Asimov Posted October 17, 2005 Share Posted October 17, 2005 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4350860.stm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chad3232132 Posted October 17, 2005 Share Posted October 17, 2005 Hmm....wars started declining at about the same time as the CIA started declining as an effective organization, what a coincidence! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dianka Posted October 17, 2005 Share Posted October 17, 2005 I don't find that article comforting. Of course we are not in as many wars anymore. America invades nations with no proper defense. We rape 'em, bomb em', and abandon em' Anyone with their own agenda knows that using terrorists is cheaper than declaring war. So they recruit with the promise of multiple virgins and martyrdom, and all these kids have to do is rip open a bus and kill a few people. It is terrifyingly effective, and saves billions of dollars that would be spent in war. Personally, if killing is unavoidable, I would rather have a formal declaration of war instead of underground networks killing civillians, but I feel that will be the new trend in violence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skankboy Posted October 17, 2005 Share Posted October 17, 2005 [begin fundie mode]No! It can't be! The world is MUCH worse now that it ever has been. It HAS to. That's one of the SIGNS that the APOCOLYPSE is coming SOON! Repent! Reuse! Recycle! [/end fundie mode] But seriously, doesn't this contradict the christian argument that things are coming to a head in the world? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike D Posted October 17, 2005 Share Posted October 17, 2005 [begin fundie mode]No! It can't be! The world is MUCH worse now that it ever has been. It HAS to. That's one of the SIGNS that the APOCOLYPSE is coming SOON! Repent! Reuse! Recycle! [/end fundie mode] But seriously, doesn't this contradict the christian argument that things are coming to a head in the world? Actually I think right before the "end times" there is supposed to be a period of "false peace" according to the Bible. So in theory, this might support their superstitions. Of course most Christians don't read their Bibles, so they would likely think that an increase in wars would signal the end Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted October 18, 2005 Share Posted October 18, 2005 Actually I think right before the "end times" there is supposed to be a period of "false peace" according to the Bible. So in theory, this might support their superstitions. Of course most Christians don't read their Bibles, so they would likely think that an increase in wars would signal the end Like you guys said. The increase of wars was the "big sign" of the end times, but you're right too Mike, maybe this is the 3.5 years of peace under Antichrist! ... oops... does it mean that I was right? Bush is Antichrist? I guess we have until next election to be saved, because at that time isn't the rapture supposed to begin, just before the last 3.5 years of terror under the Beast? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amethyst Posted October 18, 2005 Share Posted October 18, 2005 There probably isn't an increase in wars, just media hype of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
All Gods Fail Posted October 18, 2005 Share Posted October 18, 2005 Actually I think right before the "end times" there is supposed to be a period of "false peace" according to the Bible. So in theory, this might support their superstitions. Of course most Christians don't read their Bibles, so they would likely think that an increase in wars would signal the end <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Who knows what that mish-mash of verbiage called the book of revelations means, anyway? Ancient dude trips out on shrooms, sees shit, writes it down. Now we got square-head fundies running around trying to scare people with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts