I think it does. Otherwise it would make no sense to call it just BS to whip everyone up into accepting the next war.
?
Now here it's where it gets more interesting. Titor was talking about the propaganda regarding Iraq supposedly being in possession of nuclear weapons. Whether Iraq was indeed having nuclear weapons or not is irrelevant. It was this propaganda that was clearly BS to whip everyone up into accepting the already planned \"next war\" against Iraq. If nuclear weapons would have been found it would be just be an extra bonus. Again, clearly Titor's \"prediction\" was remarkable in a time period (2000/2001) where everyone swallowed the propaganda tactics of Iraq posing a nuclear threat to the world. Titor knew it was nothing more then propaganda and rethoric. He knew the hidden cards underneath the table. To predict a war is one thing, however, to \"predict\" another war in Iraq under false pretences where everyone would be whipped up into accepting it exactly as it happened, is another thing. ?
?
What you have missed is this: To predict a war is one thing, however, to \"predict\" another war in Iraq under false pretences where everyone would be whipped up into accepting it exactly as it happened, is another thing. Whether Saddam would have been found to have WMD's or not is irrelevant. ?
?
Again: To predict a war is one thing, however, to \"predict\" another war in Iraq under false pretences where everyone would be whipped up into accepting it exactly as it happened, is another thing. What's even more interesting is that John Titor \"predicted\" that it would happen before 2005, the start of a civil war in the United States.[/b]
