The American Civil War of 2005 as predicted by John Titor

Bolton MUST become U.N. Ambassador because of Iran……. Get it?

John Titor: “It is a mistake to give anyone your unwavering belief...but you will find that out yourself in 2005.”

www.reuters.com...

Bolton UN nomination blocked again in U.S. Senate
Mon Jun 20, 2005 08:09 PM ET

By Donna Smith

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Senate Democrats on Monday again blocked the
nomination of John Bolton as U.N. ambassador, raising the possibility
that President Bush may seek to bypass lawmakers and put him in the
job without a confirmation vote.

Republican leaders fell six votes short of the 60 votes needed to end
a procedural hurdle known as a filibuster and advance the nomination
to a confirmation vote.

The Senate vote of 54-38 to try and overcome the filibuster came
after Bush called for an immediate up-or-down vote on Bolton's
nomination.

"We'll, put him in. If they're interested in reforming the United
Nations, they ought to approve John Bolton," Bush said at a news
conference with European leaders.

PREVIOUSLY POSTED:

globalpolitician.com...
Russia's Alliance With America's Enemies
by Ryan Mauro - 5/16/2005

"And now, the bold state of Iran is openly expecting an American
assault and accelerating the pace of the reconstruction of ties with
the Arab states, and the construction of a Russian nuclear reactor at
Bushehr, which will allow Iran to have nuclear weapons in 2005."

www.antiwar.com...
The Bush-Bolton Plan to Bomb Bushehr
by Jude Wanniski - 5/16/2005
Memo to: Republican senators

Buried down in Saturday's New York Times report on President Bush
reaffirming his unqualified support for John Bolton as UN ambassador
is the reason why almost all of you are ready to vote for his
confirmation.

"Republicans are hoping to shame Democrats into a quick vote on Mr.
Bolton. They argue that he needs to be in place by June so that the
United States will have the latitude it needs to press its concerns
about Iran's suspected nuclear weapons program before the Security
Council."

Why the big rush? My reliable sources tell me it is because there is
a timetable that makes it urgent for Bolton to be ready for action in
June in order to cripple the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) as
part of the plan to bomb the Iranian nuclear power plant at Bushehr.

That's because Bushehr, under construction with Russian supervision,
will soon be ready to receive the Russian fissionable material
enabling it to produce power. In 1981, remember Republican senators,
Israel bombed the Osiraq nuclear power plant near Baghdad just before
it was to be fueled by its French contractors.

Once fueled, bombing is out of the question because of the radiation
that would be emitted, with clouds traveling who knows where.

Good reasoning. I personally don't like Bolton because of what he has said in the past, i think he's a jerk. I am sure he will have a temporary seat so that he could just go forth and "take over" the UN while the senate debates.

Bush could also bomb Iran without anyones support because he has the option to go to war for i think 60 days before he needs to tell congress and get their approval. He could destroy the country easily in 60 days. I hope you have good sources, or bad depending on which way you look at it. I am sure Israel would help out in a flash.

Man, I know John has been "disproven", but seriously this is gettin just freaky. Now Cities can just take your home?

Maybe that civil war is closer than we want to think, or maybe John was something we don't want to consider?

Cities can now take your home....

Originally posted by Passer By
Man, I know John has been "disproven", but seriously this is gettin just freaky. Now Cities can just take your home?

[/url]

Not just your home, your property...period.

In fact the business (and the business next door) from which I am posting this is under threat from being siezed by the local government for development into posh upper middle class dwellings just because the newly developed properties owners consider it a 'eyesore'.

Just who decides what is beneficial to the community or not?

Why is it that the government can seize private property and then sell it to other private firms such as 'Wal Mart'?

If you ask me, this is the powder keg issue that just may explode into Titor's and Meiers' "American Civil War" because many of the people I deal with are highly P.O.d at this development and it's implications.

How is this issue going to explode into a Civil War?

Who's going to start shooting and killing who over this issue?

Wow that IS just weird, I actually agree with you, ThatsJustWeird.

John Titor is a fraud and it was proven. I've shown over and over that he predicted the civil war in the year TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR, not 2005.

as I've shown before, this is from the website.

"The year 2008 was a general date by which time everyone will realize the world they thought they were living in was over. 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 with a very short WWIII."

To end all speculation of it being 2005, later on he says this
John says the civil war leads to the world war in 2015. The civil war lasts for ten years?
It's 2004. I apologize for a missed key (very observant - we all need good critics).

So this whole topic name is incorrect, he predicted a civil war in 2004, this is from his website www.johntitor.com... and according to my calender, it's 2005. So please people just give it up.




[edit on 24-6-2005 by NoJustice]

If you continued reading you'd note that he mentions the 2004 date was a typo. I'm not sure where the JT archives are on ATS but it's something he corrected. And jt.com isn't "complete" by any means. The site creator picked and chose what he wanted.

Originally posted by Divergence

If you ask me, this is the powder keg issue that just may explode into Titor's and Meiers' "American Civil War"

Meiers? as in Sid Meier's civil war series?

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
How is this issue going to explode into a Civil War?

Who's going to start shooting and killing who over this issue?

If it were my land and my home, or my neighbors for that matter, me.

Originally posted by ktprktpr
If you continued reading you'd note that he mentions the 2004 date was a typo. I'm not sure where the JT archives are on ATS but it's something he corrected. And jt.com isn't "complete" by any means. The site creator picked and chose what he wanted.

No, what NoJustice quoted IS the correction.

The question was -
John says the civil war which starts in 2004 or 2005 (depending on the post) leads to the world war which starts in 2015. ( So we have a TEN YEAR civil war???

JT says -
It's 2004. I apologize for a missed key (very observant - we all need good critics).

Period. That's it. After that he doesn't talk about any more dates of the civil war. The Titor archive has been linked in this thread, you can look it up if you want.


And you're right NoJustice, that is weird!
You and I agreeing on something!?
Can't be!

Originally posted by Mainer
If it were my land and my home, or my neighbors for that matter, me.

Come on, You're willing to commit cold blooded murder over a piece of land (that you're being justly compensated for)?
After the muder(s), then what? You'd be in jail (if they don't kill you) and the city would still have your property. You'd have accomplished nothing.

Look, I don't like it either, but there's no civil war that's going to arise because of this. Americans aren't that stupid.



(A little OT, but be sure to check the Short Stories in a day or so [today maybe]. I know it's been done before, but there's no rule saying it can't be done again. Creating a story based on JT's world that is.
"Why are you making a story based on JT's world when you don't even like him?"
I never said that. It's a pretty good story. I just don't like when people take it as fact instead of the fiction it is)

Originally posted by ktprktpr
If you continued reading you'd note that he mentions the 2004 date was a typo. I'm not sure where the JT archives are on ATS but it's something he corrected.

Incorrect, 2005 was the typo. He very clearly pointed it out as a typo and said he meant 2004. Reread it again.

And jt.com isn't "complete" by any means. The site creator picked and chose what he wanted.

Well then, you can show me where he said 2005 without correcting himself and saying 2004. If the site director picked and choose what he wanted he would of now changed it from 2004 to 2005, because 2004 is already passed and there has been no civil war.

"Real disruptions in world events begin with the destabilization of the West as a result of degrading US foreign policy and consistency. This becomes apparent around 2004 as civil unrest develops near the next presidential election."

I'm sure you'll come back and say "well he said around 2004 and not exactly 2004." but that excuse won't cut it unless you can show me where he said 2005.

"You say the civil war lasts from 2004 to 2008 and then the short big war in 2015. What do the years from 2008 to 2015 look like? How long does WWIII last.
I'm not sure I said that exactly. By 2008, I would say the civil conflict is pretty much at everyone's doorstep. Western instability during the conflict leads to the attack in 2015. WWIII is very short with a longer period of mop up. "

So clearly there is 2004 all over that article, the confusion is in that he said 2005 ONCE and corrected himself on it. He is fake and he messed with a lot of your heads.


[edit on 24-6-2005 by NoJustice]

Where are the waco-type events ?
when do the monthly waco-type events begin ?
will everyone drop this in 2006 or will they find another type-o ?

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
Where are the waco-type events ?
when do the monthly waco-type events begin ?
will everyone drop this in 2006 or will they find another type-o ?

hehe, they'll probably say "well how do we know he wasn't talking about the fiscal year 2005 which is what companies consider to be from March 2005 to March 2006." and then after March 2006 it's another excuse, just please find another hobby besides John Titor people. It only exists in your head.

Well one thing he said that is for sure is that we are watching our constitution being ripped away from us daily.

and noooo, I don't think he was real.

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
[Come on, You're willing to commit cold blooded murder over a piece of land (that you're being justly compensated for)?
After the muder(s), then what? You'd be in jail (if they don't kill you) and the city would still have your property. You'd have accomplished nothing.

Look, I don't like it either, but there's no civil war that's going to arise because of this. Americans aren't that stupid.

It is not about land, or property, it is about rights, keeping them and being true to your principals and those of your Country. I imagine, if the time ever came, there would be nothing 'cold' about it. There comes a point when a man cannot roll over any more, to anybody. Taking your property against your will for a private organization is an easy line in the sand. I do believe it would cost me my life.

Originally posted by Mainer
It is not about land, or property, it is about rights, keeping them and being true to your principals and those of your Country. I imagine, if the time ever came, there would be nothing 'cold' about it. There comes a point when a man cannot roll over any more, to anybody. Taking your property against your will for a private organization is an easy line in the sand. I do believe it would cost me my life.

A murder commited when there are clearly thousands of more ways to deal with the issue properly without violence, is cold.

Also, I just read through alot of the decision. I encourage you and everyone else to do the same. It'll really clear things up. It's long so I haven't read through the whole thing yet but, it's become evident the news media really is trying to make a mountain out of a molehill.
1. I want to point out that I still don't argee with all of it.
2. They didn't create new laws. These eminent domain laws have been in place for over 50 years. They did clerify it however.
3a. No where in the decision did I find where the city can come and take the property without a reason. Cities still have to have a well planned...plan for the area in which they'll seize and the also have to still go through all the channels (holding public meetings, hearings, etc.)
3b. The land that is siezed still must be developed with something that will be beneficial to the community.
5. The property owners also still must be justly compensated.

Here's all 56 pages.
wid.ap.org...

Yes, but eventually you can take it all the way to the supreme court and they will order you off of your land. By the time someone else with a gun will be on the property trying to force you off, all other avenues will have been exhausted. At that point, you as a citizen would have been failed by your government.

Just compensation would be whatever the property owner wants, we are not talking about needing your land for a highway because it is the only route for 100's of miles between two mountains. We are talking about a private development coporation wanting to build an office park with a waterfront view. They could build an office park anywhere, if the land is that valuable they would make the proper offer. Still then, if millions of dollars could not convince the homeowner to move, the government has no right to do so voilently. Violence is where it would ultimately end. When they come to take you away against your will they do not do it with happiness and sunshine.

John Titor: “It is a mistake to give anyone your unwavering belief...but you will find that out yourself in 2005.”

www.latimes.com...

June 23, 2005

Bush Urges Starting Up New Nuclear Plants

"Nuclear power is one of America's safest sources of energy," said Bush,
the first president to set foot in a nuclear plant since Jimmy Carter's
1979 emergency trip to Three Mile Island after the partial reactor meltdown
that helped bring the first round of plant-building in the U.S. to a close.

"It is time for this country to start building nuclear power plants again," Bush said.

"It's time for Congress to stop the debate, stop the inaction and pass an
energy bill," Bush said.

Originally posted by Roth Joint
John Titor: “It is a mistake to give anyone your unwavering belief...but you will find that out yourself in 2005.”

www.latimes.com...

June 23, 2005

Bush Urges Starting Up New Nuclear Plants

"Nuclear power is one of America's safest sources of energy," said Bush,
the first president to set foot in a nuclear plant since Jimmy Carter's
1979 emergency trip to Three Mile Island after the partial reactor meltdown
that helped bring the first round of plant-building in the U.S. to a close.

"It is time for this country to start building nuclear power plants again," Bush said.

"It's time for Congress to stop the debate, stop the inaction and pass an
energy bill," Bush said.

That's great Bush wants nuclear power plants, can you give me a link to this where this quote came from, I would just like to read it.

John Titor: “It is a mistake to give anyone your unwavering belief...but you will find that out yourself in 2005.”



[edit on 24-6-2005 by NoJustice]