It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The American Civil War of 2005 as predicted by John Titor

page: 19
31
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 28 2005 @ 04:54 AM
link   
Keep your eyes on Europe's political and economical situation, keep your eyes on Israel and it's Arab neighbours and keep your eyes on China.

Because Titor's world is developing itself...

John Titor:

** ...."political situations are dependant on Western stability, which collapses in 2005."
** "It is a mistake to give anyone your unwavering belief...but you will find that out yourself in 2005."
** "Real disruptions in world events begin with the destabilization of the West as a result of degrading US foreign policy and consistency."
** "The West will become very unstable which gives China the confidence to "expand"."
** "Wavering western support for Israel is what gives Israel's neighbors the confidence to attack."
** "Western instability during the conflict leads to the attack in 2015"
** "The war is a result of faulty politics and desperation from Western leadership during the US civil war. Yes, I suppose you could stop it."


www.freep.com...

Voters in 2 nations may reject EU constitution
May 28, 2005

FREE PRESS NEWS SERVICES

The French referendum Sunday and another one three days later in the Netherlands have unexpectedly turned into a crisis for the architects of the European Union. Voters in both countries appear ready to reject the 448-article draft that is supposed to serve as a constitution for the EU's 25 member nations.

Thus far, 10 member nations have approved the constitution, but only Spain did so by referendum. The others ratified it in their national legislatures. The draft must be accepted by every member nation before it becomes law.

Opinion polls over the past month have consistently shown the "no" camp with a steady lead in the range of 51 percent to 54 percent. The only hope for constitution supporters is that a quarter of voters say they are undecided.

The opposition comes in all political stripes, such as:

· Dissident socialists who fear the new constitution will end France's welfare state.
· Catholic nationalists angry that the document makes no mention of God.
· Trade unions that fear it will export jobs to eastern Europe.
· Radicals who argue that the document is a plot for the corporate takeover of Europe.

The "yes" camp says such a union will offer strong economic competition to China, India and the United States.

At stake: The treaty would take effect Nov. 1, 2006, if ratified by referendum or parliamentary vote in all 25 EU nations.

The charter: The constitution guarantees freedom of speech and religion, shelter, education, collective labor bargaining and fair working conditions. It enshrines the EU flag -- a circle of 12 golden stars on a blue background -- designates Beethoven's "Ode to Joy" as the EU anthem, and makes the euro the official currency. The constitution provides for an EU president to be chosen by EU leaders for a maximum 5-year term.

If France rejects it: The treaty that led to the draft constitution says EU leaders are to discuss what to do if, by October 2006, four-fifths of member nations have ratified it, but one or more others have "encountered difficulties" getting it accepted. Countries may be asked to vote again.




posted on May, 28 2005 @ 08:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by QuietSoul
might have something to do with this

www.niquette.com...


The Moon Illusion? What does that have to do with John Titor and the American Civil War of 2005?



posted on May, 29 2005 @ 12:13 PM
link   
Titor was right... the collapse of European stability in 2005:

** ...."political situations are dependant on Western stability,
which collapses in 2005."
** "It is a mistake to give anyone your unwavering belief...but you
will find that out yourself in 2005."
** "Real disruptions in world events begin with the destabilization
of the West as a result of degrading US foreign policy and
consistency."
** "The West will become very unstable which gives China the
confidence to "expand"."
** "Wavering western support for Israel is what gives Israel's
neighbors the confidence to attack."


www.turkishweekly.net...

Europe is Collapsing
View: Nevval SEVINDI

We are just about to enter, but Europe is falling apart. It's a
Turkish attitude to put off things for a long time; and by the time
we reach peak levels the conditions change.

Just at the time we are leaning against the EU door, something we
have not been very willing to do in the last 40 years, and whose
process we did not speed up, the paints of the door are falling off,
so to speak. Europe is on the verge of a collapse. Why?

"No" is the most likely outcome of the French referendum on May 29.
According to researches, it is about 52 percent. The [Jacques] Chirac
administration has created an environment of a confidence vote for
itself by overstraining the "yes" votes. This counterinteraction that
will produce political instability, is the beginning of objection to
the enlargement of Europe. The referendum debate generally has been
on Turkey. France does not want to settle within a new conjuncture
and does not want new members. By saying "no," France rejects the
essence and institutional structure of Europe, forms the main axis of
the EU project along with Germany. The collapse of the French leg
will also drag the Netherlands along with it. How will an EU with a
broken backbone claim to be a continental power?
More at: www.turkishweekly.net...

www.sundayherald.com...
Europe: Is the dream falling apart?

It was supposed to be a new way for nations to live and work
together. It's been successful beyond its wildest dreams. But if
France votes No tomorrow it may spell the end of the EU … or perhaps
a revival of the ideals that started the adventure in the first
place. Iain Macwhirter reports

There is understandable gloom and foreboding this weekend over the
future of the European project. If France and the Netherlands
vote "No" to the new constitution, it will likely start a
rejectionist domino effect that will knock on through Denmark,
Ireland and Poland. Europe could be flattened for a generation.
Then again, perhaps this could be the moment when Europe finally
comes to its senses. The French "non" will be a crisis, certainly,
but a crisis is also a turning point. Few will mourn the loss of this
less than inspiring document. It could be an opportunity for Europe
to regain some of its idealism and purpose; a chance to remind itself
that the EU is about more than agricultural support quotas.
More at: www.sundayherald.com...

news.bbc.co.uk...
In his final appeal, Mr Chirac warned that a French "No" would bring
deep instability to Europe, ultimately weakening France at home and
abroad.

He made it clear that there was no better Treaty waiting in the wings
if France says "No" to this one.

But the polls suggest that many French have discounted that
possibility - and unless they change their minds at the last minute,
are preparing to deliver a knock-out blow to the Treaty and to
Jacques Chirac.
More at: news.bbc.co.uk...



posted on Jun, 2 2005 @ 01:10 AM
link   
JT: "...Western stability, which collapses in 2005."
"The West will become very unstable..."
"Real disruptions in world events begin with the destabilization of the West..."


From:
www.mg.co.za.../breaking_news/breaking_news__international_news/

European Union vision in tatters

02 June 2005 07:18

European leaders' long-held dream of anchoring the continent's greater unification in its first Constitution was dissolving before their eyes on Wednesday night after the Dutch delivered the second crushing blow to the idea in three days.

Given the chance to have their say in their first ever referendum, the Netherlands voted by an overwhelming majority against the treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe.

The Dutch rejected the treaty by 61,6% to 38,4% on a high turnout of 62%, according to a tally of almost all the votes.

Both the turnout and the margin of victory for the no camp were substantially higher than opinion polls had predicted.

Following the French rejection of the treaty at the weekend, the second blow from another founding EU member left the European elite reeling and facing the prospect of a protracted period of recrimination, conflict and crisis.

President Jacques Chirac of France said the double negative had laid bare "questions and concerns about the development of the European project". In Germany, the Chancellor, Gerhard Schröder, warned that the crisis over the Constitution "must not become Europe's general crisis".

Jack Straw, the British foreign secretary, said the verdict of French and Dutch voters "raises profound questions for all of us about the future direction of Europe".

Although nine of the 25 members have already ratified the treaty, European leaders last night appeared to be inching towards an acceptance that the double no has killed off the Constitution. Jose Manuel Barroso, the European commission president, underlined the more nuanced approach when he made no mention of the need to continue with ratification in a statement and late-night press conference.

"It is a difficult moment for Europe," Barroso said, adding that heads of government would decide what to do next at their summit in two weeks. But he warned EU leaders not to abandon the treaty yet. "I think it will not be wise [for] leaders to come with new initiatives or unilateral decisions."

The Dutch revolt against their rulers in The Hague and Brussels was without parallel. For 50 years, the Netherlands has been a stronghold of European integration, home to the Maastricht treaty that produced the most striking instrument of unification -- the euro single currency.

As last weekend in France, the no triumph was ascribed to multiple factors all merging into a voters' mutiny.

The three-party centre-right coalition of the Christian democrat prime minister, Jan Peter Balkenende, is strongly in favour of the Constitution. It is also the most unpopular government in living memory.

The Dutch are wary of forfeiting their veto in European policy making. As the biggest per capita net contributors to the Brussels budget, they also feel bullied by the bigger countries and let down by the single currency, seen to have brought steep price rises while the currency's rulebook has been flouted with impunity by Germany and France. The economy is stagnant and unemployment has risen to 7%.

Growing anti-Muslim sentiment, opposition to EU membership for Turkey, and fears over losing control of immigration policy all contributed to the debacle for the pro-European camp, producing a surly and hostile electorate. The no camp was helped rather than hindered by a hapless government pro campaign which was late in getting off the ground and appeared to take the electorate for granted.

Balkenende said he was "very disappointed" but promised to respect the outcome.

"A no is a no," he stated, but added that the ratification process for the Constitution "can continue" in the 14 member states still to state their views.

For Europe as a whole, the next weeks and months, coinciding with the British assumption of the EU presidency, seem likely to produce bitter clashes on everything from Turkish accession and enlargement to budget agreements and economic policy. There is also the question of what can be salvaged from the Constitution, which took two years to be agreed.

In a sign of the changed atmosphere in Brussels, the leader of the Socialist group in the European Parliament backed away from his strident calls for ratification to continue. Poul Nyrup Rasmussen, the president of the Party of European Socialists, said: "It is now up to the European heads of government to come forward with a proposal for tack ling the institutional issues which the Constitution is intended to resolve. The future of the Constitution must be clarified."

British Prime Minister Tony Blair is confident fellow European leaders will eventually accept it is impossible to soldier on after such emphatic rejection by France and the Netherlands. But he accepts it may take time for Chirac to concede that the Constitution is dead. - Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005



posted on Jun, 2 2005 @ 10:59 AM
link   
its 6/1, another month in the books, and no waco-type events


titor is a hoax



posted on Jun, 2 2005 @ 11:02 AM
link   
well its June now, nearly half a year in and i dont see no Civil war happening over in the states. Look guys, Titor is a hoax, a big hoax.



posted on Jun, 2 2005 @ 11:10 AM
link   
lol @ Roth trying to make it seem like not voting for the EU constitution is a sign that the west is collapsing.

You seriously need to read a little more Roth, and do just a wee bit more research as the assumption your trying to make is tremendously ridiculous




Poor Roth, he's seriously going to be heartbroken in 6 months.



posted on Jun, 2 2005 @ 11:13 AM
link   
The waco type event has already happened it's 9/11! We find out the truth this year which leads to civil war! Yes titor is a hoax thou, no doubt about that.

[edit on 2-6-2005 by DiRtYDeViL]



posted on Jun, 2 2005 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by DiRtYDeViL
The waco type event has already happened it's 9/11! We find out the truth this year which leads to civil war! Yes titor is a hoax thou, no doubt about that.

OT:

1. How was 9/11 anything like Waco?
2. A civil war between who?



posted on Jun, 3 2005 @ 11:16 AM
link   
ok lets get down to nitty gritty. I'm going to go way out on a limb here, and try to squeeze a straight answer out of the pro-titors on a few relative points.

1) define civil war. I'm going to start by using a general idea of; two or more groups of combatants who are citizens of the same nation.

2) define combatant. I'm going to go with a unit or individual engaged in mortal combat by using deadly force against another unit or individual.

3) a) define titors civil war by your understanding of who exactly the combatants are and b) exactly why they are engaged in mortal combat


thanks !



posted on Jun, 3 2005 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
3) a) define titors civil war by your understanding of who exactly the combatants are and b) exactly why they are engaged in mortal combat

I guess therin lies the problem right there as Titor doesn't even make that clear.....



posted on Jun, 3 2005 @ 02:10 PM
link   
Titor was right.

He did not say that the West would collapse.
He said that Western stability would collapse.
And that is exactly what is happening nowadays.



posted on Jun, 3 2005 @ 04:25 PM
link   
One contradiction I found in the interview with titor on the titor website is that in one question asked to him he says he was a soldier at age 13 but in another question he says at age 14 he was living, running and hiding in the woods of central Florida - that does not sound like he was a soldier and would he have not added "fighting" in the woods of central florida if he was still sayinbg he was a soldier?...



posted on Jun, 3 2005 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by humbled_one
One contradiction I found in the interview with titor on the titor website is that in one question asked to him he says he was a soldier at age 13 but in another question he says at age 14 he was living, running and hiding in the woods of central Florida - that does not sound like he was a soldier and would he have not added "fighting" in the woods of central florida if he was still sayinbg he was a soldier?...


What are the actions of a soldier who serves the "Fighting Diamondbacks" (a militia group) fighting against the oppressing federal forces of the Government? Picking his nose? Or running and hiding in the woods? I see no contradictions.

JT: "Outright open fighting was common by then and I joined a shotgun infantry unit in 2011. I served with the "Fighting Diamondbacks" for about 4 years."

[edit on 3-6-2005 by Roth Joint]



posted on Jun, 3 2005 @ 08:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Roth Joint

Originally posted by humbled_one
One contradiction I found in the interview with titor on the titor website is that in one question asked to him he says he was a soldier at age 13 but in another question he says at age 14 he was living, running and hiding in the woods of central Florida - that does not sound like he was a soldier and would he have not added "fighting" in the woods of central florida if he was still sayinbg he was a soldier?...


What are the actions of a soldier who serves the "Fighting Diamondbacks" (a militia group) fighting against the oppressing federal forces of the Government? Picking his nose? Or running and hiding in the woods? I see no contradictions.

JT: "Outright open fighting was common by then and I joined a shotgun infantry unit in 2011. I served with the "Fighting Diamondbacks" for about 4 years."

Roth, I am going by the interview he gave on the titor website and he does not say what you quoted. He does not say anything about "fighting" at all, which again I find strange if he indeed was a soldier. Maybe he said what you quoted somewhere else but not in the text of the question he was asked that I read on the Titor website...So yes, it is a contradiction...



posted on Jun, 4 2005 @ 02:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by humbled_one
Roth, I am going by the interview he gave on the titor website and he does not say what you quoted. He does not say anything about "fighting" at all, which again I find strange if he indeed was a soldier. Maybe he said what you quoted somewhere else but not in the text of the question he was asked that I read on the Titor website...So yes, it is a contradiction...


Here's the quote again:

JT: "Outright open fighting was common by then and I joined a shotgun infantry unit in 2011. I served with the "Fighting Diamondbacks" for about 4 years."

You can find it at:
www.johntitor.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

No contradiction.



posted on Jun, 4 2005 @ 02:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Roth Joint

Originally posted by humbled_one
Roth, I am going by the interview he gave on the titor website and he does not say what you quoted. He does not say anything about "fighting" at all, which again I find strange if he indeed was a soldier. Maybe he said what you quoted somewhere else but not in the text of the question he was asked that I read on the Titor website...So yes, it is a contradiction...


Here's the quote again:

JT: "Outright open fighting was common by then and I joined a shotgun infantry unit in 2011. I served with the "Fighting Diamondbacks" for about 4 years."

You can find it at:
www.johntitor.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

No contradiction.


Let's compare the 2 quotes:

02/05/01 11:28 (about the future) 277
Outright open fighting was common by then and I joined a shotgun infantry unit in 2011. I served with the "Fighting Diamondbacks" for about 4 years. (Hearing in my right ear isn't as good as I would like it). The civil war ended in 2015 when Russia attacked the U.S. cities (our enemy), China and Europe. As unusual and bad as my childhood might seem, I wouldn't trade it for anything.

13 December 2000 12:44 (about the future) 158
In my 2012, I was 14 years old spending most of my time living, running and hiding in the woods and rivers of central Florida. The civil war was in its 7th year and the world war was three years away.

End of quotes.

So, what you can derive from the abovementioned is quite simple:

When John Titor was 13 years of age he joined a shotgun infantry unit (calling themselves the "Fighting Diamondbacks") in 2011. He served with them for about 4 years, living, running and hiding in the woods and rivers of central Florida.

No contradictions whatsoever.

[edit on 4-6-2005 by Roth Joint]



posted on Jun, 4 2005 @ 12:30 PM
link   
ROTH, There is a contradiction, you just don't want to see it, "listen" to me - why would someone who just said they were a soldier in a question asked to them, then in a second question say they were running, hiding, living in woods of Florida but NOT add they were "fighting". He just says running, hiding, living, if he was a soldier he would naturally say "fighting" as he must have been doing that also...



posted on Jun, 4 2005 @ 12:38 PM
link   
I actually was a soldier in this time and i know I would add "fighting for my life" to the questioned asked. anyway we will just have to see if a civil war starts in 2005, won't we? Also if you do believe in all this time travel there are others who have said they have been doing it with the Montouk and phila. expirements and they seem to have a lot more credability then John titor. One thing they all say and even remote viewers say is that NONE of they seem to be able to see the year between 2012 -2013 as though it is sheilded for some reason. But they can go beyound that year and they see that there is no life and cities are in ruins...



posted on Jun, 4 2005 @ 12:58 PM
link   
or maybe it was 2011-2012 that was sheilded, i am not sure, but they all say it...



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join