I found this on the tinter net Slim. Have you read this before mate?

http://the-end.com/2008GodsFinalWitn...FQlCMAodJxfgFw

Edit: I downloaded free book which I plan to read some time next year :wink:

Sorry Ron but The Big Fella upstairs is probably a tad pissed with you right now(2008 probably will be his end :lol: )

And if you are true prophet Ron, then I,m very very very very sorry. Is that ok?

 

Hey Wot good to talk to you again.. I will read this, but like you I am skeptical, one reason is. Prophecy is of no private interpetation, and for someone to say they are the end time prophet falls IMOP in that catagory.. But none the less I will read it, befor I make a judgment call.
Thanks for the link.

Oh, I read that they there in Britian are putting chips in inmates to help find them when they are let loose, and these chips contain all needed data, and can be found from satalite up to 5ft away. Have you heard of this?
I will see if I can find the storie on it.

Slimland


Also the above IMOP is pertaining to Revelation, a system of 10 kings or provences, aka a beast with 10 horns and 10 crowns upon it's head. The system of darkness, ruled by it.
Redeemed and I go into detail on this, earlier in this thread check it out if you want, and if you have any questions if I can answer them I will, if not maybe someone else can.

 

Diffrent Subjects and Long read, but pertain to the subject!

Russia prepares doctrine for pre-emptive nuclear strike

http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20080129/97936766.html

Barely a month into the new year, the military have already attracted a lot of attention. Following a mild verbal skirmish over ABM components after the holidays, Russian and foreign generals have decided to talk in the open.

In a move that mirrors recent discussion amongst Russia's own top brass, NATO's April summit in Bucharest is widely expected to discuss a report on a potential pre-emptive nuclear strike.

According to The Daily Telegraph, the authors of the report are convinced there is a real risk that terrorists could lay their hands on weapons of mass destruction in the near or immediate future. To counter this, the alliance may consider suppressing the enemy with nuclear weapons.

Though the report is likely to cause controversy in NATO countries, the authors appear to be merely echoing an idea originally broached by Russian Chief of General Staff Yury Baluyevsky. Speaking at a meeting of the Academy of Military Sciences on January 19, Gen. Baluyevsky declared that force should be used not only in the course of hostilities, but also to demonstrate the readiness of leaders to uphold their national interests. "We are not going to attack anyone," he reassured his audience, "but we want all our partners to realize that Russia will use armed force to defend its own and its allies' sovereignty and territorial integrity. It may resort to a pre-emptive nuclear strike in cases specified by its doctrine."

It is strange that many esteemed domestic military experts consider this statement simply a repetition of Russia's old military doctrine, which allowed it to use nuclear weapons first. Under the 2000 doctrine, Russia is ready to use nuclear weapons not only in retaliation against a nuclear attack, as was previously the case, but in response to "a large-scale conventional aggression in a situation critical for the national security of the Russian Federation and its allies." This certainly broadens the rules of engagement, but still does not envisage a pre-emptive nuclear strike without hostilities.

Gen. Balulevsky's announcement appears to change this, in which case Russia will need a new military doctrine. This is not a new task. In early March last year, the Security Council press service released a statement saying that the Security Council would revise the 2000 military doctrine to account for new realities. The statement added that the new doctrine would be drafted by the Security Council in conjunction with interested government bodies and a number of scientific institutions.

Baluyevsky thus made his recent statement at an organization which is quite suitable for the drafting of the new doctrine.

If the new doctrine endorses the General Staff's nuclear ideas, we will have new armed forces, with all the ensuing consequences.

First, these forces will become strictly offensive because of the very nature of a pre-emptive strike. This will require totally different mobilization plans and a new approach to recruiting for the Army and Navy. Considering the number and geography of military-political conflicts in which Russia is in some way involved, this will require the deployment of mobilized troops on a territory stretching from the Baltic Sea to the Pacific.

It is not difficult to predict the economic consequences Russia would face in this case. But let's come back to the Armed Forces. Permanent readiness to resolve tasks militarily - by offensive operations in an indefinitely vast number of directions - implies the permanent enhanced combat readiness of all units, without exception. Otherwise the very idea of a pre-emptive strike will not work. For such a policy to be effective, Russia should be ready to deal this strike from a broad diversity of geographical locations on its own territory, neutral air space, and the world's oceans.

If Baluyevsky's words are heeded, Russia will have to equip all services of the Armed Forces with permanently combat-ready nuclear weapons. Nobody can guess who will use them first.

This only concerns tactical, rather than strategic, nuclear weapons. It is clearly impossible to counter terrorist threats in the South-East direction, or neutralize U.S. ABM deployment in Europe with intercontinental ballistic missiles or their submarine counterparts.

In other words, Russia will need a very broad range of non-strategic nuclear weapons. Such weapons are designed to destroy battlefield-targets, rather than entire cities, and could take the form of medium and shorter-range missiles launched from air, land or sea, as well as artillery ammunition and nuclear demolition charges.

Considering that Russia has a huge advantage over the United States in tactical warheads, bilateral relations could become quite complicated if we start deploying our weapons on the ground, in the air and at sea.

It would be natural to ask why Russia is choosing the offensive option, and whether there are alternatives to it. But that is a subject for another discussion.


__________________________________________________ ____________


China's weapons exceed self-defence needs: US military

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080129...litarynavyport

The United States said Monday it was "troubling" that China's weapons systems capability exceeded the level Beijing defined as necessary for self-defence.

The head of the US armed forces in the Asia-Pacific, Admiral Timothy Keating, said he was told by Chinese leaders during a visit to Beijing that its so-called "area denial weapons" were "to protect those things that are ours".

But he said, "we find it troubling that the capabilities of some of these weapons systems would tend to exceed our own expectations for protecting those things that are 'ours'".

Keating said the United States had "intelligence that reinforces my opinion that China is developing, fielding and has in place weapons that could be characterized as having, amongst perhaps other purposes, an ability to restrict movement in and around certain areas on the sea, in the air or under the sea.

"I'll go back to the point we made a couple of times already -- that we understood PRC (China's) intentions, not just their transparency, not just the fact that these weapons exist. We know they exist," he said.

"It's why are they being fielded," Keating asked, speaking at a Washington forum of the US-based Asia Society.

The Pentagon fears China's area-denial arms, including missiles, can be used to attack US aircraft carriers and ships, reports have said.

"The PLA (China's People's Liberation Army) appears engaged in a sustained effort to develop the capability to interdict, at long ranges, aircraft carrier and expeditionary strike groups that might deploy to the western Pacific," according to the annual Pentagon report last year to the US Congress.

"Increasingly, ChinaÂ’s area denial/anti-access forces overlap, providing multiple layers of offensive systems, utilizing the sea, air, and space," the report said.

The United States fears a Chinese military buildup could blunt any US intervention in a conflict over Taiwan and challenge US naval access to the Asian region.

A year ago, China used a ballistic missile to destroy a Chinese weather satellite in low Earth orbit, causing worries in Washington that Beijing could disrupt US military satellites in a regional conflict.

In addition, a Chinese submarine approached a US aircraft carrier in the Pacific Ocean and surfaced within firing range of its torpedoes and missiles before being detected.

To a question by a Chinese diplomat at the forum, Keating said he did not think the two countries should set a special criteria for military transparency but sought what he called an "inter-agency approach" to facing challenges.

Keating, who just returned from his second visit to China, said that they should also increase dialogue, have better communication and develop "bonds of trust and understanding" to avoid potential conflict.

"I think we will proceed on a path that will reduce tensions and reduce the likelihood of misunderstanding leading to crisis, leading to conflict," he said.

Keating also expressed relief that a November row with Beijing over the port visits of US ships appeared to have been resolved.

An American warship USS Blue Ridge was allowed Monday to dock in Hong Kong, in the first visit by a US military vessel since the USS Kitty Hawk was denied entry in the Chinese administered territory about two months ago.

Two US minesweepers were also refused permission to shelter in Hong Kong from a brewing tropical storm.

"The sense I got is that they didn't want to be confrontational," Keating told reporters.

"I am not as concerned today as I was before ... We think we are developing a better understanding of them."

__________________________________________________ ____________



US military may not be ready for attack

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080131/...bkpq2evoSs0NUE

The U.S. military isn't ready for a catastrophic attack on the country, and National Guard forces don't have the equipment or training they need for the job, according to a report.

Even fewer Army National Guard units are combat-ready today than were nearly a year ago when the Commission on the National Guard and Reserves determined that 88 percent of the units were not prepared for the fight, the panel says in a new report released Thursday.

The independent commission is charged by Congress to recommend changes in law and policy concerning the Guard and Reserves.

The commission's 400-page report concludes that the nation "does not have sufficient trained, ready forces available" to respond to a chemical, biological or nuclear weapons incident, "an appalling gap that places the nation and its citizens at greater risk."

"Right now we don't have the forces we need, we don't have them trained, we don't have the equipment," commission Chairman Arnold Punaro said in an interview with The Associated Press. "Even though there is a lot going on in this area, we need to do a lot more. ... There's a lot of things in the pipeline, but in the world we live in — you're either ready or you're not."

In response, Air Force Gen. Gene Renuart, chief of U.S. Northern command, said the Pentagon is putting together a specialized military team that would be designed to respond to such catastrophic events.

"The capability for the Defense Department to respond to a chemical, biological event exists now," Renuart told the AP. "It, today, is not as robust as we would like because of the demand on the forces that we've placed across the country. ... I can do it today. It would be harder on the (military) services, but I could respond."

Over the next year, Renuart said, specific active duty, Guard and Reserve units will be trained, equipped and assigned to a three-tiered response force totaling about 4,000 troops. There would be a few hundred first responders, who would be followed by a second wave of about 1,200 troops that would include medical and logistics forces.

The third wave, with the remainder of that initial 4,000 troops, would include aircraft units, engineers, and other support forces, depending on the type of incident.

Punaro, a retired Marine Corps major general, had sharp criticism for Northern Command, saying that commanders there have made little progress developing detailed response plans for attacks against the homeland.

"NorthCom has got to get religion in this area," said Punaro. He said the military needs to avoid "pickup game" type responses, such as the much-criticized federal reaction to Hurricane Katrina, and put in place the kind of detailed plans that exist for virtually any international crisis.

He also underscored the commission's main finding: the Pentagon must move toward making the National Guard and Reserves an integral part of the U.S. military.

The panel, in its No. 1 recommendation, said the Defense Department must use the nation's citizen soldiers to create an operational force that would be fully trained, equipped and ready to defend the nation, respond to crises and supplement the active duty troops in combat.

Pointing to the continued strain on the military, as it fights wars on two fronts, the panel said the U.S. has "no reasonable alternative" other than to continue to rely heavily on the reserves to supplement the active duty forces both at home and abroad.

Using reserves as a permanent, ready force, the commission argued, is a much more cost effective way to supplement the military since they are about 70 percent cheaper than active duty troops.

Asked how much it would cost to implement the panel's recommendations, Punaro said it will take billions to fully equip the Guard. The commission is going to ask the Congressional Budget Office to do a cost analysis, he said.

In perhaps its most controversial recommendation, the panel again said that the nation's governors should be given the authority to direct active-duty troops responding to an emergency in their states. That recommendation, when it first surfaced last year, was rebuffed by the military and quickly rejected by Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

"I believe we're going to wear him down," said Punaro.

Renuart, however, said he believes it is unlikely that Gates will reverse himself. Renuart said he's talked to a number of state leaders on the matter, and most don't want full command of active duty troops — to include their care, feeding, discipline and logistics demands. Instead, he said, governors want to know that in a crisis, their needs will be met...



__________________________________________________ ______________


Ahmadinejad: Iran is approaching nuclear 'peak', Israel's days are numbered

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7...500573,00.html

Iran is approaching the "peak" in its nuclear program and will not yield to Western pressure to halt its activities, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Wednesday.

Ahmadinejad was speaking in the southwestern town of Bushehr near the site of Iran's planned first nuclear power plant, being built with Russian help, and predicted the country would have nuclear electricity by this time next year.

"If you (Western powers) imagine that the Iranian nation will back down you are making a mistake," he said in a televised speech.

"On the nuclear path we are moving towards the peak," he said without elaborating.

Turning his attention to Israel, Ahmadinejad said, "The religious Palestinian people will bring down the last screen with its powerful hand on the Zionists' puppet theater. It's time to end the puppet theater of this fake regime."

The Iranian president noted that Israel's days were numbered and that it has reached its end.

Turning to the Western powers supporting Israel, he said, "Those who remain silent in light of this regime's crimes and support it should know that they are taking part in the bloodshed of the Palestinian people and will be tried in the future.

"The world's states will never forget these crimes," the Iranian president was quoted as saying by the Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA).

Defying international pressure, Iran has been working on producing its own nuclear fuel, technology the West fears will be used to make atomic bombs. Tehran says its work is peaceful and has refused to stop.

He was speaking two days after Iran received the eighth and final consignment of nuclear fuel from Russia for the Bushehr plant. Tehran has said the plant will start in mid-2008, though past deadlines have slipped.

"Next year at this time ... nuclear electricity should flow in Iran's electricity network," he told the crowd.

Russia delivered the first shipment of uranium fuel rods on December 17 and urged Tehran to scrap its efforts to produce nuclear fuel. Tehran says its work is peaceful and has refused to stop.

Iran, the world's fourth-largest crude producer, says it wants to build a network of nuclear plants so it can preserve more of its oil and gas for export. It says it wants to make nuclear fuel itself to guarantee its supplies.

World powers last week agreed the outline of a third UN sanctions resolution against Iran which calls for mandatory travel bans and asset freezes for specific Iranian officials and vigilance on banks in the country.


__________________________________________________ ___________

 

I'll be president of Europe if you give me the power - Blair

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/tonyb...251169,00.html

Tony Blair has been holding discussions with some of his oldest allies on how he could mount a campaign later this year to become full-time president of the EU council, the prestigious new job characterised as "president of Europe". Blair, currently the Middle East envoy for the US, Russia, EU and the UN, has told friends he has made no final decision, but is increasingly willing to put himself forward for the job if it comes with real powers to intervene in defence and trade affairs.

Blair, who is being actively promoted by the French president Nicolas Sarkozy, recognises he would need to abandon his well-paid, private sector jobs if he won. His wife Cherie - often portrayed as seeking ever more wealth and well-paid consultancies for her husband - is understood to be supportive of him accepting the job.

Some Blair allies also say that he now recognises that as envoy in the Middle East he is not going to be allowed to become the key player in furthering Israeli-Palestinian talks this year, and will be reduced to a role of supporting political development in Palestine and boosting its economy.

The president of the European council of ministers is a post created under the Lisbon treaty. The president will be the permanent chair of the council of ministers, Europe's chief decision-making body.

Jonathan Powell, Blair's Downing Street chief of staff, is among the former lieutenants he has met to discuss a bid for the European role.

Some senior figures believe he could yet be a loser in the carve-up of four big European jobs due to be distributed at the end of the French presidency in the second half of this year. Some claim that if the commission president, José Manuel Barroso, wanted to remain in post for a second term, it would be difficult for Blair, a political ally and previous advocate for Barroso, to hold the parallel, prestigious European council job.

Decisions also have to be made on the appointment of a new, "high representative" on foreign policy, and the post of president of the European parliament. Smaller EU countries are sensitive about key jobs being taken by leading figures from larger countries, especially from one that is not part of the eurozone or the Schengen free-movement area, and that actively supports Turkish membership, as Britain has. Some French socialists have already come out against Blair, citing his role in the war in Iraq. Former French president Valéry Giscard D'Estaing has also expressed his opposition.

It is thought that the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, is not persuaded of the advantages of a Blair presidency. The Christian Democrats have recently been politically weakened in state elections, and fear a Blair presidency might strengthen the German Social Democrats. Neither the Germans nor the French would push Blair if they believed his appointment was going to be opposed by Gordon Brown.

Blair himself is still doubtful that the role of council president will become a powerful job, saying he senses that even pro-Europeans might recoil from ceding power from the nation state.

With most countries currently focused on ratifying the Lisbon treaty through their national parliaments, decisions on the powers of the full-time president are unlikely to be made until the second half of the year.

Apart from Blair, two other candidates most often mentioned are the former Austrian chancellor Wolfgang Schüssel, promoted by Germany, and the current Luxembourg prime minister, Jean-Claude Juncker.

:!: :?: :idea:

 

Oh for pete sake.. Everyone panic!!

If you're a christian.. and the end of times are soo very near why are you not celebrating? Doesn't it mean you are going "home" to God?

It amazes me how obsessed with death and the end of times christians are? Live for crying out loud!! cherish life.

 

That's the point.!

why do you seem so angry?

 

Why are you so afraid of dying?

 

There are 26 pages of My friends and I talking of Prophecy. I have yet seen one post by me or anyone else saying they are afraid of Dying.
So where did you get that notion?

 

Anyone this obsessed with the end of the world is terrified of death. If you weren't absolutely fearful of death you wouldn't care when or if the world was coming to an end.

Have a wonderful tomorrow.

 

Wow, you read minds also. And you tell people what they think and feel.. Without even knowing them, Nor spending the time to read and maybe get to know what someone is thinking on a subject..
You should be ashamed of yourself.. You come here knowing what this thread is about, and don't say you didn't. It is clearly posted. You bring nothin to the table, except to tell us what we are thinking..
Do you not have anything to bring to the table that pertains to the discussion, Or are you just going to Troll around and hope your insinuation on what you insist on what we think, realy matters? What was your intent and purpose? Nothing good I suppose.
Do you want to know what I am thinking now?
















Probly not, you just want to Troll!