If you only hear lies, then you'll believe those lies. If you eduacte people and give them the ability to access information for themselves, then they can make an informed choice.

 

I realise that that's a vague and simplistic answer, but it's better than "blow up those terrorists that we don't have alliences with and/or detain them indefinately without trial". My approach won't work any miracles but can work to slowly change the environment of the world so that there is no call for terrorism (although you will never wipe it out entirely). The US's approach at the moment, I fear, may be effective at reducing the memberships of known terrorist cells and reducing the number of terrorists attacks per year (depending on how you define those terms) in the short-term. However, in 10 or 20 years those who have grown up in the current environment will be at it again, bigger and better and more numerous than before. The net effect, as I see it, will be to increase terrorism. In which case, doing nothing would be better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "illegal" status of the war? I'm sorry... maybe I missed the memo... but since when is the United States, a sovereign state, required to check with the rest of the world before it can act against it's self-avowed enemies?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unilateral invasion of a soverign state and deposition of it's leader with no evidence of an imminant threat is illegal under international law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1)It wasn't unilateral.

 

2)The U.N. seemed pretty convinced that there was evidence of an immenant threat.

 

3)Resolution 1441 authorized the use of force.. even if the U.N. was too cowardly and spineless to exercise it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...