Armageddon is a fact for all people - and it has to have an effect to all people. No matter if you were muslim or buddist or christ or atheist. Whether JW or not JW: That`s no question at all...
E.
Posts by Erich
-
99How many years left to Armageddon
by JH inwith all the emphasis put on armageddon in the org.
can we throw away all the signs that jesus gave, just because we quit being a jw?.
does armageddon scare you as much as when you were a jw?
-
-
-
17
Frightening news brings Armageddon blues
by Derrick ingeorge bush's administration and the government is at it again, warning americans to buy among other things sheets of plastic and duct tape, select a panic room in the home, and seal every orifice to prevent biological, chemical or radioactive agents from seeping through any cracks.
nevermind that those successful enough to seal a room completely air-tight will suffocate long before they become deceased from airborne agents of warfare.
how many of you are concerned the ugly turn of events worldwide portends the great tribulation leading to armageddon?
-
-
Erich
JT wrote: even if the nations start a worldwide nuclear war it will not end with jw sitting under some fig tree...<
You cannot deny that such a war would mean Armageddon - can you? The outcome of such a war may not satisfy WTS. Maybe many JW`s would die; and other people, never expected to leave alive, would survive.... The bible tells, that armageddon is not OUR war, and we cannot determine our own survive. Also, the WTS cannot. Regardless of the final outcome, the survivers have to accept the facts; and they WILL GO TO INSTALL THE NEW WORLD ORDER as prophesied in the bible. With or without the WTS? Nobody knows it actually. That is depending on being found as "the true slave" or "the evil slave", and this question will be answered in the very last days; not yet.
E. -
43
6 Reasons The U.S. Should Slow Down
by teejay in6 reasons why so many allies want bush to slow down .
by johanna mcgeary.
sunday, january 26, 2003.
-
-
Erich
Yeru: What Majority of what countries? 16 of the 19 Nato members SUPPORT the US.
NATO-members represent only a very small part of the world. There are more than 250 countries world-wide; but only 19 NATO-members. Ask the people in Afrika or Asia or South America or in the neutral European countries about war against Iraq. Do you believe there would be a majority?
E.
-
43
6 Reasons The U.S. Should Slow Down
by teejay in6 reasons why so many allies want bush to slow down .
by johanna mcgeary.
sunday, january 26, 2003.
-
-
Erich
USA will probably leave NATO - and even the UN - after a war that they had to strike ALONE. Regardless of the outcome... The result then (finally): Europe and similar industrial countries will stand absolutely unprotected against following attacks coming from islamics fundamentalists or other dangerous groups in the future. US can withdraw their troops and flee into "splendid isolation". Europe can not.
E.
-
43
6 Reasons The U.S. Should Slow Down
by teejay in6 reasons why so many allies want bush to slow down .
by johanna mcgeary.
sunday, january 26, 2003.
-
-
Erich
Alan: Does anyone know if France and German have actually sold weapons to Iraq?
Everyone knows that nearly ALL industrial countries sold weapons to Irak in the 80ies. USA too.
E.
-
43
6 Reasons The U.S. Should Slow Down
by teejay in6 reasons why so many allies want bush to slow down .
by johanna mcgeary.
sunday, january 26, 2003.
-
-
Erich
I think its too late to change the present situation and to come to a solution without war. There are now about 120,000 US-troops around Irak. It would be an enormous loss in political prestige for Bush to withdraw the troops. No I think they cannot. They are sitting in a self-made trap. On the one side they certainly know, that there is a minimal chance to overrun the Iraq within a very short time. But they know they must win within very short time; because if the war lasts longer than 2 weeks, the opinion of the whole world will turn against the US-troops. Further, a long-lasting war would surely implicate the use of mini-nukes and other extreme weapons, and the Irakian civilists would suffer miserably and horribly. That situation would bring ALL muslims up against USA. Now, in this tribulation, the rest of the US- and NATO-allies will withdraw their consent. The UN anyway, from the beginning.. The United States stand alone then; completely. I think Mr. Bush and his advisers did never consider these aspects carefully enough.
The present world situation is the most dangerous since 1945.E.
-
97
What if the US loses?
by Robdar inwhat if we lose the war with iraq?
i watch the news and all commentators act as if our winning is a given.
yes, we are the biggest, baddest nation; we have the nukes, but what if?
-
-
Erich
The present situation is completely different, compared with that situation 60 years ago...
NOBODY can stop millions of fanatical terrorists if they indeed are ready to use suicide-bombs. No USA, no UN; absolutely nobody. One little chance would be to WIPE OUT the religious base; e.g. when they see that they had really much to lose if they die. As long as a GI or other western soldier is not fanatical enough to offer his life for an ideology, but a muslim etc. is - as long you cannot win a war against suicide- terror. NEVER. Sorry, there is a world situation now US-people often cannot understand. Even the WTS cannot understand it exactly. Thats very sad.E.
-
97
What if the US loses?
by Robdar inwhat if we lose the war with iraq?
i watch the news and all commentators act as if our winning is a given.
yes, we are the biggest, baddest nation; we have the nukes, but what if?
-
-
Erich
Navigator: >Controlling the oil would effectively give him control of the world's economies. Do you really want a madman to have that kind of power?...<
If you`d like to preserve the world from such a danger, you had to occupy essential parts of the world. Not only Iraq. Nobody is recently in the position to do so. No UN, no United States.
E.
-
-
-
Erich
Csar: >I want a war to make me feel safe - here's why. The blood of one American is worth one thousand of the enemy. ..<
Hello.
"Safe" ?.... SECURITY for a high price - if necessary, probably under extinction of the whole world ?
Thats exactly that what the bible has meant when it told: "Whenever it is that they are saying: >Peace and security< then sudden destruction is to be instantly upon them...."
There will NEVER be peace and security without a righteous world order. Tell Mr. Bush, that he at first should make efforts to eliminate hunger, diseases and misery all around the world. Misery is not necessary now at all because we have the technology to eliminate that. But they are going on to establish and strengthen the turbo-capitalistic economy system on every place in the world. Because NewEconomy collapsed (though they had staked on it with all their money!) they now are standing NAKED in the RAIN, and as a result, they have to confiscate the oil in the arabic regions. Thats the truth, and nothing else...E.
-
-
-
Erich
Trauma Hound: People this is not a video game!
Oh dear me. There are indeed some people believing they can manipulate and design the whole world like have seen on a VIDEO GAME. For them it makes no difference whether only one, or 1 000, or 1 000 000 people are dead. Its just a like video game; nothing else;-( They think new technology can design all what they want. They believe they can design food, wether, landscapes, ressources, soldiers, weapons, industries, plants, animals, human beings (and finally: brains) as just as they will, in their views and opinions... Modern technology does it all. No problem;-)
Its time to strike said people the "video games" out off their hands....
E.